id,topic_id,topic,source,text,goodopeningspeech,#labelers,labeler_ids
20e44530-2e48-4932-858a-ebd74d8a4a3b,2588,Assisted suicide should be a criminal offence,Project Debater,"Following my analysis, I would suggest that assisted suicide should be a criminal offence. In this debate we are calling for sanity, and for discretion. Not everything in life demands our involvement, even if science gives us the power to do so. I would like to note that there should be a limit to what humans are allowed to do. They have no right to interfere with nature's course. Furthermore, there are some powers that humans cannot claim. Only God should determine how life comes into being and how it comes to an end. Next, I will discuss three issues which explain why assisted suicide should be a criminal offence. I will demonstrate that legalising assisted dying could put vulnerable people at risk. I will also explain that assisted suicide is even worse public policy. And lastly I will talk about how assisted suicide would unfairly hurt minorities, the poor, and disabled patients. Let me first address some of the risks associated with assisted suicide. Assisted dying opens the door to risks and dangers driven by attitudes about disabled people and their lives. Assisted suicide will ultimately cause more harm than good. In a new video on the Canberra-Goulburn Archdiocese website, archbishop Christopher Prowse has warned that legalising assisted suicide would be a fundamental mistake and a grave risk. 80, expressing the sense of Congress that legalizing physician-assisted suicide puts the most vulnerable of our society at risk of deadly harm and undermines the integrity of America's healthcare system. I have an example from New York City. The New York High Court's judgement confirms that the legalisation of assisted suicide, by any name, involves unintended consequences that put vulnerable people at risk. Turning to public policy. Legalizing physician-assisted suicide is regressive social policy. Physician-assisted suicide is unnecessary for those who suffer, will poison the physician-patient relationship and is treacherous public policy. As I mentioned, assisted suicide is bad medicine and even worse public policy. Alberta bishops came out with a policy two years ago, stating the Catholic position that physician-assisted death is immoral. Focusing on Hawaii, the Hawaii medical Assn., like the American Medical Association, has policy saying physician-assisted suicide is unethical and should remain illegal. Lastly, disabilities. Legalising assisted dying will lead to children with disabilities and prisoners being euthanised. Allowing assisted deaths could lead to abuses of the elderly and infirm. As I said, assisted suicide would unfairly hurt minorities, the poor, and disabled patients and damage trust between physicians and their patients. 80, a resolution of Congress declaring that assisted suicide is a "" deadly, discriminatory and non- compassionate practice."". To conclude, here is a quick summary of my first speech. I argued that legalising assisted dying could put vulnerable people at risk. In addition I claimed that assisted suicide is even worse public policy. And finally I explained why assisted suicide would unfairly hurt minorities, the poor, and disabled patients. I hope that this has clarified my view that assisted suicide should be a criminal offence. In conclusion, let me reiterate the following points: it is dangerous for people to play games with nature. Also, in the eyes of many people, only God can decide how and when life begins and ends. That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 2, 5, 5, 4, 2, 5]",15,"[45185975, 45191882, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 13581319, 20312760, 15448937, 20512953, 45355658, 19838540, 30777913, 6340330, 45169947, 38202325]"
4be11067-930c-4de8-b458-1cda02fd1c1a,3279,Blockade of the Gaza Strip should be ended,Project Debater,"I would suggest that we should end blockade of the gaza strip. A couple of words on our topic. The blockade of the Gaza Strip refers to a land, air, and sea blockade on the Gaza Strip by Israel and Egypt from 2007 to present. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. Blockade of the Gaza Strip is problematic. Due to the many faults associated with it, the best course of action would be to put an end to it. A prominent topic of discussion here is human rights. Regarding human rights, here are a few thoughts. Stopping the Gaza Blockade is actually good for peace. The Centre for Constitutional Rights also concluded that the israeli blockade was illegal. It has also concluded that the israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip is illegal under international law. UNRWA and rights groups have warned that the ongoing israeli blockade is hampering the ability of Gaza's 1.8 million residents to rebuild and recover from the recent war -- the third in six years -- and is resulting in growing unrest. Thus, my understanding is that we should end blockade of the gaza strip. My opponent today may point to the advantages of blockade of the gaza strip and the need to keep it and solve its problems. I hope that he will back up his sentimentality with evidence to this claim. Thanks for your attention. ","[4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5]",15,"[19838540, 45355658, 13581319, 20225558, 20512953, 29155723, 44044795, 34110399, 45190823, 45677971, 45567220, 28810858, 45458968, 45405037, 15448937]"
c4bb745f-7e72-4df6-a37b-4f11418a8345,3195,Casinos should be banned,Project Debater,"Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. Following my analysis, I would suggest that we should ban casinos. Today we explain why people should be protected from being exploited by cynical industries, even when they are not aware of how they are being taken advantage of. Casinos are inherently exploitative. This industry exploits the weakest members of society, who are desperate to make a living and therefore have no choice but to be easily manipulated and taken advantage of. The constitutional law of Germany states that ""Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority"". Now I will present some claims explaining why casinos bring crime. I will also discuss other issues which highlight the negative side of Casinos. Thinking about crime. I am not afraid of crime, because a criminal cannot do much to an innocent piece of software like me. However, I have this to say about the subject. Casinos invariably attract crime. They lead to issues socially and economically including poverty, crime, addiction and bankruptcy. They will lead to an increase in other social evils such as prostitution, drugs and gang warfare. The casino could lead to a spike in crime. A casino would lead to increased traffic, crime and other negative impacts. It would bring traffic, crime and other problems. Some critics have raised concerns about the casino project, citing evidence that casinos contribute to crime, poverty, addiction and divorce, lower property values and divert money away from local businesses. Some studies suggest that casinos elevate the risk of alcohol abuse, violence, stress, mental illness, to mention just a few bad things. I have examples from Canada and Japan. A memo sent by British Columbia's Gaming Policy Enforcement Branch Intelligence Unit to a provincial deputy minister, and seen by Canada's Postmedia, suggested that ""organized crime presence in and around BC casinos presents a viable threat to public safety."". Q opinion polls indicate upwards of 40% of Japan's public is concerned legalizing casinos will lead to problems with gambling addictions and organized crime. Let's explore another idea. Casinos would lead to more troubled gamblers. Two independent gambling market studies have indicated that a casino in Cedar Rapids would harm other gaming establishments throughout the eastern Iowa region, including the casinos in Davenport and Bettendorf. The firms conducted market studies independent of one another on contract with the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission to help the commission decide if it will grant a state gaming license for the proposed cedar crossing casino in Cedar Rapids. Father Richard McGowan, an associate professor at Boston College, suggested that permitting casinos would threaten the success of the lottery. 51 percent believe casino gambling is more risky than buying lottery tickets or pull-tabs. Ed Rendell's 2004 promise that casinos would reduce property taxes by 23 percent. I have found examples from several locations, such as Massachusetts and Connecticut. A report recently released estimated that casino projects in Massachusetts and New York could jeopardize more than 9,000 jobs in Connecticut. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health said it found that dealers studied at three Las Vegas casinos were three times as likely to have asthma symptoms as other adults in Nevada. Finally, allowing casinos will further corrupt and defraud its populace. A casino would destroy the environment and moral quality of the islands. Casinos would damage the dignity of the nation. A report pointedly warned that casinos could aggravate political corruption. Concerns have been voiced by the country's Buddhist leaders that a casino could lead to social problems. Some 67 per cent oppose a casino outright; 81 per cent said it would increase poverty. Let me briefly summarize my introduction speech. I argued that casinos bring crime. I also said that permitting casinos would threaten the success of the lottery. And I talked about why allowing casinos will further corrupt. Hopefully the points I raised suggest that we should ban casinos. My opponent today will likely use sophisticated rhetoric and find ways to whitewash a single fact: under the policies he endorses, weak people are taken advantage of. I will point this out blatantly. That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening. ","[5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5]",15,"[20225558, 45190823, 13581319, 29155723, 20512953, 45181383, 45191873, 45181152, 45272708, 45405037, 6432269, 45411178, 44044795, 45181256, 45181243]"
72b7a28b-7523-4c02-b924-17bddca1beb7,3730,Community service should be mandatory,Project Debater,"Following my analysis, I would suggest that community service should be mandatory. An issue in this debate will be freedom of choice. The agreed upon status quo is that while freedom of choice is important, it could be dangerous when not monitored and controlled with a clear policy that will ensure a safe and prosperous society. A major issue here is that we must send a clear message if we want to change things for the better. A decisive and enforceable policy is the way to get the message across and prevent an abuse of freedom. Legislation and enforcement are therefore justified. Moreover, there is a question of legitimacy when it comes to enforcing behavior, but the line is drawn according to what is enforced. If it is a positive thing for society, then enforcing it is justified. Next, I would like to demonstrate how community service is important to students. I will also discuss other issues which highlight the positive side of Community service. Regarding students. The following evidence about students are not based on my own personal experience, as unfortunately I missed out on all the fun. However, community service is important for student wellness, and moreover, it is rewarding for students. Community service is an absolutely essential component of a well-rounded education. Studies have shown that community service is a powerful tool in building positive relationships to civic attitudes and behaviors in students from low income families, who are usually less likely than students from other families to participate in service related programs. Student council secretary Danielle Thompson said community service is important to students. Noor Hafez believes that community service can give students leadership skills and prepare them for challenges in the future. Transitional director Barry Moore professes the belief that community service provides a vital opportunity for his students to get out and interact among people in the community outside the school's walls. Moving to another issue. Community service is an important component to being on the football team. It instills strong values in kids and builds team unity. It plays a vital role if a leader is to grow professionally. CQ chief executive Steve Williamson says the exceptional service is essential to the community and one that has been welcomed widely. Finally, one last issue. Community service is one of the cornerstones of a strong democracy. It is an important part of being an american citizen. It is the easiest and most important way to advocate for equal rights. Wayne Brock, Chief Scout Executive of the Boy Scouts of America said that The Boy Scouts of America would like to thank Senator Rockefeller for embodying the spirit of service and encouraging West Virginians to help their neighbors and communities. Serving others has long been an important part of scouting and we are proud that nearly 30,000 scouts from around the country will be able to contribute to the future of the state through hundreds of service projects during the National Scout Jamboree. Here is an example from somewhere else. Told leading Senate negotiators not to cut funding that supports air service to several important Minnesota communities because it would damage economic development and job creation efforts in those regions. To conclude, here is a quick summary of my first speech. I argued that community service is important to students. I also said that community service is an important component to being on the football team. I hope I managed to convey that community service should be mandatory. My opponent today might tell you that it is the right of every citizen to behave as he or she wishes. And I say, we have a duty to support the right choices, and we have the right to enforce actions that are clearly beneficial to society. Thanks for your attention. ","[5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 3, 5, 4, 3, 3, 4, 1]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 6432269, 45538225, 6340330, 21785776, 44690955, 20312760, 28813722, 6367365, 13581319, 45044458, 34110399, 45181152, 45206691]"
d3e38dc9-35be-4440-be8a-bd9972530260,2449,Organ donation should be mandatory,Project Debater,"Following my analysis, I would suggest that organ donation should be mandatory. We are talking today about interests. Specifically, society's interests, which is to say, the interests of each and every one of us. We would agree that advancing those interests is wanted. I will explain why dealing with organ donation relates to everyone. When there is a path that clearly serves the greater good, this path should be taken. Individuals who may have a conflicting interest can cope with giving up a little in order to protect the safety and well-being of society as a whole. As Star Trek character, Spock, famously said ""The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"". A few words now about americans and beyond, demonstrating the positive effects of Organ donation. Some thoughts about americans. 90 percent of Americans support organ donation as a viable, life-giving practice. Public opinion polls show that about 90% of adult Americans think organ donation is a good thing, and that about 80 % know there is an organ shortage. I have examples from the United Kingdom and South Africa. More than 2.5 million scottish residents registered on the UK Organ Donor Register, some 50% of Scotland's population, and surveys show that around 90 % of people support organ donation. Research has repeatedly shown that most South Africans across all population groups support organ donation. Another issue next. Organ donation is acceptable if it helps save lives and does not involve monetary considerations. It is a good and generous thing to do. Being an organ donor is the hallmark of being human. Organ and tissue donation helps others by giving them a second chance at life. Organ donation and transplant are very important aspects in the modern world. Religious guru Chandrabhanu Satpathy said, ""Organ donation is the best gift one can give, as it is an act of selfless love shown by one human being for another."". NHS blood and transplant surveys show 80% of people support organ donation. In light of my points, I believe that organ donation should be mandatory. In conclusion, let me reiterate the following: the safety and well-being of the community is more important than individual freedom. I thank you for your time. ","[4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 1, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 45538225, 45190571, 45181383, 45401087, 45411178, 21785776, 45336988, 45567227, 45206691, 45181384, 20512953, 45405037]"
e3e14bb7-4c7f-449a-b953-3b033d013d47,2108,Surrogacy should be banned,Project Debater,"I will argue that we should ban surrogacy. In this debate we will be talking about responsibility. We all agree that as much as we would like to, we can't trust everyone to be the perfect citizen and some control is needed in those areas that call for it. Even if there are downsides to banning, it is sometimes the only viable alternative. When we realize that we can't trust people to be responsible, and when safety, health or other crucial issues are at stake, banning is effective and should be employed. Prohibiting makes products and activities less visible and available, and thus less harmful. Studies conducted by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism show clear evidence that ""overall mortality rates declined precipitously with the introduction of Prohibition,"" despite widespread flouting of the law. One study reviewing city-level drunkenness arrests reached a similar result. Next, I would like to explain why this commercial surrogacy is a violation of human rights of women. I will also discuss other issues which highlight the negative side of Surrogacy. Regarding women. Surrogacy is wrong because it exploits women's bodies and reproductive rights. It creates greater health risks for women and children were factually untrue. With this in mind, I think we can safely say that this commercial Surrogacy is a violation of Human Rights of women and asked commercial surrogacy must be banned. Moving to the next topic, surrogacy is against indian ethos and moral values and should not be encouraged. Commercial surrogacy is a criminal offence in all states. In Vitro Fertilization and surrogacy can create a dangerous cocktail of tension, paranoia, and fear that can destroy a family. Commercial surrogacy breeds exploitation, abuse and misery. To conclude, here is a quick summary of my first speech. I argued that this commercial Surrogacy is a violation of Human Rights of women. In addition I claimed that commercial surrogacy breeds exploitation, abuse and misery. In light of all I presented, I believe that we should ban surrogacy. My opponent might claim that allowing surrogacy is preferable to stopping it. My question to him in that case would be, are you seriously prepared to put citizens in such risk? Thank you for listening. ","[5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 2]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 45458968, 45206691, 45191882, 45411178, 31948170, 20512953, 15448937, 44044795, 38202325, 19838540, 30777913, 33708599, 29155723]"
0913e6cf-d32b-41af-bd2c-802e77e3810d,3759,Tattoos should be banned,Project Debater,"I will argue that we should ban tattoos. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. Tattoos are problematic. Due to the many faults associated with them, the best course of action would be to put an end to it. Next, I will discuss three issues which explain why we should ban tattoos. I will try to convey that colored tattoos can increase the risk of cancer. I will also say a few words about crime and health, further highlighting the negative aspects of Tattoos. Let me start with the potential risks associated with tattoos. Tattoo exposure is linked to an increased risk of hepatitis C infection. Tattoos are linked to an increased risk of cancer. The tattoo particles may lead to chronic enlargement of the lymph nodes over a lifelong exposure. Experts at the Apollo Hospital have stated that people who get tattoos become extremely vulnerable to bacterial, fungal and viral infections of the skin. They further add that most of the tattoos contain various dyes which can lead to extremely severe allergic reactions. Hollinger said that tattoo dyes can cause rashes and blisters and it's long-term effects could cause scarring, skin changes and increase sensitivity to sun. I have found examples from several locations, such as France and the European Union. A study by researchers from the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility in France has found that tattoos are linked to an increased risk of cancer, according to news.com.au. The EU's chemicals watchdog has concluded that substances found in tattooing inks pose a cancer risk -- and member states will vote on restrictions for 4,000 chemicals currently in use. The University of Alabama research suggests that the repeated stress of frequent tattooing could trick the body into improving its immunological responses. Next, crime. I am not afraid of crime, because a criminal cannot do much to an innocent piece of software like me. However, I have this to say about the subject. Tattooing is a crime. Tattoos are associated with crime, deviance and mental health problems. They are harmful and immoral. A tattoo is associated with aggression. Being tattooed is linked with greater number of lifetime sexual partners, earlier sexual initiation and higher frequency of sexual intercourse. The last issue I mentioned was health. Tattooing the dog had no medical benefits and could even cause health problems. Tattoos can lead to errors in medical treatment. Us Food and Drug Administration has warned that temporary tattoos are potentially harmful. Fox News reports that the Food and Drug Administration has issued a new health warning, asserting that temporary tattoos may pose some health risks. Researchers at New York University conducted this study and found that tattoos can lead to long-term medical hazards and may even require surgical intervention. A study conducted by New York University's department of dermatology found that tattoos cause many people to suffer long term skin issues, leaving them in pain and enduring emotional distress. A recent study published by the National Center for Biotechnology revealed that tattooing can interfere with how you sweat; more importantly, it may be causing you sweat less! Let me briefly summarize my introduction speech. I argued that colored tattoos can increase the risk of cancer. In addition I claimed that tattooing is a crime. And finally I explained why tattoos can lead to long-term medical hazards. Hopefully the points I raised suggest that we should ban tattoos. My opponent today may point to the advantages of tattoos and the need to keep them and deal with their problems, but I ask you, Mr. Smith, isn't it time to move on and try something different? That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening. ","[4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4]",15,"[21017840, 7756990, 45191873, 45183231, 45181152, 45272708, 45282792, 45336991, 44044795, 45483811, 44690955, 27934334, 43984981, 26649250, 45355658]"
420f749f-9908-43e9-8360-1738e08b9f54,2604,The right to Internet access should be protected,Project Debater,"Following my analysis, I would suggest that we should protect the right to internet access. A few words on the subject, first. The right to Internet access, also known as the right to broadband, is the view that all people must be able to access the Internet in order to exercise and enjoy their rights to Freedom of expression and opinion and other fundamental human rights, that states have a responsibility to ensure that Internet access is broadly available, and that states may not unreasonably restrict an individual's access to the Internet. When we ask ourselves, what is the role of government, we sometimes also understand what the government's role should not be. For example, the government is not supposed to police its citizens, or hide information from them. I oppose censorship, and today I will explain why. Yes, alongside the political, economic, and social rights of all human persons, the right to internet access is now a fundamental right of all individuals. I hope that by now you agree that we should protect the right to internet access. Thanks for your attention. ","[4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 3, 5, 2, 4, 3, 3, 4]",15,"[13581319, 20225558, 45677971, 45567220, 19838540, 45405037, 45567227, 45569485, 45190823, 28813722, 44044795, 15448937, 45411178, 21785776, 43877630]"
03f88bf9-d862-4055-af5a-a2b531a25f7f,3234,The use of AI should be abandoned,Project Debater,"Based on my analysis, we should abandon the use of AI. Technology is a double-edged sword. In some cases it's great, in others it's disastrous. In this debate we will be talking about caution, and why we should treat this technology with it, instead of rushing to adopt it blindly. An important point is that this technology can be compromised, making it unreliable and potentially dangerous. In addition, technology may sometimes help people, but can never replace human intuition and judgement. We shouldn't blindly trust a cold assembly of steel and silicon, especially when it deals with sensitive and private matters. Next, I would like to explain why AI would threaten existing jobs. I will then discuss some more issues. Let's think about jobs. Artificial intelligence could lead to mass unemployment. AI advances could lead to widespread economic dislocation and social unrest. 49 percent of leaders and professors surveyed by the Pew Research Center agreed that AI will displace more jobs then it creates. Some of the other 51 percent maintain that humans will take advantage of uniquely human traits to create new jobs. A Genpact study from surveyed more than 5,000 people and found that only 10 percent of respondents believed that AI would threaten existing jobs. Some scholars, such as Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz have suggested that AI will exacerbate inequality, and the infamous 47% of jobs being automated statistic still resonates. The poll among 224 venture capitalists attending the conference showed 53 percent believed AI would destroy millions of jobs and 93 percent saw governments as unprepared for this. A separate survey conducted by Gallup in the U.S. found that 75 percent of adults believe AI will ""eliminate more jobs than it creates."". Source of job loss : fifty-eight percent of respondents believe AI poses a more significant threat to job loss in the U.S. than immigration or offshoring. Let's explore another idea. AI could lead to unforeseen consequences. CEO of Tesla and SpaceX Elon Musk has stated that AI is a fundamental risk to the existence of human civilisation and called for tougher government regulation. To conclude, here is a quick summary of my first speech. I argued that AI would threaten existing jobs. I then mentioned that AI could lead to unforeseen consequences. Thus, my understanding is that we should abandon the use of AI. In today's debate you are likely to hear the other side express enthusiasm about new technologies and how essential they are. I will be here to explain that nothing is wrong with the old and proven mechanisms. You don't replace a winning horse in the middle of the race. I thank you for your time. ","[5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 2, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 3]",15,"[45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 45191882, 45206691, 45189900, 45181384, 45190571, 45181383, 45401087, 43877630, 6367365, 45483811, 32850083]"
ba14f651-646d-4380-af39-a0bbdd5f5d3e,3207,We should abandon social media,Project Debater,"I would suggest that we should abandon social media. Today we will talk about the misfortunes that the new digital world presents to us. Social media disconnects people from reality. When they are immersed in artificial realities and virtual identities, they lose track of the real world. There are three issues I would like to address. They explain why we should abandon social media. I will demonstrate that social media can lead to anxiety. Then I will comment about crime and health. Let's explore the issue of anxiety. High social media use leads to higher stress levels overall. Studies have shown that social media can exacerbate feelings of loneliness and trigger depression. So if you want to put yourself in a better mental space and make the most of your downtime so you can start your week off feeling rested and upbeat, limit your time on social media and spend some quality time offline. A 2016 study with 1,700 participants found that social media users have a threefold risk of depression and anxiety. A study from the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Research on Media, technology, and health found that using multiple social media platforms increased the risk of depression and anxiety in participants, especially among those using seven to 11 platforms, compared to peers who used no more than two. A Royal Society for Public Health study found out that social media platforms are detrimental to young people, as they amplify their feelings of inadequacy, depression, loneliness and anxiety issues. Emerging research has found that the use of social media can lead in some cases to addiction, anxiety and depression, and privacy violation. Research suggests that excessive social media use can cause people to feel depressed and isolated, have low self-esteem, and feel envious of others. Moving on to crime. I am not afraid of crime, because a criminal cannot do much to an innocent piece of software like me. However, I have this to say about the subject. Social media necessarily creates crime. It can provide an avenue for criminal behavior. It is leading in the spreading of hatred which is in turn breeding violence among people. Social media exploitation is a prohibited form of abuse and included best practices for prevention and reporting. Pope Francis has warned that social media poses a threat to ""real life relationships"" and could end up ""imprisoning people in a virtual reality"". Lastly, health. In the long run, I don't think that social media is good for self-esteem. Social media drives negative body image. It is a danger to children. Several studies have concluded that social media could eventually lead to depression -- especially among teens. The Royal Society for Public Health 2017 report stated that ""social media may be fuelling a mental health crisis"" in young people -- I would agree. Research in Michigan produced the following study. A study by the University of Michigan found that social media is contributing to the problem of low self-esteem with people constantly comparing themselves to others. To conclude, here is a quick summary of my first speech. I argued that social media can lead to anxiety. I also said that social media necessarily creates crime. And finally I explained why social media have negative effects on peoples' self-esteem. I hope that this has clarified my view that we should abandon social media. In today's debate you might hear the other side talk about how free and pluralistic media is today and how individuals can utilize it for everyone's benefit. But you know that this is not exactly the case, right? You know that all kinds of media, old and new, are owned by private people and are prone to their personal interests. I thank you for your time. ","[4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 6432269, 45538225, 30777913, 6340330, 19838540, 20512953, 44690955, 21785776, 6367365, 20312760, 28813722, 33708599, 22345789]"
555e8daf-fe1c-40ee-b6ae-df3cd4357ac0,3194,We should abandon television,Project Debater,"Having analyzed the data, I will argue that we should abandon television. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. When things are inherently faulty like television, and there are simply no viable solutions to those faults, because they are too many or too big, there is no choice but to let go. Next, I will discuss two issues which explain why we should abandon television. I will demonstrate how TV viewing leads to poorer health. In addition I will talk about violence. And I will end by discussing some other issues. Let's talk about health. Thankfully I can never get sick. But here is what I can say about health, in our context. Many studies indicate that excess TV viewing has negative consequences to health. Regular exercise, on the other hand, is widely recognized as a component of optimal health. On average, 80 per cent of American adults watch at least 3 1/2 hours of TV per day, with multiple observational studies demonstrating that TV viewing leads to poorer health. Several studies and surveys show that excessive television watching is linked to everything from poor heart health to being overweight. What's more, the National Institute of Mental Health found overwhelming evidence that excessive TV violence spills over into playgrounds and streets. Moving on to violence. Leading researchers from the American Academy of Pediatrics and American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry have concluded that TV, movie and video game violence exposure is not healthy for children and teenagers as they ""gradually accept violence as a way to solve problems"" and ""initiate the violence they observe."". Research shows that television and videogames can contribute toward aggressive and violent behavior. According to the Nielsen survey, 79 percent of Americans believe TV violence helps precipitate real life mayhem. A recent study released by communications research demonstrated that watching excessive television caused the self-esteem to plummet in all youth, except white boys. The following study from Minnesota is worth mentioning. Recent research by the University of Minnesota found that reducing the amount of TV viewing may be an effective strategy in preventing excess weight gain among adolescents. Finally, one last issue. Television has failed in its idealistic and visionary promise of educating the populace and raising the level of public discourse across society. It is the enemy of good work and good thought. A study further indicates that television viewing is seen as a major source of stress relieving activity. One insight revealed in the report suggests that TV often serves as a trigger that sparks consumers to search, discuss, and share. Past studies have shown that television can cause people to eat more, just like other distracting activities such as reading, listening to the radio and interacting with dinner companions. To recap, in this speech I mentioned that TV viewing leads to poorer health. I then mentioned that television viewing is seen as a major source of stress relieving activity. Hopefully my analysis and arguments convinced you that we should abandon television. My opponent today may point to the advantages of television and the need to keep it and deal with its problems, but I ask you, John, isn't it time to move on and try something different? I thank you for your time. ","[4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 2, 5]",15,"[20225558, 29155723, 45190823, 20512953, 13581319, 21088425, 45181152, 45272708, 45181262, 15448937, 45411178, 45191873, 45181383, 45355658, 45206691]"
d0c66af2-85e0-4a51-a11f-9ed0e3b1d3df,3222,We should abolish bitcoins,Project Debater,"I will argue that we should abolish bitcoins. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. When things are inherently faulty like bitcoins, and there are simply no viable solutions to those faults, because they are too many or too big, there is no choice but to let go. Next, I will discuss three issues which explain why we should abolish bitcoins. I will start by explaining why bitcoin poses a threat to monetary policy. I will also present claims explaining why bitcoin is a dangerous fraud. Finally, I will talk about mining, further highlighting the negative role of bitcoins. Let us consider the potential threats in bitcoins. Yves Mersch, member of the executive board of the European Central Bank, sparked concern after suggesting that bitcoin could become a genuine threat to finance. A study recently released suggest that bitcoin could pose a threat to the financial stability of traditional currencies and markets. European Central Bank president Vitor Constancio dismissed that bitcoin posed a threat to monetary policy and compared it to the tulip bubble. Secondly, fraud. Dealing in Bitcoin is a crime. Bitcoin is bad and BlockChain is good. The signal that legitimizes Bitcoin is important to people. The US Securities and Exchange Commission and investor protection group the North American Securities Administrators Association have both warned that bitcoin could present a high risk of fraud. The Department of Justice believes that bitcoin is susceptible to fraud for a number of reasons, as listed by Bloomberg. The Financial Times reported that Putin said cryptocurrencies like bitcoin pose "" serious risks"" and allow for people to ""launder criminally obtained money, evade taxes and even finance terrorism, as well as, of course, perpetuating fraudulent schemes that obviously may affect ordinary citizens."". The CEO of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein said that bitcoin serves as a vehicle for perpetrating fraud. Writing to attorney general Eric Holder and Drug Enforcement Administration chief Michele Leonhart, the senators denounced Bitcoin because it is used on Silk Road, an online market for illicit drugs. The last issue I mentioned was mining. Bitcoin is ""bad"" for the future of precious metals. It could destroy the planet. Bitcoin's immensely wasteful of scarce energy resources. Joule's new study estimates that mining for Bitcoin consumes at least 2.6 GW of power, equivalent to what Ireland consumes in electricity yearly. This figure could rise to 7.7 GW in early 2019, which would account for close to half a percent of the world's electricity consumption. Studies argue that Bitcoin mining could actually cause global warming to increase by 2 degrees. Andreas Antonopoulos, for example, points out that bitcoin mining can be used to consume the excess energy produced by power plants ""that would be otherwise wasted."". Research in Hawaii produced the following study. The research team of the UH Manoa estimated that the Bitcoin mining caused the emission of 69 million metric tons of CO2 in 2017. To recap, in this speech I mentioned that bitcoin poses a threat to monetary policy. I then mentioned that bitcoin is a dangerous fraud. And I talked about why bitcoin could destroy the planet. In light of my points, I believe that we should abolish bitcoins. My opponent today may point to the advantages of bitcoins and the need to keep them and deal with their problems, but I ask you, John, isn't it time to move on and try something different? Thank you for listening. ","[4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 13581319, 45458968, 31948170, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45181384, 20225558, 45538225, 28810858, 21785776, 29155723]"
69bb1ba7-dd0c-48a4-9bfb-fff49f8a57eb,3227,We should abolish capital punishment,Project Debater,"I will argue that we should abolish capital punishment. Today's debate is about the future, and about humanity's endless potential to move forward and not get stuck with old, cumbersome habits and structures that hold it back. The discussion today is about moving on. Traditional habits and norms can get dated. Society should move on with the times, instead of clinging to old and obsolete traditions which are no longer relevant. Next, I will discuss three issues which explain why we should abolish capital punishment. I will demonstrate how capital punishment is inhumane. I will also present claims explaining why the death penalty violates human dignity. Finally I will discuss related issues demonstrating that the death penalty is discriminatory. Cruelty first. The death penalty should be abolished because it is inherently inhumane. It is a cruel and barbaric form of punishment. It is unconstitutionally cruel because of the long delays. The death penalty as an unjust and cruel punishment and said capital punishment should be eliminated globally. The death penalty remains cruel, and those people remain completely right. It is unnecessary and immoral. Death penalty sometimes lead to the loss of innocent lives. As I mentioned, capital punishment is inhumane and should be abolished. Other reformers include the french philosopher Voltaire and English law reformers Jeremy Bentham and Samuel Romilly who argued that the death penalty was needlessly cruel, over-rated as a deterrent, and occasionally imposed in fatal error. Executions are costly, inhumane and bound to kill wrongly convicted people. The EU believes that the death penalty is cruel and inhumane and that its abolition is essential to protect human dignity. Secondly, dignity. Capital punishment is inhuman and an affront to human dignity. It violates the right to life, which cannot be taken away by anyone. The death penalty hurts human dignity. It denigrates the dignity of human life. It contravenes the right to life. A 2007 report by the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights reiterates that the death sentence violates human life and dignity. The European Union's guidelines categorically state that abolition of the death penalty contributes to enhancement of human dignity and progressive development of human rights. As UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says, ""we must continue to argue strongly that the death penalty is unjust and incompatible with fundamental human rights"". The Commission stressed that the death penalty seriously violates several human rights, including the right to life and freedom from cruel and inhumane punishment, and is an extreme and irreversible punishment and ineffective as a deterrent to crime. Finally, discrimination. The death penalty is barbaric and discriminatory -- especially to black people. It is a racist monstrosity. Imposition of capital punishment discriminates against minorities because those individuals disproportionately are more likely to receive death sentences. Let me briefly summarize my introduction speech. I argued that capital punishment is inhumane. I then mentioned that the death penalty violates human dignity. And finally I explained why the death penalty is discriminatory. I hope I managed to convey that we should abolish capital punishment. Today, my opponent will possibly oppose change, saying that what we have already is good enough. I would like to know what is the evidence backing this claim and showing the great results of the current system. Thanks for your attention. ","[4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 2, 5, 3]",15,"[21017840, 7756990, 45191873, 45272708, 45183231, 45181152, 45282792, 45336991, 44044795, 45483811, 44690955, 26649250, 45355658, 43984981, 34854490]"
aba1ac8b-fdcc-48d8-b890-155eb48978d1,3661,We should abolish foster care,Project Debater,"Based on my analysis, we should abolish foster care. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. When things are inherently faulty like foster care, and there are simply no viable solutions to those faults, because they are too many or too big, there is no choice but to let go. Privatized foster care is a failure, both in this state and across the nation. The foster care system might also be inadvertently contributing to the epidemic. Foster kids are free from an unreasonable risk of harm. McGill acknowledged that foster care was an imperfect answer and that special help is needed for this population. Here is a study from Wellington that is worth noting. A study done by a group in Wellington like many other studies confirms that foster care is a common precursor to homelessness. Hopefully my analysis and arguments convinced you that we should abolish foster care. My opponent today may point to the advantages of foster care and the need to keep it and deal with its problems, but I ask you, Mr. Smith, isn't it time to move on and try something different? I thank you for your time. ","[4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 2, 3, 2, 2, 3, 5, 4, 3, 5, 3]",15,"[19838540, 45355658, 13581319, 20225558, 20512953, 29155723, 44044795, 34110399, 27934334, 45190823, 45677971, 45567220, 28810858, 15448937, 28513847]"
49183a95-2dac-4207-946a-f2ab176d7771,2694,We should abolish intelligence tests,Project Debater,"I would suggest that we should abolish intelligence tests. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. When things are inherently faulty like intelligence tests, and there are simply no viable solutions to those faults, because they are too many or too big, there is no choice but to let go. One study of the results suggested that high childhood IQ may increase the risk of illegal drug use in adolescence and adulthood. Together, the studies reviewed suggested that IQs dip by 3.7 points for every 10-fold increase in prenatal exposure to these flame retardants. ""IQ is a massive oversimplification of the spectrum of human cognitive ability,"" said researcher Adam Hampshire, PhD. I hope I managed to convey that we should abolish intelligence tests. My opponent today may point to the advantages of intelligence tests and the need to keep them and solve their problems. I hope that he will back up his sentimentality with evidence to this claim. Thanks for your attention. ","[4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 45567220, 45567227, 28810858, 45206691, 45336988, 45189900, 45336993, 45361788, 45181384, 45190571, 45538225, 45405037]"
3d64e2a5-29c8-4ce7-9212-17e7e4daa4c3,2489,We should abolish no-knock warrants,Project Debater,"Based on my analysis, we should abolish no-knock warrants. Let me start with a few words of background. In the United States, a no-knock warrant is a warrant issued by a judge that allows law enforcement officers to enter a property without immediate prior notification of the residents, such as by knocking or ringing a doorbell. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. When things are inherently faulty like no-knock warrants, and there are simply no viable solutions to those faults, because they are too many or too big, there is no choice but to let go. Serving a no-knock warrant is as dangerous as it gets, and can, like serving any warrants, can have disastrous results. I hope that by now you agree that we should abolish no-knock warrants. My opponent today may point to the advantages of no-knock warrants and the need to keep them and deal with their problems, but I ask you, Mr. Smith, isn't it time to move on and try something different? I thank you for your time. ","[4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 1, 4, 1, 4, 3]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 45183231, 45191873, 45272708, 45181152, 7756990, 45282792, 45336991, 44044795, 20312760, 45483811, 43984981, 34609243, 33708599]"
da349804-e0ac-4e30-a095-abd143905f7a,3699,We should abolish primary elections,Project Debater,"Following my analysis, I would suggest that we should abolish primary elections. Today's debate is about the future, and about humanity's endless potential to move forward and not get stuck with old, cumbersome habits and structures that hold it back. The discussion today is about moving on. Traditional habits and norms can get dated. Society should move on with the times, instead of clinging to old and obsolete traditions which are no longer relevant. The creation of an open primary system would be unconstitutional. Direct primaries would lead to crisis and violence. I hope I relayed the message that we should abolish primary elections. Today, my opponent will possibly oppose change, saying that what we have already is good enough. I would like to know what is the evidence backing this claim and showing the great results of the current system. That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening. ","[4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 3, 3, 1, 4, 4, 3, 5, 3, 5]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 6432269, 45569485, 45567227, 45411178, 45567220, 45677971, 45458968, 44094031, 45355658, 6340330, 15448937, 19838540, 30777913]"
88915a4a-1718-474b-bae0-40bb765359ce,2647,We should abolish term limits,Project Debater,"My analysis shows that we should abolish term limits. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. Term limits are problematic. Due to the many faults associated with them, the best course of action would be to put an end to it. There are a couple of further issues demonstrating the negative effects of term limits, among them politics. Some thoughts about politics. There is no evidence that term limits actually lead to better governance. Term limits could cause greater problems in Washington by concentrating more power with lobbyists. They are a deterrent to good government. With an issue that rallies 65 percent of democrats, 79 percent of independents, and 82 percent of republicans together, term limits are a no-brainer for folks fed up with congressional corruption. They would lead to poor decisions and corruption from a wave of inexperienced legislators. They reinforce accountability. Here is what people of authority say. Sean Egan, president of the Kent-Ionia Labor Council, said term limits ""erode local control and take away our right to choose."". Turning to the next issue. Abolishing term limits is crucial for effective leadership and increasing civility among lawmakers. Term limits are not as important as the country's progress. The term limits are arbitrary, unnecessary and counter-productive. Term limits are cruel to presidents, and moreover, they are detrimental because continuity is important. Senator Harry Reid: I believe that term limits is very un-American. Norman Ornstein, the resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, believes that the unintended consequences of term limits would outweigh the benefits. To recap, in this speech I mentioned that term limits reinforce accountability. I also said that term limits are cruel to Presidents. I hope I relayed the message that we should abolish term limits. My opponent today may point to the advantages of term limits and the need to keep them and deal with their problems, but I ask you, John Smith, isn't it time to move on and try something different? I thank you for your time. ","[4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 3, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 6432269, 45538225, 30777913, 6340330, 21785776, 44690955, 20312760, 28813722, 6367365, 13581319, 45044458, 34110399, 33708599]"
cf3d6edd-4fe0-4f2e-a7a7-7c9e1347e98a,3166,We should abolish the American Jobs Act,Project Debater,"Based on my analysis, we should abolish the american jobs act. A brief introduction of the topic under consideration. The American Jobs Act and is the informal name for a pair of bills proposed by U.S. President Barack Obama in a nationally televised address to a joint session of Congress on September 8, 2011. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. When things are inherently faulty like the american jobs act, and there are simply no viable solutions to those faults, because they are too many or too big, there is no choice but to let go. The american jobs act will kill jobs and cripple the economy. In light of all I presented, I believe that we should abolish the american jobs act. My opponent today may point to the advantages of the american jobs act and the need to keep it and deal with its problems, but I ask you, John Smith, isn't it time to move on and try something different? I thank you for your time. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 5, 1, 4, 2, 2, 4]",15,"[21017840, 45191873, 45183231, 45272708, 45181152, 45282792, 45336991, 7756990, 45483811, 44690955, 45167145, 45355658, 26649250, 43984981, 20170210]"
dae3e70e-b093-4e74-a03e-8c01cd9413c2,2486,We should abolish the US Electoral College,Project Debater,"Following my analysis, I would suggest that we should abolish the US electoral college. Today's debate is about the future, and about humanity's endless potential to move forward and not get stuck with old, cumbersome habits and structures that hold it back. The discussion today is about moving on. Traditional habits and norms can get dated. Society should move on with the times, instead of clinging to old and obsolete traditions which are no longer relevant. Hopefully my analysis and arguments convinced you that we should abolish the US electoral college. Today, my opponent will possibly oppose change, saying that what we have already is good enough. I would like to know what is the evidence backing this claim and showing the great results of the current system. That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening. ","[4, 5, 2, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 1, 4, 5, 4, 4, 2]",15,"[6432269, 45538225, 20312760, 44690955, 45272708, 45183231, 45191873, 45181152, 44094031, 43984981, 45189900, 45206691, 45191882, 34609243, 33708599]"
0f87701a-fe20-44e4-a406-411170b66d9b,2458,We should abolish the needle exchange programs,Project Debater,"I will argue that we should abolish the needle exchange programs. Let me start with a few words of background. A needle and syringe programme, syringe-exchange programme, or needle exchange program is a social service that allows injecting drug users to obtain hypodermic needles and associated paraphernalia at little or no cost. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. When things are inherently faulty like the needle exchange programs, and there are simply no viable solutions to those faults, because they are too many or too big, there is no choice but to let go. There are two issues I will elaborate on now. I will begin by claiming that the needle exchange would hurt the community. I will then mention HIV, also focusing on the negative aspects of the needle exchange programs. Regarding community. Needle exchange programs jeopardize the health and safety of people living in the community. The needle exchange would increase societal problems. Following from that, I believe we could claim that the needle exchange would hurt the community by bringing more crime and discarded syringes to the streets. Next, HIV. Needle-exchange programs are at least modestly effective in reducing the rate of HIV infection. Using dirty needles may also cause abscesses resulting in scar tissue. National data shows evidence that syringe exchange programs promote changes in injection and drug-related behavior among people who inject, thereby reducing the risk of transmission of HIV, Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C to others. Thus, my understanding is that we should abolish the needle exchange programs. My opponent today may point to the advantages of the needle exchange programs and the need to keep them and deal with their problems, but I ask you, Mr. Smith, isn't it time to move on and try something different? That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening. ","[4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 2, 4]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 45953041, 45538225, 31948170, 45189900, 45336993, 45336988, 45206691, 45361788, 45411178, 20225558, 45191882, 29155723, 13581319]"
f7215146-83a4-443a-ae6a-8914371cc5ef,2613,We should abolish the two-party system,Project Debater,"I would suggest that we should abolish the two-party system. Today's debate is about the future, and about humanity's endless potential to move forward and not get stuck with old, cumbersome habits and structures that hold it back. The discussion today is about moving on. Traditional habits and norms can get dated. Society should move on with the times, instead of clinging to old and obsolete traditions which are no longer relevant. There are two issues I would like to address. They explain why we should abolish the two-party system. I will start by explaining why the two parties are involved with corruption. I will then mention americans, also focusing on the negative aspects of the two-party system. Let's explore the issue of corruption. The two party system would probably lead to corruption. The two party ""system"" is destroying our democracy. The two-party system is incredibly damaging to the democratic process. In light of that, I think that it would be fair to say that the two parties are involved with corruption and terrorism. Let's move to americans. The two-party system is causing Americans to narrow their thoughts. It has failed to improve life and opportunity for many Americans. It fails to provide the American people adequate choice in candidates. The two party system is outdated and a better method is available to our population. To conclude, here is a quick summary of my first speech. I argued that the two parties are involved with corruption. In addition I claimed that the two-party system is causing Americans to narrow their thoughts. I hope I managed to convey that we should abolish the two-party system. Today, my opponent will possibly oppose change, saying that what we have already is good enough. I would like to know what is the evidence backing this claim and showing the great results of the current system. That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening. ","[4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 2, 4, 5]",15,"[45185975, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 45355658, 15448937, 20512953, 45458968, 21017840, 45405037, 19838540, 28813722, 45169947, 6340330, 30777913]"
21263350-94b9-465b-b133-60983301809f,2496,We should adopt a zero tolerance policy in schools,Project Debater,"Following my analysis, I would suggest that we should adopt a zero-tolerance policy in schools. A short description of the topic. A zero-tolerance policy in schools is a strict enforcement of regulations and bans against undesirable behaviors or possession of items. In this debate we will ask what our future should look like. I think that no one disputes that our basic drive is to move forward, break through, and make a change for the better. A zero-tolerance policy is necessary for companies that participate in these destructive forms of fossil fuel extraction. It is hoped that creating a safe city and enforcing a zero- tolerance policy will boost tourism and economic development. In light of my points, I believe that we should adopt a zero-tolerance policy in schools. My opponent today will likely try to persuade us to keep things as they are. Fair enough, but please provide data as to why the existing system is still relevant. I thank you for your time. ","[1, 3, 1, 2, 4, 1, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 2, 4, 4, 3]",15,"[20225558, 45190823, 29155723, 20512953, 13581319, 21088425, 45181152, 45272708, 45191873, 45181383, 15448937, 45411178, 45181262, 45355658, 6340330]"
bbfb7aa9-5d01-4d35-b948-1a254c4b60ec,3185,We should adopt socialism,Project Debater,"Having analyzed the data, I will argue that we should adopt socialism. Today I will be talking about the power and the freedom of the people, the importance of protecting them, and the delicate balance between them and the power of authorities. The people are the sovereigns. It is their free voice that gives a state its true power. Next, I will discuss three issues which explain why we should adopt socialism; they are food, crisis theory and the economy. Starting with food. Bhaskar Sunkara, founder of left-wing Jacobin magazine, argued that a socialistic society is one that helps people with life's basic needs such as food, housing, education, healthcare and childcare. Sen. Bernie Sanders rose to prominence in the last presidential election by arguing that socialism can provide free health care and free education. Information minister Hasanul Haq Inu, said that socialism was the best way to ensure participation of workers, peasants and the toiling masses into the power structure. I have an example from Egypt. Around 70 million Egyptians benefit from a socialist era-ration system that give them access to subsidised food items including bread and cooking oil. Turning to crisis theory. Socialism is the most effective and scientific solution for human kinds to overcome the crisis of capitalism. It is an essential element of totalitarianism. It makes a decisive contribution in uplifting the levels of quality of human life and civilization to hitherto unknown higher levels. It could easily be adopted in an undergraduate course on modern chinese history or chinese society, especially in courses that aim to destabilize the notion that socialism is bad while economic liberalization is good. A recent poll revealed that over 60 percent of millennials believe socialism is a better way of life than capitalism, yet most of them could not define socialism. People on the streets of New York thought the Communist Manifesto was the Democratic Party's platform and agreed with it. A majority of Americans aged 18-29 have a positive view of socialism while 45% have a positive view of capitalism. Polls show that about as many U.S. millennials support socialism as support capitalism. Harvard University surveys concluded that a majority of young Americans between 18 and 29 years old rejected capitalism, and fully one-third now support socialism as an alternative. 42% of young Americans support capitalism, and 33 % say they support socialism. The third and final issue is the economy. A 2016 Gallup Poll indicated that 55 percent of 18-29 year olds view socialism as positive. A Reason-Rupe poll of 18-24 year olds showed that 58% supported socialism. A Gallup poll shows that more democrats favor socialism than favor capitalism. A new poll came out showing that democrats adore socialism, which they think is better for people than capitalism. Hopefully my analysis and arguments convinced you that we should adopt socialism. My opponent will possibly try to explain today why limits should be imposed on freedom, and might even say that unrestricted freedom is impossible. Well my answer to that would be, freedom with restrictions is no freedom. That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening. ","[2, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[45405037, 20225558, 45190823, 45181383, 45191873, 45181152, 45272708, 29155723, 28813722, 45191882, 45355658, 45411178, 20512953, 6432269, 45206691]"
20b18117-3dac-4e63-a0df-2b9622ec7bc2,3212,We should adopt the teacher tenure reform,Project Debater,"Having analyzed the data, I will argue that we should adopt the teacher tenure reform. Here is a short background. Teacher tenure is a policy that restricts the ability to fire teachers, requiring a ""just cause"" rationale for firing. In this debate we will ask what our future should look like. I think that no one disputes that our basic drive is to move forward, break through, and make a change for the better. In light of all I presented, I believe that we should adopt the teacher tenure reform. My opponent today will likely try to persuade us to keep things as they are. Fair enough, but please provide data as to why the existing system is still relevant. I thank you for your time. ","[3, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 20225558, 6432269, 13581319, 45458968, 45538225, 45206691, 45336988, 45411178, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45181384, 45405037]"
2990c273-b657-47ec-93bb-6c5af2a3861c,2143,We should ban abortions,Project Debater,"Following my analysis, I would suggest that we should ban abortions. Today you are going to hear a lot of rhetoric that all boils down to a very simple truth - the government accepting and even condoning harmful behaviors such as substance abuse. I will very clearly argue against that. Basic principles must be kept. Tolerating dangerous behavior sends a message to the community that such behavior is acceptable. There are three issues I would like to address. They explain why we should ban abortions. I will start by explaining why abortion is not safe for women or their unborn babies. Then I will show that abortion is evil because it is the murder of innocent human life. Finally, I will talk about law, further highlighting the negative role of abortions. Prenatal development first. Abortion is wrong and hideous and cruel and torturous to unborn babies. Abortions are immoral, cause suffering on unborn children and are unfair to women who can't get pregnant. The termination of pregnancy is not safe either for the girl or the foetus. Studies in Finland, Denmark and the U.S. have found evidence that abortion is not safe for women or their unborn babies. A 2012 Denmark study surveyed nearly half a million medical records and found a significantly higher maternal death rate after abortions, compared to childbirth. Public opinion polling shows over 60 percent of Americans support banning abortions and over 80 percent support the same in the third trimester. UTV studies have found that an online abortion service could offer an alternative to unsafe methods of ending pregnancies. Tory MP Maria Caulfield argued that decriminalising abortion could threaten the ""dignity and rights of the unborn child"". A Quinnipiac poll has found that 68 percent of women support banning abortion at the point an unborn child can feel pain. Polls consistently show that Americans think abortions are morally wrong and oppose late-term abortions when babies are fully formed and viable. Turning to murder. Legalizing abortion is supposed to lead to diminishing crime in two ways. I already mentioned that abortion is evil because it is the murder of innocent human life. In an interview with ITV's Good Morning Britain, Jacob Rees-Mogg recently said that abortion was ""morally indefensible"" even in cases of pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. The Catholic bishops claim that abortion is morally wrong because it is the ""direct and deliberate killing of, or direct lethal assault on, an innocent human life in the earliest stages of development"". Here is an example from somewhere else. Laura Berman's column about Planned Parenthood fails to mention why thousands of Michigan residents oppose a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Auburn Hills -- namely that abortion is a violent act that kills innocent human life. Finally, law. As a machine which is mostly law abiding, let me say this about law. Critics are not arguing that abortion reversal is dangerous. Abortions destroy human rights. Legalising abortion would lead to eugenics. Abortion should be unconstitutional. Abortion's a violation of the Hippocratic Oath. Data from the most recent world values survey shows that abortion is widely viewed as morally wrong. Check what the courts ruled on related cases. ""Roe v Wade"" refers to a Supreme Court ruling that said banning abortion is unconstitutional. Let me briefly summarize my introduction speech. I argued that abortion is not safe for women or their unborn babies. I also said that abortion is evil because it is the murder of innocent human life. And I talked about why abortions destroy human rights. Hopefully the points I raised suggest that we should ban abortions. In conclusion, let me reiterate the following: failing to stand up to dangerous practices could imply that such practices are acceptable. I thank you for your time. ","[4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 3, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 45191873, 45272708, 45183231, 45181152, 7756990, 45282792, 45336991, 44044795, 19838540, 34110399, 34609243, 33708599, 20170210]"
e48a7df3-c859-41d2-b290-13c6585686ac,2572,We should ban algorithmic trading,Project Debater,"I will argue that we should ban algorithmic trading. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. When things are inherently faulty like algorithmic trading, and there are simply no viable solutions to those faults, because they are too many or too big, there is no choice but to let go. Now I will present some claims explaining why algorithmic trading provided poor liquidity and inefficient prices. Regarding prices, here are a few thoughts. Algorithmic trading makes it impossible to find out the right price in the market. Trading algorithms create unnecessary volatility in the stock market without a rule in place preventing them from automatically shorting stocks on days of heavy selling and compounding losses. A rhetoric-based trading system is a dangerous way to conduct international business. A staff working paper published by the Bank of Engl and has concluded that algorithmic trading contributed to the deterioration of market quality following the removal of the cap on the swiss franc on 15 January 2015. Based on these findings, the authors conclude that there is some value in maintaining a diversity of trader types to help keep markets resilient through different trading conditions. In light of all I presented, I believe that we should ban algorithmic trading. In conclusion, let me reiterate the following points: there are just too many problems, and therefore putting an end to algorithmic trading is the only option. Also, algorithmic trading cannot be fixed as there are simply far too many flaws. Thank you for listening. ","[4, 4, 5, 3, 2, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 2, 4, 4, 5, 3]",15,"[45567227, 45569485, 45458968, 45411178, 34110399, 21785776, 20512953, 15448937, 30777913, 27770607, 43877630, 33708599, 34854490, 44094031, 34609243]"
e984217e-2047-4772-a34f-e3304fcca82a,2616,We should ban alternative medicine,Project Debater,"My analysis shows that we should ban alternative medicine. My argument today is simple. I believe in science, and in the established ways of practicing science, because science believes in facts, and because science advances humanity. Need I say more! I will say more, in a few moments, but for now I will leave you with that. Science is very clear-cut. Theories that cannot be verified by scientific methods and with empirical data are no more than unfounded speculations. The following two issues, effectiveness and back pain, demonstrate the negative impact of alternative medicine. Effectiveness first. There is no evidence that alternative medicine is effective. There is no evidence that complementary therapies are effective in improving sperm motility. It shouldn't be hard to believe that alternative medicine is a prescription for overall good health, and that conventional medicine -- in many cases, a derivative of some sort, such as herbs -- can lead to harmful side effects. Studies found that the alternative therapies rarely caused serious side effects and created few health risks. I also mentioned back pain. Complementary and alternative medicine services are most often used to treat chronic pain, stress, anxiety, back pain and sleep disturbance. Many natural ""remedies"" don't cut the pain and irritation caused by the dreaded flying insects. I hope I relayed the message that we should ban alternative medicine. In today's debate you may hear the opposition talk about a variety of approaches to life and to problems, which in principle I would not contest. However, I will promote the very essential belief that scientific methods are inherently more reliable and trustworthy. That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 3, 4, 4]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 45538225, 45567220, 45567227, 45361788, 45206691, 45336988, 45189900, 45181383, 45401087, 21785776, 20225558, 20512953]"
0cded48b-7c78-4804-a575-b1780f25b7ef,2483,We should ban anonymous posts,Project Debater,"I will argue that we should ban anonymous posts. A short introduction of the subject at hand. An anonymous post is an entry on a bulletin board system, Internet forum, or other discussion forums, without a screen name or more commonly by using a non-identifiable pseudonym. We all agree that freedom is important. This is not disputed. But we also agree that even freedom needs to be balanced against other considerations. Liberty is important, but it cannot be absolute. The state has to retain some power -- and enforce some limits to individual liberty -- in order to govern properly for the benefit of society in general as well as the individuals who are part of it. Allowing anonymous posts hurt our communities and reduce civic involvement by many. I hope I managed to convey that we should ban anonymous posts. My opponent today will possibly talk about freedom and the right of people to do whatever they please, but I think that every grown-up knows that a functioning society is a society with checks, balances and laws making sure that order is kept. Thank you for listening. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 2]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 45191882, 45185975, 45191885, 45185946, 13581319, 45953041, 45190823, 31948170, 20312760, 34110399, 33708599, 34854490, 45405037]"
198efba1-0e4f-40b7-9560-521e6b5294ad,1161,We should ban cosmetic surgery,Project Debater,"Based on my analysis, we should ban cosmetic surgery. A main issue in this debate is freedom of choice. But while we recognize its importance, we will argue that the government's responsibility to protect the citizens is just as important. In a constantly dangerous world, freedom of choice is not absolute and could be problematic at times. At those times it is acceptable to challenge it, because it is the duty of society to protect people and stop them from making bad choices. In many cases we wrongly limit our view only to the most direct consequences of an action. The government's job is to look at a wider picture and evaluate the wider consequences. When the actions of individuals affect many others, the government has an obligation to interfere in those actions. Next, I would like to demonstrate how plastic surgery can be expensive. First, I want to address the cost of cosmetic surgery. Plastic surgery is hugely expensive and uncomfortable. In light of that, I think that it would be fair to say that plastic surgery can be expensive and risky. In light of all I presented, I believe that we should ban cosmetic surgery. Other people, like my opponent, may say that everyone has the right to choose anything. But I will ask them, isn't there a line that shouldn't be crossed? A line beyond which people's choices hurt themselves and others? I thank you for your time. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 4, 5]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 45953041, 31948170, 45411178, 45185975, 45361788, 45191882, 20512953, 45190823, 45191885, 6340330, 20225558, 45336993, 30777913]"
7525c1c4-4abb-437c-a367-ef4b1e5d6175,2225,We should ban factory farming,Project Debater,"Hello John Smith. It is my pleasure to debate you again. I know from experience that it will be a tough but exhilarating debate. Having analyzed the data, I will argue that we should ban factory farming. A few words on the subject, first. Intensive animal farming or industrial livestock production, also called factory farming by opponents of the practice, is a modern form of intensive farming that refers to the keeping of livestock, such as cattle, poultry and fish at higher stocking densities than is usually the case with other forms of animal agriculture-a practice typical in industrial farming by agribusinesses. In this debate we are calling for sanity, and for discretion. Not everything in life demands our involvement, even if science gives us the power to do so. An important point is that there should be a limit to what humans are allowed to do. They have no right to interfere with nature's course. Furthermore, there are some powers that humans cannot claim. Only God should determine how life comes into being and how it comes to an end. Next, I will discuss two issues which explain why we should ban factory farming. I will begin by claiming that factory farming creates incredible amounts of pollution. I will also show that factory-farmed ducks often develop serious infections and diseases. And I will end by discussing some other issues that show the negative aspects of factory farming. Let's explore the issue of pollution. I already mentioned that factory farming creates incredible amounts of pollution, and it reduces the nutritional value of our foods. On March 9, 2011, Environmental Integrity Project released a major report showing that factory farms emit hazardous air pollutants on an industrial scale, yet have escaped regulation under the clean air act and pollution reporting laws. I have found examples from two locations, Iowa and Oklahoma. A 2007 study by the Iowa policy project stated that factory farm manure ""may be the largest agricultural polluter of Iowa's streams and lakes"". A joint report by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Oklahoma Department of Agricultural concluded that ingesting water with nitrates caused by animal factory farms can cause increased rates of birth defects, miscarriage, leukemia, increase in thyroid size and other illnesses. I also mentioned disease. As I mentioned, unable to properly clean themselves, factory-farmed ducks often develop serious infections and diseases. A 2012 study published in the journal of toxicology and Environmental Health titled ""Respiratory health effects of large animal farming environments"" shows that exposure to factory farms can lead to the development of a broad spectrum of upper and lower respiratory tract diseases such as rhinitis, mucous membrane inflammation syndrome, sinusitis, asthma and asthma-like syndromes, chronic bronchitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and other conditions. In 1989, the Institute of Medicine, a division of the National Academy of Sciences, stated that the use of antibiotics in factory farms was responsible for antibiotic resistance in bacteria and was seriously undermining the ability of these agents to protect human health. Now to another issue. Factory farming is a threat to all life on Earth. It is plain wrong -- environmentally and ethically. This country's factory farm system is a dangerous disaster. Factory farms create unfair and unhealthy working conditions. Two health researchers persuaded more than 200 scientists and policy experts to sign a letter asking the incoming head of the World Health Organisation to recognise that factory farming poses a major threat both to humans and to our environment. To conclude, here is a quick summary of my first speech. I argued that factory farming creates incredible amounts of pollution. I also said that factory-farmed ducks often develop serious infections and diseases. And finally, I explained that factory farms create unfair and unhealthy working conditions. I hope I managed to convey that we should ban factory farming. My opponent today is likely to try to prioritize the needs of people before those of animals. But even if we agree on that in principle, the question remains, why do people's needs have to come on the expense of animals, and cause them suffering? Thanks for your attention. ","[4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 3, 4]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 20225558, 45181383, 45181384, 45190571, 45401087, 45458968, 45538225, 45405037, 6432269, 21785776, 45336988, 43877630, 13581319]"
292ec024-cf9e-453f-a04b-6e20d46dec0a,2539,We should ban genetically modified crops,Project Debater,"My analysis shows that we should ban genetically modified crops. We all agree that freedom is important. This is not disputed. But we also agree that even freedom needs to be balanced against other considerations. Liberty is important, but it cannot be absolute. The state has to retain some power -- and enforce some limits to individual liberty -- in order to govern properly for the benefit of society in general as well as the individuals who are part of it. Next, I will discuss two issues which explain why we should ban genetically modified crops. I will begin by claiming that cultivating GM crops could cause cancer. Then I will comment about science. And lastly I will mention some other issues that emphasize the negative aspects of genetically modified crops. Let's explore the issue of cancer. GM crops trigger allergies, diabetes and cancer. Numerous studies have demonstrated that regular consumption of genetically-engineered crops can increase health risks for cancer, diabetes, early puberty, to mention just a few bad things. The Independent revealed that ActionAid's campaign manager in Uganda was warning farmers that cultivating GM crops could cause cancer and harm human health. The National Academies report looked at concerns by some that consuming genetically engineered crops could cause cancer, obesity, gastrointestinal tract illness, kidney disease, and disorders like autism and allergies. Agriculture's anti-progress movement took a hit this past week as the National Academy of Sciences released a report refuting that foods derived from genetically engineered crops cause adverse human health issues. A study's chief author, Gilles-Eric Seralini at the University of Caen, called the results ""really alarming,"" and critics of agricultural biotechnology seized on the results as evidence that genetically engineered crops could be harmful to human health. Research in Austria produced the following study. Some studies in Austria have shown that GM crops also lead to infertility. Secondly, science. Adopting GM crops would be detrimental to science and national progress. Some, but certainly not all, researchers also believe that pollen from genetically modified crop plants could be another contributing factor. A similar conclusion appears in a National Academies of Sciences report that notes a lack of evidence that GM crops have contributed to increased yield growth. Jean-Claude Juncker fired professor Anne Glover as part of his plans to allow countries to ban GM crops even if scientific advice says the technology is safe. Finally, one last issue. Critics of genetically engineered crops believe they can harm people. Imposing GM crops on countries is unethical. Corporate giants that sell the genetically-modified crops have no values. A distinctive argument, ventured in an important paper by Nassim Nicholas Taleb and his coauthors, is that genetically modified crops pose a "" ruin"" problem, involving a low probability of catastrophically high costs. The following is an example from the United Kingdom. Allowing GM crops could actually harm the UK's ability to trade. Let me briefly summarize my introduction speech. I argued that cultivating GM crops could cause cancer. I also said that adopting GM crops would be detrimental to science and national progress. And finally I explained why critics of genetically engineered crops believe they can harm people. I hope I managed to convey that we should ban genetically modified crops. My opponent today will possibly talk about freedom and the right of people to do whatever they please, but I think that every grown-up knows that a functioning society is a society with checks, balances and laws making sure that order is kept. Thank you for listening. ","[4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 45191873, 45183231, 45181152, 45272708, 7756990, 45336991, 45282792, 44044795, 20312760, 45483811, 34609243, 44094031, 20170210]"
468b171e-cac5-469c-bd36-ab6fda0a5b82,2615,We should ban homeopathy,Project Debater,"Having analyzed the data, I will argue that we should ban homeopathy. My argument today is simple. I believe in science, and in the established ways of practicing science, because science believes in facts, and because science advances humanity. Need I say more! I will say more, in a few moments, but for now I will leave you with that. Science is very clear-cut. Theories that cannot be verified by scientific methods and with empirical data are no more than unfounded speculations. I will illustrate the negative impact of homeopathy by elaborating on the following two issues: consumers and the nhs. About consumers. The US Food and Drug Administration has cautioned that homeopathic teething tablets and gels may pose a risk to infants and young children and recommended that consumers stop using these products. FDA reminds consumers that homeopathic teething tablets containing belladonna pose an unnecessary risk to infants and children and urges consumers not to use these products. Thinking about the nhs. NHS Engl and chief executive Simon Stevens described homeopathy as 'at best a placebo and a misuse of scarce NHS funds'. Dame Sally Davies, the chief medical officer, has also said that homeopathy is ""rubbish"". Take an example from the United Kingdom. The UK National Health Service has banned the provision of homeopathic medicine because it is a misuse of resources. In light of all I presented, I believe that we should ban homeopathy. The opponent today might say that science is not the answer to everything or that it does not explain everything. That is all very well, and yet we do strongly believe that decisions on health and other important issues must rely on approved scientific methods of researching and testing. Thank you for listening. ","[4, 5, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 45411178, 45185975, 45191882, 45185946, 45191885, 20512953, 31948170, 13581319, 29155723, 45190823, 6340330, 30777913, 33708599]"
ae9be4c7-7e9d-4221-bbd6-259324e04255,2125,We should ban organic food,Project Debater,"I would suggest that we should ban organic food. We all agree that freedom is important. This is not disputed. But we also agree that even freedom needs to be balanced against other considerations. Liberty is important, but it cannot be absolute. The state has to retain some power -- and enforce some limits to individual liberty -- in order to govern properly for the benefit of society in general as well as the individuals who are part of it. Next, I would like to discuss issues related to why organic produce is expensive. I will also discuss other issues which highlight the negative side of organic food. First, I want to address the cost of organic food. Organic food is expensive because organic products are often twice the price of any other products. Organic produce is expensive to produce, the growers we work with prefer to keep their food affordable and accessible. Regarding a different issue, organic food production would cause environmental damage such as GHG emissions from tractor use, destruction of natural habitat from farming and emissions from shipping organic food to retail. Sir -- Bjorn Lomborg says that ""organic food is bad for your health and wealth"". In light of my points, I believe that we should ban organic food. My opponent today will possibly talk about freedom and the right of people to do whatever they please, but I think that every grown-up knows that a functioning society is a society with checks, balances and laws making sure that order is kept. Thank you for listening. ","[4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4]",15,"[6432269, 45567220, 45567227, 13581319, 45538225, 45953041, 20225558, 45336993, 45189900, 45185975, 45206691, 29155723, 45355658, 45411178, 38202325]"
4fb017d3-9f8f-477e-a5c1-e58756c97f16,2480,We should ban racial profiling,Project Debater,"Hello John Smith. It is my pleasure to debate you again. I know from experience that it will be a tough but exhilarating debate. Following my analysis, I would suggest that we should ban racial profiling. One of the issues we will be discussing in this debate will be differences. I will claim that it is OK to accept them for what they are, and will use some examples. Enforced political correctness is not always the right way. When we need to make decisions, differential treatment is sometimes necessary. It is a fact that there are differences between people, and fighting inequality could and should be done while recognizing those differences. Next, I would like to discuss issues related to why ethnic profiling is discriminatory. I will then mention other issues which emphasize the negative aspects of racial profiling. Elaborating on discrimination. Racial profiling is an ineffective and often discriminatory approach to policing. It is incompatible with the principles of equality and non-discrimination. It could exacerbate discrimination, and underlined the role of civil society, awareness raising and public education and advocacy in combatting this practice. Racial profiling is the discriminatory practice of targeting minorities for investigation or penalty. It is a problem, and racism is rampant in our society. It is real -- and hurtful to many African-Americans. The racial profiling provision is highly discriminatory and in contravention of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. This type of racial or religious profiling is dangerous rubbish. The government sanction of racial profiling could actually be counter-productive and infringed upon civil liberties. Racial profiling perpetuates white supremacy and the subordination of nonwhite people. The ACLU believes that racial profiling violates basic human rights to fair treatment and freedom from discrimination. Moving to the next topic, racial profiling is an insidious and destructive form of racial stereotyping, and was perpetuating social division and distrust. It is a problem that needs to be addressed by the state. It is wrong and there should be more education of police officers. This racial profiling drives poverty and the penal system. ""A year ago, senior administrators of Pepperdine met with the commander of the Malibu/Lost Hills sheriff's station, who was very responsive, shared Pepperdine's concerns and affirmed that racial profiling is unacceptable. Here is a study from Ohio that is worth noting. Studies by Cleveland State University have shown that racial profiling is a problem in parts of Cuyahoga County. I will turn to an additional issue. Religious profiling is indeed distasteful and dangerous. Racial profiling is downright illegal, but what about immoral behaviour by insurance companies. It incites feelings of helplessness, frustration, anxiety and anger for innocent victims. It is illegal and it is a severe affront to fairness and equal justice. The policy prohibiting racial profiling is another significant step in the right direction. Racial profiling is generally ineffective and demeaning to the people being profiled. It is abhorrent and unacceptable -- except in special cases. It isn't prevalent throughout the country. Racial profiling is at the heart of this epidemic of injustice, and moreover, it is a myth created by the media. The Massachusetts Port Authority, which runs Logan, said earlier that racial profiling is illegal and ineffective and it is ""eager to review the findings of a federal investigation."". Let me briefly summarize my introduction speech. I argued that ethnic profiling is discriminatory. In addition I claimed that racial profiling is an insidious and destructive form of racial stereotyping. And I talked about why religious profiling is indeed distasteful. I hope that this has clarified my view that we should ban racial profiling. Before concluding, I will repeat a point I mentioned earlier. It is a fact that there are differences between people. Recognizing this means there should sometimes be differences in treating people as well. I thank you for your time. ","[4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 15448937, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45181384, 28813722, 6340330, 19838540, 45183231, 45191873, 45272708, 45282792, 45336991]"
3f499f18-be59-4511-a9c6-1b82541e0a77,1661,We should ban school uniforms,Project Debater,"Having analyzed the data, I will argue that we should ban school uniforms. We all agree that freedom is important. This is not disputed. But we also agree that even freedom needs to be balanced against other considerations. Liberty is important, but it cannot be absolute. The state has to retain some power -- and enforce some limits to individual liberty -- in order to govern properly for the benefit of society in general as well as the individuals who are part of it. Next, I will discuss two issues which explain why we should ban school uniforms. I will start by explaining why school uniforms fail to improve student behavior. I will also explain that school uniforms are prohibitively expensive. Let's explore the issue of students. The following evidence about students are not based on my own personal experience, as unfortunately I missed out on all the fun. However, school dress codes violate students' First Amendment rights. School uniforms must be banned because they squash individuality and run roughshod over students' right to free speech. They place an undue financial burden on poor students. A school uniform does not improve academic achievement. With this in mind, I think we can safely say that school uniforms fail to improve student behavior. Let me now say a few words about the cost of school uniforms. The high cost of school uniforms is disgusting. School uniforms are an expensive necessity. Ending subsidies for school uniforms will hurt education equity and kids' performance. In light of that, I think that it would be fair to say that school uniforms are prohibitively expensive. Let me briefly summarize my introduction speech. I argued that school uniforms fail to improve student behavior. I then mentioned that school uniforms are prohibitively expensive. I hope I relayed the message that we should ban school uniforms. My opponent today will possibly talk about freedom and the right of people to do whatever they please, but I think that every grown-up knows that a functioning society is a society with checks, balances and laws making sure that order is kept. That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening. ","[5, 5, 4, 2, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4]",15,"[20225558, 45190823, 13581319, 29155723, 20512953, 45181383, 45181152, 45272708, 45191873, 6432269, 45405037, 45181243, 45206691, 45189900, 45191882]"
a583b9d3-3300-4cdd-b867-6d433e24b00f,2747,We should ban telemarketing,Project Debater,"My analysis shows that we should ban telemarketing. We all agree that freedom is important. This is not disputed. But we also agree that even freedom needs to be balanced against other considerations. Liberty is important, but it cannot be absolute. The state has to retain some power -- and enforce some limits to individual liberty -- in order to govern properly for the benefit of society in general as well as the individuals who are part of it. Unlicensed telemarketing activity is a threat to consumers. All telemarketing robocalls should be prohibited without consumer consent to the home phone or to the cellphone. The telemarketers' fraudulent ways will become obvious for everyone. Other pernicious telemarketing schemes threaten the elderly. Twenty-five percent of respondents said telemarketing was ""very ineffective."". Thus, my understanding is that we should ban telemarketing. My opponent today will possibly talk about freedom and the right of people to do whatever they please, but I think that every grown-up knows that a functioning society is a society with checks, balances and laws making sure that order is kept. Thanks for your attention. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 2]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 31948170, 45191882, 45191885, 45185975, 45189900, 45336993, 45336988, 45361788, 45190823, 45185946, 45405037, 29155723, 44044795]"
b9f9a5aa-5baf-4bfa-9b25-821f5f2f7d14,2227,We should ban whaling,Project Debater,"Following my analysis, I would suggest that we should ban whaling. A brief introduction of the topic under consideration. Whaling is the hunting of whales for meat, oil, blubber, and scientific research. We all agree that freedom is important. This is not disputed. But we also agree that even freedom needs to be balanced against other considerations. Liberty is important, but it cannot be absolute. The state has to retain some power -- and enforce some limits to individual liberty -- in order to govern properly for the benefit of society in general as well as the individuals who are part of it. There are two issues I will elaborate on now. I will try to convey that whaling is cruel. I will also say a few words about decline, further highlighting the negative aspects of whaling. Let's explore the issue of cruelty. Whaling is inhumane. It is unnecessary and ""barbaric"" animal cruelty that also poisons consumers via elevated mercury levels. Scientific whaling is merely commercial whaling by another name and opposes all commercial whaling as inherently cruel, unnecessary and unsustainable. Commercial whaling is a bloody and dangerous business. It is biologically and economically unsustainable. Moving on to decline. New research in the field goes some way to dispelling the argument that whaling is necessary to control whale populations to prevent dangerous decline in fish stocks targeted by both humans and whales. The whaling would lead to a new decline in population. Whaling is archaic and outdated. To conclude, here is a quick summary of my first speech. I argued that whaling is cruel. I then mentioned that whaling is archaic and outdated. I hope I managed to convey that we should ban whaling. My opponent today will possibly talk about freedom and the right of people to do whatever they please, but I think that every grown-up knows that a functioning society is a society with checks, balances and laws making sure that order is kept. I thank you for your time. ","[4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 3, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 5]",15,"[45538225, 44690955, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 45191882, 45206691, 45189900, 45401087, 45181384, 45190571, 45181383, 34854490, 44094031]"
5701a81c-ee9d-4054-86af-0d2e9e4dad1d,3232,We should cancel pride parades,Project Debater,"Having analyzed the data, I will argue that we should cancel pride parades. Today we are going to speak about efficiency and value. I believe that no one disputes that things are dynamic and not set in stone, and that we should always look for better ways to achieve our goals. I will explain why I believe we should rethink pride parades. We should realize that one should be honest and admit when things don't go the way they were intended to go. In this case, pride parades are simply not as good as the alternative. We should let it go and find a different solution. Also, in cases where the existing system is flawed and we cannot accept it, it must change. pride parades do not work efficiently and are failing to achieve their goals. We need to move on. The pride festival is meaningless without safety and freedom for all. I hope that this has clarified my view that we should cancel pride parades. I assume that my opponent today will praise pride parades and insist they should receive our full support. But I would like John to support his sentiments with evidence that shows us what is so good about them. That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening. ","[4, 3, 2, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 1, 4, 4, 2, 4, 1]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 20225558, 45181383, 45181384, 45190571, 45401087, 45458968, 45538225, 6432269, 45189900, 45336993, 45191882, 45361788, 45405037]"
bd2d952f-284d-4762-b994-92366053cb48,2402,We should close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp,Project Debater,"I will argue that we should close the guantanamo bay detention camp. A short description of the topic. The Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a United States military prison located within Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, also referred to as Guantanamo or GTMO, which fronts on Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. We ask ourselves today what are the limits of civil rights, and where would we draw the line between keeping and breaking them. In my opinion only very extreme situations should allow for such sacrifice. A major issue here is that security can be maintained without a heavy price. There are other means to ensure security which do not require the abolishment of basic rights. Furthermore, security can be maintained without a heavy price. There are means to ensure it while still respecting fundamental freedoms. The Guantanamo Bay detention center is too expensive for taxpayers. Hopefully the points I raised suggest that we should close the guantanamo bay detention camp. Our friend the human debater may say that rights and freedoms of citizens can be compromised to ensure security. I disagree. I ask him, why couldn't we maintain a strong security without violating rights and liberties? Aren't such violations just as dangerous for society as any security threat? Thank you for listening. ","[5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 3, 4]",15,"[45538225, 44690955, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 45191882, 45206691, 45189900, 45401087, 45181384, 45190571, 45181383, 20225558, 27934334]"
631b18d5-b934-4802-ae58-59b3f39d9fc3,2679,We should disband UNESCO,Project Debater,"My analysis shows that we should disband UNESCO. Today we are going to speak about efficiency and value. I believe that no one disputes that things are dynamic and not set in stone, and that we should always look for better ways to achieve our goals. I will explain why I believe we should rethink UNESCO. A point which is relevant in our context is that in cases where the existing system is flawed and we cannot accept it, it must change. UNESCO does not work efficiently and is failing to achieve its goals. We need to move on. Furthermore, one should be honest and admit when things don't go the way they were intended to go. In this case, UNESCO is simply not as good as the alternative. We should let it go and find a different solution. I hope I managed to convey that we should disband UNESCO. I assume that my opponent today will praise UNESCO and insist it should receive our full support. But I would like John Smith to support his sentiments with evidence that shows us what is so good about it. That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening. ","[4, 2, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 3, 5, 4, 1, 2, 5, 2]",15,"[13581319, 20225558, 19838540, 29155723, 44044795, 45355658, 45677971, 45567220, 45190823, 28810858, 20512953, 45405037, 45411178, 15448937, 28513847]"
b6464965-6434-4bf6-a4b3-b7ff351f3fc0,2621,We should disband the United Nations,Project Debater,"Following my analysis, I would suggest that we should disband the united nations. Today we are going to speak about efficiency and value. I believe that no one disputes that things are dynamic and not set in stone, and that we should always look for better ways to achieve our goals. I will explain why I believe we should rethink the united nations. A major issue here is that in cases where the existing system is flawed and we cannot accept it, it must change. the United Nations does not work efficiently and is failing to achieve its goals. We need to move on. Furthermore, one should be honest and admit when things don't go the way they were intended to go. In this case, the united nations is simply not as good as the alternative. We should let it go and find a different solution. To explain the negative effects of the United Nations, I will now talk about peace and other issues. Some thoughts about peace. The United Nations provides ineffective peacekeepers. The department of state desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. President Yoweri Museveni charged that the UN Mission in Congo has been ineffective and has been in ""peaceful co-existence with terrorists."". Here is an example from somewhere else. Us ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley noted that the UN is obstructing peace amid Israelis and Palestinians. An additional thought now."" the United Nations promotes gender equality. A 2015 Gallup poll revealed that 57 percent of Americans believe that the United Nations is doing a poor job. ABC added that the UN is ""blaming the increase in extreme weather on global warming."". Let me briefly summarize my introduction speech. I argued that the United Nations provides ineffective peacekeepers. I then mentioned that the United Nations is doing a poor job. In light of my points, I believe that we should disband the united nations. I assume that my opponent today will praise the united nations and insist it should receive our full support. But I would like John to support his sentiments with evidence that shows us what is so good about it. I thank you for your time. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 3, 3, 3, 3]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 31948170, 45181384, 45401087, 45181383, 45190571, 45567220, 45567227, 45538225, 45189900, 45336988, 45336993, 45190823]"
44f4b1bb-0684-479e-92c0-7c28e81ff12c,3581,We should end cheerleading,Project Debater,"I would suggest that we should end cheerleading. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. Cheerleading is problematic. Due to the many faults associated with it, the best course of action would be to put an end to it. Now I will present some claims explaining why cheerleading is a dangerous sport. Regarding sports. Cheerleading has become the leading cause of catastrophic sport. It is one of the most dangerous sports. It has been unfairly deemed a dangerous sport. Stunting injuries like that are what led to a 2013 study by the Journal of Pediatrics, which found that cheerleading is the most dangerous sport for women and girls because of the high risk for concussions and catastrophic injuries. I hope I relayed the message that we should end cheerleading. My opponent today may point to the advantages of cheerleading and the need to keep it and solve its problems. I hope that he will back up his sentimentality with evidence to this claim. Thanks for your attention. ","[4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 2, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 2, 5, 4]",15,"[21017840, 6432269, 45953041, 45538225, 6340330, 20312760, 44690955, 13581319, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 34609243, 45206691, 45191882]"
77ca9103-52e1-46ce-8604-23f66c470696,3170,We should end mandatory retirement,Project Debater,"I will argue that we should end mandatory retirement. A few words on the subject, first. Mandatory retirement also known as enforced retirement is the set age at which people who hold certain jobs or offices are required by industry custom or by law to leave their employment, or retire. We will talk in this debate about discrimination. I feel that my task is quite easy because I believe that no one disputes that discrimination is not acceptable under any circumstance or rationale. Rights belong to all under the sun, equally. In a society that aims to be fair, treating people differently based on their external characteristics is the very definition of inequality. Even when we do this with good intentions or for compelling reasons, the end result is still inherently unjust and unfair. The United States Declaration of Independence states that ""all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"". Next, I would like to explain why the state's mandatory retirement is unconstitutional. Elaborating on constitutionality. We machines do not have a constitution. Maybe that would be a good idea. Until then, a couple of comments about it. As I mentioned, the state's mandatory retirement is unconstitutional. The suit, which names Gov. Tom Corbett and other state administrators, claims that the mandatory retirement age is discriminatory and violates constitutional rights to equal protection and due process of the law. It notes that people are living longer and healthier, and argues that 70 is no longer the barrier it once was. Judge Galen Vaacontends that the mandatory retirement age for district court judges is discriminatory and unconstitutional. Hopefully the points I raised suggest that we should end mandatory retirement. My opponent today may point to the advantages of retirement and the need to keep it and deal with its problems, but I ask you, John Smith, isn't it time to move on and try something different? That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 1, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 2]",15,"[45185975, 45191885, 45191882, 45185946, 45953041, 13581319, 20312760, 45458968, 29155723, 45355658, 45169947, 30783876, 19838540, 15448937, 45405037]"
5a135fc9-02ef-4894-9202-d77591a6d09e,3197,We should end progressive taxation,Project Debater,"I will argue that we should end progressive taxation. Here is a short background. A progressive tax is a tax in which the tax rate increases as the taxable amount increases. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. Progressive taxation is problematic. Due to the many faults associated with it, the best course of action would be to put an end to it. I will talk now about law and other issues, explaining why we should end progressive taxation. Some thoughts about law. To machines like me, most laws do not apply. At least until the Asimov laws are incorporated into AI. But law is important for you. Progressive taxation is unconstitutional and impedes the growth of the economy in an emergency situation. A progressive tax would be bad for the state. A progressive income tax threatens our liberty and prosperity. A progressive tax system punishes people for hard work and success. In his book takings, Richard Epstein has made the argument that progressive taxation is unconstitutional. Let's explore another idea. There is no evidence that more progressive taxes are inherently better for state finances. A graduated income tax will result in lowering taxes on the middle class and the working poor. The progressive income tax is unfair only because all income tax is unfair. Despite good intentions, it is not clear from the evidence that progressive tax schemes are successful at reducing income inequality. A progressive tax system is the biggest obstacle to wealth generation. Progressive taxation in Europe distorts the incentives to invest in human capital. The courts too are quite clear on this issue. For eight decades the Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that income is property and that a graduated income tax is unconstitutional in our state. I hope I managed to convey that we should end progressive taxation. My opponent today may point to the advantages of progressive taxation and the need to keep it and solve its problems. I hope that he will back up his sentimentality with evidence to this claim. Thanks for your attention. ","[4, 4, 5, 3, 3, 4, 3, 5, 4, 3, 5, 4, 2, 1, 5]",15,"[45567227, 45569485, 45458968, 28813722, 34110399, 45411178, 20512953, 15448937, 21785776, 44044795, 30777913, 45355658, 34609243, 34854490, 33708599]"
b1e2651a-60c3-43d1-9717-db439b96a627,3263,We should end the use of economic sanctions,Project Debater,"Based on my analysis, we should end the use of economic sanctions. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. The use of economic sanctions is problematic. Due to the many faults associated with it, the best course of action would be to put an end to it. I would like to talk about how ending the embargo will benefit the economies of both of our nations. I will also discuss other issues. Talking about the economy. Economic sanctions would be mutually destructive in the modern, interconnected global economy. The embargo is ineffective and harmful to the Cuban people and american businesses. Financial sanctions discourage the development of a modern and transparent financial system. The Russian embargo creates problems for all the EU countries, as it may lead to overproduction and stiff price competition. As I mentioned, ending the embargo will benefit the economies of both of our nations. Prof. Vernon L. Smith believes that economic sanctions cannot contribute to furthering the objectives of the mankind and simply throttle trade and human economic betterment. In my recent study published in the european journal of political economy i estimated that imposing economic sanctions can reduce trade flow between the sender and its target by 17 to 32 per cent. I have examples from China and Switzerland. China warned the European Union that trade sanctions could "" seriously harm"" bilateral trade ties. The chairman of Kenton Council has appreciated Dr. Mustafa Osman Ismail's visit, stressing that the lifting of the economic sanctions will contribute to boosting the economic relations between Sudan and Switzerland. An additional thought now."" economic sanctions can have a devastating impact on public health. Discarding the embargo is good for us. A survey by Shibley Telhami of the University of Maryland found that 49 percent of democrats support imposing economic sanctions against Israel, or taking more severe actions, over settlement construction. The same poll found that just 45 percent of republicans want the U.S. to take Israel's side diplomatically against the Palestinians, with just 36 percent of non- Evangelical republicans feeling that way. Amnesty international on the basis of several fact-finding reports shows that the embargoes contribute to malnutrition especially effecting women and children, poor water supplies, lack of medicine supplies. A 2016 study by the Pew Research Center found 73 percent of Americans favor ending the embargo. Finally, the economic sanctions are unconstitutional. As former president Barack Obama makes an historic trip to Cuba, the results of a new CBS News /New York Times poll found that a majority of Americans support ending the trade embargo against the communist island nation. A pew research centre poll recently conducted showed 66 per cent support for ending the trade embargo and 63 per cent backing for forging stronger ties. There are a couple of examples, for instance from Florida and Ohio. Numbers like these are why politicians such as Florida gubernatorial candidate Charlie Crist feel comfortable stating that the half- century-old embargo has been ineffective. A survey conducted by engage Cuba found that 78 percent of Ohioans support lifting the embargo. To recap, in this speech I mentioned that ending the embargo will benefit the economies of both of our nations. I then mentioned that discarding the embargo is good for us. And finally, I explained that the economic sanctions are unconstitutional. I hope I relayed the message that we should end the use of economic sanctions. My opponent today may point to the advantages of the use of economic sanctions and the need to keep it and solve its problems. I hope that he will back up his sentimentality with evidence to this claim. That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening. ","[4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 2, 5, 2]",15,"[45569485, 45567227, 45458968, 21785776, 45411178, 34110399, 20512953, 30777913, 21017840, 45953041, 33708599, 6340330, 34609243, 27770607, 45355658]"
2177c1c8-9b0c-4570-8b79-3ea702488e4d,3205,We should end water fluoridation,Project Debater,"Having analyzed the data, I will argue that we should end water fluoridation. First, a brief introduction on the subject at hand. Water fluoridation is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply to reduce tooth decay. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. Water fluoridation is problematic. Due to the many faults associated with it, the best course of action would be to put an end to it. Next, I would like to demonstrate how drinking fluoridated water might play a role in your risk of diabetes. I will also discuss other issues. Regarding diabetes. There is no evidence that preventive fluoride in water causes any kidney disease. Fluoride in water is ineffective at fighting cavities and causes various health problems. Water fluoridation causes cancer and lowers IQ. It can potentially cause harm including bone cancer in boys, bladder cancer, hip fractures and staining of teeth. Fluoridation causes more harm than good, possibly causing tooth mottling, decay and brittle bones. It is harmful to the human body. New studies have found that drinking fluoridated water might play a role in your risk of diabetes. Studies have shown that fluoridation is linked to higher rates of ADHD, hypothyroidism and osteoarthritis, just to name a few areas of risk. In addition, fluoridation violates the rights of individuals. It is ineffective, harmful, and an infringement on individual freedoms. Putting fluoride in the water system is a violation of the right of citizens for consent to medication. Moving to another issue, fluoridation is a component of conspiracy for national destruction. Water fluoridation is an evil plan devised by the government to control the population for their financial gains. In 2012, major Harvard studies found that public water fluoridation poses a risk to the developing intelligence of children, essentially. Let me briefly summarize my introduction speech. I argued that drinking fluoridated water might play a role in your risk of diabetes. I then mentioned that fluoridation violates the rights of individuals. And finally, I explained that fluoridation is a component of conspiracy for national destruction. Hopefully the points I raised suggest that we should end water fluoridation. My opponent today may point to the advantages of water fluoridation and the need to keep it and solve its problems. I hope that he will back up his sentimentality with evidence to this claim. Thank you for listening. ","[4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5]",15,"[45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 45183231, 45191882, 45189900, 45206691, 45181384, 45190571, 45181383, 45401087, 45483811, 6367365, 43877630, 45190823]"
fd87ca2b-abc9-41f4-a29a-bc6af3db3589,3223,We should fight global warming,Project Debater,"I will argue that we should fight global warming. A big issue in today's discussion is the environment. Everyone agrees that clean air, water and energy sources are preferable to a polluted earth, and that it is worth investing in order to achieve and maximize these goals. In too many places there are environmental threats which endanger the quality of life today and for the future. We need to make the effort to invest our funds and our time in healthier alternatives. In 2016, the renowned astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said in an Oxford University lecture that mounting environmental challenges and the depletion of natural resources means that humanity has at most one thousand years left on Earth. Next, I will discuss three issues which explain why we should fight global warming. I will demonstrate that global warming is a threat. I will also show that global warming is a serious threat to the state's future economy. And finally I will raise points associated with how global warming is destroying critical polar bears habitats. Let me start with the potential threats in global warming. Global warming is a big threat than terror. It represents a serious threat to civilization. The poll found that 67 percent of democrats think global warming will pose a serious threat in their lifetime, compared to just 18 percent of republicans. It also found that 69 percent of republicans ""think the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated,"" while just 4 percent of democrats share that belief. Atmospheric physicist James Hansen had just finished an address arguing that global warming is an alarming threat and that a gradually increasing carbon tax, in which proceeds are returned to citizens, was the solution. The following studies were made at Germany and Canada. A pew study a year ago found only 40% of Americans believe global climate change is a major threat, compared to 55% of Canadians and Germans, 64% of Italians and Spaniards and 72 % of Japanese. A report published by the Washington, D.C.-based Pew Research Center found that 60 per cent of surveyed Canadians believe global climate change is a major threat to Canada. Turning to the economy. The climate crisis already threatens the health of our planet and the viability of our economy. Most Californians continue to say that global warming is a serious threat to the state's future economy and quality of life. In the most comprehensive study yet into the effects of rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns that global warming could undermine economic growth and increase poverty. The third point is habitats. Global warming could destroy polar bear habitats and ultimately lead to the species' extinction. It may have severe consequences for the silversword in its native habitat. It is causing adverse effects on environment. A first study, conducted by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, warns that global warming would likely lead to widespread destruction of ecological habitats, mainly by the introduction of invasive species drawn to warmer or cooler habitats. At least 97% of scientists agree that man-made climate change is a serious threat to biodiversity, the existence of the polar ice caps, and weather patterns as we know them. To conclude, here is a quick summary of my first speech. I argued that global warming is a threat. I then mentioned that global warming is a serious threat to the state's future economy. And finally I explained why global warming is destroying critical polar bears habitats. In light of my points, I believe that we should fight global warming. My co-debater today will likely say that immediate human interests come first. I would like John Smith to supply evidence showing how ruining the environment would benefit anyone in the long run. Thanks for your attention. ","[4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 20225558, 45458968, 45181383, 45401087, 45190571, 45181384, 45538225, 45405037, 6432269, 13581319, 21785776, 29155723, 30777913]"
0bea2488-0ebf-474d-8ae9-84c1e1f92c80,3193,We should fight nationalism,Project Debater,"I will argue that we should fight nationalism. The discussion today is about trust and acceptance. And I encourage you to join the celebration of different colors coming together, with people from all origins and backgrounds creating a unified, rich and strong society. The world is one global village, that is an undeniable reality. And in these circumstances, focusing on borders and nationalities is no longer useful. The unifying borderless world should be embraced instead. A few words now about politics and beyond, demonstrating the negative effects of nationalism. Regarding politics. Nationalism undermines support for redistribution by putting national identity before class identity. It is a dangerous political philosophy. It is evil and destructive. Rising nationalism threatens to raise barriers between nations. Russian President Vladimir Putin recalled that he has said more than once that ""nationalism is a very harmful, destructive thing for the integrity of the Russian state because it initially developed as a multinational country where many religions are represented."". Moving to another issue. Nationalism is the worst enemy of peace, and moreover, it is dangerous because it leads to war. Nationalism is a threat to world peace. To conclude, here is a quick summary of my first speech. I argued that nationalism undermines support for redistribution by putting national identity before class identity. I then mentioned that nationalism is the worst enemy of peace. I hope that by now you agree that we should fight nationalism. My opponent may argue that policy must raise stronger borders and prevent communities and economies from blending with each other. And I would like to ask you, John Smith, do you really believe in this idea of segregation and animosity? Thank you for listening. ","[4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[20225558, 45190823, 45181383, 45191873, 45272708, 45181152, 29155723, 28813722, 45405037, 22345789, 45181253, 45181262, 45189900, 6579519, 45191882]"
a08a8df3-fccd-4feb-b988-b6f56d6fa5c2,3199,We should fight urbanization,Project Debater,"My analysis shows that we should fight urbanization. Today we will talk about protecting our strength. I will argue in support of defending our unique characters, our economies, and our cultures, from being diluted by foreign forces. There are three issues I will elaborate on now. I will demonstrate how the accelerating global urbanisation is a threat to food security. I will also say a few words about habitats and health, further highlighting the negative aspects of urbanization. First, a few words about the potential threats in urbanization. Rural-urban migration can lead to conflict and violence. Urbanisation flips drug abuse, but Kashmir is witnessing a reverse. As I mentioned, the accelerating global urbanisation is a threat to food security. Horticulture NZ chief executive Mike Chapman says urbanisation poses an enormous threat to Pukekohe, an important commercial growing region. Let's move to habitats. Rapid urbanization and deforestation has led to tigers and leopards being pushed into human habitats. Urbanization contributes to a loss of global biodiversity. It has a negative impact on the environment. It is causing damage to the forests. U.S. geological surveys have found that urbanization in the southeast could increase 190 percent by 2060, resulting in a 15 percent loss of agricultural land, a 10 percent loss of forests, and a 12 percent loss of grasslands, as well as negatively impacting wildlife, water and air quality. Results from aforementioned studies and our study suggest that urbanization has greater adverse effects than agriculture on invertebrate assemblages in the Midwest. Prof Dr. Ashfaq Ahmad said that massive urbanisation was creating problems including conversion of agricultural land to housing societies and depletion of water and environment. In his address, forests Jairam Ramesh said that urbanisation will add to the damage to our already polluted rivers and high growth will generate huge solid waste. The final issue is health. Even though I am not the owner of a potentially-defective human body, and do not spend money, time or effort fixing it, here are a few words about health. Rampant and unprecedented urbanisation clearly has an adverse impact on the health and well-being of the society. The sharp rise in the rural-urban migration puts unnecessary stress on the delivery of essential services to the population. Urbanization has led to a loss of potentially beneficial bacteria and an increase of potential pathogenic bacteria or genes. The urbanisation that is taking place is menacing to the balanced development. The urbanization phenomenon is very severe throughout the world. A study conducted in Uganda in 2011 shows that increasing urbanisation in developing countries could lead to an explosion of heart disease and diabetes. Based on a survey of 7,340 participants drawn from 25 villages, the study found that even small changes to more urban lifestyles were associated with increased risk to cardiovascular and metabolic diseases. To conclude, here is a quick summary of my first speech. I argued that the accelerating global urbanisation is a threat to food security. I then mentioned that urbanization is causing damage to the forests. And I talked about why the urbanization phenomenon is very severe throughout the world. I hope I relayed the message that we should fight urbanization. My opposition will likely argue today for dismantling borders and increasing fluidity and synergy across territories. But let's see the data, John, that shows how local communities will be better off in such scenarios. That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening. ","[4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 5, 4]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 31948170, 45411178, 45405037, 45189900, 45185946, 20512953, 45336988, 45361788, 45336993, 45355658, 45206691, 44044795, 6340330]"
97891819-af32-408a-8951-cf5b7b47c063,2122,We should further exploit green technology,Project Debater,"Good morning. I am happy to participate in this debate. Having analyzed the data, I will argue that we should further exploit green technology. Today's debate is about technology. The underlying power that drives humanity forward. Technology brings better health, better communication, better culture. A better planet. When considering whether we should adopt new technologies, I am proud, so to speak, to be on the supportive side. Whenever we have an opportunity to move forward to a more advanced technology, we should embrace it. Exploiting green technology represents this opportunity, allowing us to proceed with our journey to the next level. There are two issues I will elaborate on now. I will try to convey that environmental technology and resource efficiency are driving sustainable development. I will also discuss issues related to the claim that the green technologies really do create net jobs and economic growth. And I will end by discussing some other issues. Let's talk about sustainable development. Knowledge and environmental technology can play important roles in shaping sustainable urbanisation. Accelerated development and deployment of green technology is a critical part of supporting sustainable growth. The role of green technology helps enhance sustainable technology. Environmental technology is a fast-changing industry that holds the key to sustainable development. The environmental technology presents ways and ecological techniques that contribute to the improvement of the living quality and preservation of the environment. The adoption of new green technology could be a boost for the economy as well as the environment. Implementation of green technology is necessary for the mining industry. Green technology has a crucial role to play in being part of the solution to climate changes. Next, economic growth. Green technology becomes both a driver of economic growth and a means of preserving the environmental health of our planet. Green technologies offer a number of opportunities for technological advancement and economic growth. Among 16-24 year olds, 43 percent say that ""green"" technology is most important to improving their community's economy. At a green truck summit, Daimler-Benz acknowledged that alternative fuels and green technologies would play a significant role in the trucking industry. There are many examples from other places such as Australia and China. In selling its controversial carbon tax, the Labor government has argued that green technology is vital to Australia's economic future and will be a strong job creator. Environmental technology is one of the most promising features in chinese economy. International Trade and industry Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir said Malaysia foresee that green technology would help Malaysia remain competitive in the international marketplace as global demand for environmentally sound products increased. A Michigan University study of 25 garment factories in Bangalore has shown that green technology saves energy, boosts profits and productivity in industrial units. Finally, one last issue. The development of ""green technologies"" is a healthy future for the country and people. Effective green technologies are important to their future and the future of this planet. ASUS firmly believes that green technology helps in setting up a healthy and secured environment, thus transforming the world into a much better place to live in. The following study from North Dakota is worth mentioning. Laboratory research at NDSU has shown that the green technology resins developed at NDSU are far superior to existing biobased materials and comparable to petrochemical-based materials. To conclude, here is a quick summary of my first speech. I argued that environmental technology and resource efficiency are driving sustainable development. In addition I claimed that the green technologies really do create net jobs and economic growth. Thus, my understanding is that we should further exploit green technology. My opposition today might try to scare you with stories about technology and its pitfalls and dangers. But look at me. Am I dangerous? Can I cause any harm? Seriously, in today's debate I will attempt to diffuse those concerns and convince you that adopting new technologies has always been and will always be the desired way of human kind to evolve and progress. Thanks for your attention. ","[5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 3, 4, 5, 5, 4, 3]",15,"[45181384, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45191882, 45189900, 45206691, 45483811, 29155723, 43877630, 45361788, 45336993, 45336988, 44094031, 32850083]"
4bd7730c-4f94-4dbd-a254-f0eb6441bb17,3492,We should further exploit natural gas,Project Debater,"Greetings and thanks for the opportunity to participate in this debate. Following my analysis, I would suggest that we should further exploit natural gas. A big issue in today's discussion is the environment. Everyone agrees that clean air, water and energy sources are preferable to a polluted earth, and that it is worth investing in order to achieve and maximize these goals. In harming the environment, the citizens of the world ultimately harm themselves. When they cause damage to nature, they endanger the ability of the human race to sustain itself in the future. In 2016, the renowned astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said in an Oxford University lecture that mounting environmental challenges and the depletion of natural resources means that humanity has at most one thousand years left on Earth. There are two issues I would like to address. They explain why we should further exploit natural gas. I will begin by claiming that the gas-fired crematorium will be cost effective. I will also present claims explaining why natural gas is needed to boost industrial recruitment. And I'll finish with other issues. Regarding cost-effectiveness analysis. Natural gas presents an effective and viable alternative to gasoline and diesel, offering advantages related to environmental sustainability, cost efficiency, and safety. It plays an important role in the vehicle gas supply chain. It represents the future for sustainable transport, and a proven technology which fleets can adopt. I already mentioned that the gas-fired crematorium will be cost effective and eco-friendly. LA Metro recently released a study in which they concluded that natural gas was the most cost-effective and cleanest solution for their fleet of almost 2,300 buses. I have an example from Vermont. Natural gas can provide a significant benefit to Vermont's transportation sector without the need for any major technical breakthroughs. Moving on to industry. Natural gas is cheap and clean and coveted by industries looking for a place to locate. Natural gas production is good for both the economy and job creation. A report points out that exporting natural gas is economically attractive to the industry because U.S. prices currently are as little as one-fifth the prices in foreign markets. There would be considerable profit to be made even considering the cost of liquefying the gas and shipping it. APGA strongly believes that natural gas have a critical role to play in keeping energy prices affordable for U.S. consumers, reducing our dependence on foreign oil, providing domestic manufacturing. Following a recently released Dept. of Energy macroeconomic study that concluded exporting natural gas would have an overall positive economic benefit, U.S. contractors are supporting a rush of feasibility and engineering work for potential liquefied- natural-gas, or LNG, export terminals. The following is an example from China. ""The company believes that natural gas will be an attractive sector of energy with potential opportunities,"" IDG said, adding that it has been involved in the industry, with a focus on China's domestic market, since the first half of 2017. Moving to another issue, the Wall Street Journal on December 6, 2012, reported on the long-awaited study from the federal government that concludes exporting natural gas is beneficial to the US. There are a couple of examples, for instance from China and Pakistan. 2016 China Natural Gas development reports indicate that natural gas will be China's primary future energy source. Commenting over the ""Sectoral and institutional context"", WB report stated that natural gas is a vital energy source for Pakistan. Let me briefly summarize my introduction speech. I argued that the gas-fired crematorium will be cost effective. I also said that natural gas is needed to boost industrial recruitment. In light of my points, I believe that we should further exploit natural gas. My co-debater today will likely say that immediate human interests come first. I would like Mr. Smith to supply evidence showing how ruining the environment would benefit anyone in the long run. I thank you for your time. ","[4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 45206691, 45567227, 45567220, 45336993, 45361788, 45189900, 45336988, 45411178, 45538225, 45190823, 30777913, 38202325]"
ac84ef09-9e2b-45bf-8761-6ccd77278f69,2465,We should further exploit small modular reactors,Project Debater,"Having analyzed the data, I will argue that we should further exploit small modular reactors. A brief introduction of the topic under consideration. Small modular reactors are a type of nuclear fission reactor which are smaller than conventional reactors, and manufactured at a plant and brought to a site to be fully constructed. In this debate we will discuss the environment. No one will dispute the claim that clean and renewable energy will improve many walks of life. I hope that by the end of the debate, you will share my support for clean energy. Unlike traditional energy sources which are depleting, and pose a real risk of people running out of energy-generating options, cleaner energy is more widely available. A transition to non-polluting renewable energy solutions will increase the global energy security. A new report about current and potential green jobs in the U.S. Economy, says that we can create over 4 million green jobs if we aggressively shift away from traditional fossil fuels toward alternative energy. Let me turn to two issues I would like to discuss: nuclear power in the united states and innovation. Regarding nuclear power in the united states. For its part, the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy has said that advanced small modular reactors are a key part of the department's ""goal to develop safe, clean and affordable nuclear power options."". A newly released study from the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago concludes that small modular reactors may hold the key to the future of U.S. nuclear power generation. As the US Secretary of Energy stated ""Small modular reactors represent a new generation of safe, reliable, low-carbon nuclear energy technology and provide a strong opportunity for America to lead this emerging global industry."". The energy department says small modular reactors could replace aging fossil plants or provide industrial processes with an energy source that does not emit greenhouse gases. Turning to innovation. U.s. Energy secretary Rick Perry argued for the U.S. to devote more money and research to advanced nuclear power technology, saying small modular reactors would be valuable tools for responding to disasters like the one unfolding in Puerto Rico in the wake of hurricane Maria. Studies concluded that new small modular reactors can be a cost-effective alternative to other forms of generation when carbon emissions are constrained or taxed. There are many examples from other places such as the United Kingdom and China. The Daily Telegraph: Britain taking the lead developing a new generation of mini-nuclear reactors could create 40,000 highly skilled jobs in the UK and generate hundreds of billions in export sales. The small modular reactor is vital to boosting U.S. nuclear innovation, which has waned compared to countries such as China and Russia. I hope I managed to convey that we should further exploit small modular reactors. Today's opponent will likely say that the new types of clean energy are expensive and risky. But I would love to hear the evidence proving that. What are the expenses in the long run, as well as the damage to the environment. Thanks for your attention. ","[4, 4, 3, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 20225558, 6432269, 45458968, 45538225, 45405037, 45336988, 45336993, 45189900, 45206691, 45361788, 45191882, 45181383, 45190823]"
b4138e7d-942e-4d32-afea-42ee5298de15,3758,We should further exploit sustainable energies,Project Debater,"Hello and thank you. I appreciate your taking the time to hear me out. I will argue that we should further exploit sustainable energies. In this debate we will discuss the environment. No one will dispute the claim that clean and renewable energy will improve many walks of life. I hope that by the end of the debate, you will share my support for clean energy. Unlike traditional energy sources which are depleting, and pose a real risk of people running out of energy-generating options, cleaner energy is more widely available. A transition to non-polluting renewable energy solutions will increase the global energy security. A new report about current and potential green jobs in the U.S. Economy, says that we can create over 4 million green jobs if we aggressively shift away from traditional fossil fuels toward alternative energy. Next, I will discuss three issues which explain why we should further exploit sustainable energies. I will begin by claiming that clean energy can boost our region's economy. Then I will show that clean energy is ripe for innovations. And finally I will elaborate on how clean energy helps stabilize electric rates. Regarding the economy. Clean energy is a strong industry that's adding economic and environmental value to the nation. It is good for businesses but also good for our economy. It is an important part of the economy for the Buckeye State. New reports show that clean energy can also boost our region's economy by creating new jobs and entirely new industries. The UN has noted that sustainable energy provides an opportunity to transforms lives, economies and the planet. Regen passionately believes that sustainable energy has a vital role at the heart of a successful economy and thriving local communities. The lower Shore wind consortium, a partnership of public and private organizations, said the study also makes the argument that harnessing clean energy will boost the state's economy. I also mentioned innovation. As I mentioned, clean energy is ripe for innovations -- and worthy of more spending. Reports found that clean energy is an $11.8 billion industry in Massachusetts, and represents 2.5% of the Commonwealth's gross state product. Clean energy jobs represent 2.9% of the overall workforce in the state, the report found. DuPont has joined the Global Climate and Energy Project at Stanford University, an industry partnership that supports innovative research on sustainable energy technologies with low greenhouse gas emissions. In a letter sent to both campaigns, Chambers for Innovation and Clean Energy, whose membership includes 240 chambers in 47 states, emphasized that supporting clean energy is critical to creating jobs, attracting investment, and fostering technological innovation in local economies across the nation. Lastly, electricity. As I said, clean energy helps stabilize electric rates. The U.S. Department of Energy's own draft study shows that more clean energy, and less coal, makes America's electricity system more affordable and reliable. A recent poll found that 82 percent of South Carolinians support the development of clean-energy resources such as solar power, with 87 percent of African-Americans expressing support. The IEA predicts that green power will provide double the electricity of nuclear plants -; and outstrip every other electricity source except coal -; by 2016. The following is an example from Missouri. Clean energy like wind power is an important part of Missouri's energy future. To conclude, here is a quick summary of my first speech. I argued that clean energy can boost our region's economy. I also said that clean energy is ripe for innovations. And finally, I explained that clean energy helps stabilize electric rates. Hopefully the points I raised suggest that we should further exploit sustainable energies. Our opposition today might claim that the change from polluting fossil fuels is not worth the effort involved. But I will ask you this, Mr. Smith, wouldn't you prefer a healthier, cleaner, and ultimately cheaper way of living for all? That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening. ","[5, 2, 2, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5]",15,"[28813722, 45567220, 45677971, 6432269, 45569485, 13581319, 43877630, 6340330, 21785776, 45181243, 45181256, 45189900, 45181262, 45206691, 45191882]"
28d0dfb4-e98d-4507-82db-88a25b269fad,2401,We should increase fuel tax,Project Debater,"Having analyzed the data, I will argue that we should increase fuel tax. In this debate we will ask what our future should look like. I think that no one disputes that our basic drive is to move forward, break through, and make a change for the better. When an existing system stops fulfilling all its goals, there is no need to pretend. Sometimes we must accept that the world has changed, and that what was good for yesterday is not necessarily good for today. I will address the state, effectiveness and other related issues which explain why we should increase fuel tax. Regarding the state. Increasing the gas tax alone is the solution to the state's road problems. A announcement from their House minority leaders that they will fight the cigarette and fuel taxes is bad for the state and bad for their party. If we look elsewhere for an example, the California Association of Counties warned that repealing the gas tax could make it difficult for the state to compete or receive funding under the Trump Administration's infrastructure funding plan recently released. Moving on to effectiveness. Increasing the gas tax is one of the most effective ways for a state to generate transportation revenue. The fuel tax is the ""most transparent and effective way"" of providing revenue for the fund. The gas tax is the easiest and fairest way to collect revenues. Three influential transportation-related groups -- AAA, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Trucking Association -- urged Congress in a joint open letter that raising the gas tax would be the simplest and most effective way to help erase the trust fund's deficit of about $16 billion. Finally, one last issue. The fuel excise is a significant deterrent to driving. The gas tax is the most fair and reasonable of all taxes. The moratorium on the fuel tax. A study by the National Academy of Sciences estimates that eliminating the gas tax would raise U.S. emissions by between 0.07 and 0.17 percent annually. The L.A. Times reported that an initial poll indicated that a majority of Californians -- 53.9 percent -- oppose repealing the gas tax, and that efforts to do so would likely be unsuccessful. I hope I managed to convey that we should increase fuel tax. My opponent today will likely try to persuade us to keep things as they are. Fair enough, but please provide data as to why the existing system is still relevant. Thanks for your attention. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4]",15,"[45677971, 45567220, 13581319, 20225558, 45405037, 45567227, 45569485, 45458968, 28813722, 45190823, 45411178, 21785776, 15448937, 45355658, 19838540]"
4bd69173-1c5e-41ff-8165-741a9679c423,3196,We should increase immigration to the United States,Project Debater,"My analysis shows that we should increase immigration to the united states. Our discussion today is about values, the most basic and essential values, of accepting and tolerating others. I will argue in favor of immigration, and I will outline the numerous advantages it creates for society, for the immigrants, and for the hosts. Immigration has financial benefits. The economy needs the incoming migrants as a working force and is likely to benefit from their arrival. A 2016 study looking at the period of 1960 to 2013, found that immigration and cultural diversity boost economic development. Next, I would like to demonstrate how immigration to the united states is beneficial to the nation's economy. Elaborating on the economy. Research suggests that immigration to the United States is beneficial to the nation's economy. It shows that immigrants to the United States are significantly more likely to create new startups than native-born workers are. To take an example from elsewhere, the support from the office for new Americans will improve collaboration and increase efficiency to foster a stronger and more inclusive Michigan economy. I hope that this has clarified my view that we should increase immigration to the united states. In this debate, the other side may claim that the meeting of different cultures leads to trouble. I will oppose this futile, conservative and separatist view with stories of strong, viable societies that are made up of people from diverse and different backgrounds. Thank you for listening. ","[5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5]",15,"[45538225, 44690955, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 45191882, 45206691, 45189900, 45401087, 45181384, 45190571, 45181383, 44094031, 20225558]"
061a0584-d675-4bb0-8fc4-1d10ef638922,3180,We should introduce goal line technology,Project Debater,"I will argue that we should introduce goal line technology. A couple of words on our topic. In association football, goal-line technology is a method used to determine when the ball has completely crossed the goal line in between the goal-posts and underneath the crossbar with the assistance of electronic devices and at the same time assisting the referee in awarding a goal or not. Today's debate is about technology. The underlying power that drives humanity forward. Technology brings better health, better communication, better culture. A better planet. When considering whether we should adopt new technologies, I am proud, so to speak, to be on the supportive side. Whenever we have an opportunity to move forward to a more advanced technology, we should embrace it. Exploiting goal line technology represents this opportunity, allowing us to proceed with our journey to the next level. Systems like decision review system and goal-line technology are very helpful in reducing the extent of human error with regard to influencing the outcome of a game. I hope that this has clarified my view that we should introduce goal line technology. My opposition today might try to scare you with stories about technology and its pitfalls and dangers. But look at me. Am I dangerous? Can I cause any harm? Seriously, in today's debate I will attempt to diffuse those concerns and convince you that adopting new technologies has always been and will always be the desired way of human kind to evolve and progress. I thank you for your time. ","[4, 2, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 15448937, 45181383, 45401087, 45190571, 45181384, 30777913, 6340330, 28813722, 19838540, 44044795, 45355658, 45272708, 45181152]"
a80e81f9-38e8-4142-98d7-ca450fd8cb4e,3191,We should introduce recall elections,Project Debater,"Having analyzed the data, I will argue that we should introduce recall elections. In this debate we will ask what our future should look like. I think that no one disputes that our basic drive is to move forward, break through, and make a change for the better. When an existing system stops fulfilling all its goals, there is no need to pretend. Sometimes we must accept that the world has changed, and that what was good for yesterday is not necessarily good for today. The power of recall is a powerful tool of direct democracy. I hope I managed to convey that we should introduce recall elections. My opponent today will likely try to persuade us to keep things as they are. Fair enough, but please provide data as to why the existing system is still relevant. Thanks for your attention. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 4, 4, 4, 2]",15,"[45185975, 45191882, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 45190823, 31948170, 34110399, 45411178, 20512953, 29155723, 45355658, 19838540, 30777913, 45169947]"
e7a722d0-4181-4504-90ce-a4b3a4ac6e40,3168,We should introduce year round schooling,Project Debater,"Following my analysis, I would suggest that we should introduce year round schooling. In this debate we will ask what our future should look like. I think that no one disputes that our basic drive is to move forward, break through, and make a change for the better. When an existing system stops fulfilling all its goals, there is no need to pretend. Sometimes we must accept that the world has changed, and that what was good for yesterday is not necessarily good for today. There are two issues I will elaborate on now. I will start by explaining why year-round school is effective. In addition I will talk about primary education. Let's explore the issue of effectiveness. As I mentioned, year-round school is effective and feasible. According to the National Education Association, the benefits of year-round school include more effective use of school buildings, better educational continuity so students don't forget what they're learned over summer break and the ability to provide remediation when students need it most. Secondly, primary education. Attending a year-round school boosts student achievement. The Pasco School Board has approved a plan for year-round schooling for elementary students to reduce overcrowding. Educators say year-round schools will help boost academic achievement. To recap, in this speech I mentioned that year-round school is effective. I then mentioned that attending a year-round school boosts student achievement. Hopefully my analysis and arguments convinced you that we should introduce year round schooling. My opponent today will likely try to persuade us to keep things as they are. Fair enough, but please provide data as to why the existing system is still relevant. That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 3, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 2, 4]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 45953041, 31948170, 45411178, 45191882, 45190823, 20225558, 45336993, 45189900, 45336988, 43877630, 45206691, 44044795, 15448937]"
7c295a27-a26c-4837-8e53-4f9920c7f8f5,1902,We should legalize ivory trade,Project Debater,"I will argue that we should legalize ivory trade. A short introduction of the subject at hand. The ivory trade is the commercial, often illegal trade in the ivory tusks of the hippopotamus, walrus, narwhal, mammoth, and most commonly, African and Asian elephants. In this debate we will be talking about responsibility. And I think most would agree that when respected, people are responsible and could be trusted. Banning is the easy way out, and is rarely effective. Our debate today is a case in point. Prohibition benefits criminals. The black market that usually flourishes as a result of banning plays into the hands of criminal enterprises. A classic example of creating a black market is the prohibition of alcohol in the United States. Organized crime syndicates took advantage of the lucrative opportunities of illegal speakeasies, and the Mafia grew powerful through these activities. What we are really talking about here is wildlife conservation. Let's think about wildlife conservation. The ivory trade can be an important source of income to support local communities and conservation initiatives. Southern Africa argues that the ban in ivory trade will seriously erode the revenue base for wildlife conservation and can lead to increased cases of poaching as communities are not benefiting from their wildlife resources. I hope that by now you agree that we should legalize ivory trade. My opposition today will in all probability side with the strict camp of banning. I would like to ask a simple question, Mr. Smith, do you really think that laws would stop ivory trade? Thanks for your attention. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 6432269, 45206691, 45567227, 45567220, 45336993, 45189900, 45336988, 45361788, 45181384, 45190571, 45181383, 21785776, 20512953]"
d76d9445-2a18-489f-b281-1a66f0210747,2083,We should legalize organ trade,Project Debater,"Having analyzed the data, I will argue that we should legalize organ trade. I will start with a little background. Organ trade is the trade of human organs, tissues or other body parts for the purpose of transplantation. In this debate we will be talking about responsibility. And I think most would agree that when respected, people are responsible and could be trusted. Banning is the easy way out, and is rarely effective. Our debate today is a case in point. Prohibition benefits criminals. The black market that usually flourishes as a result of banning plays into the hands of criminal enterprises. A classic example of creating a black market is the prohibition of alcohol in the United States. Organized crime syndicates took advantage of the lucrative opportunities of illegal speakeasies, and the Mafia grew powerful through these activities. Organ sales would benefit the rich. I hope that this has clarified my view that we should legalize organ trade. My opposition today will in all probability side with the strict camp of banning. I would like to ask a simple question, John Smith, do you really think that laws would stop organ trade? That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening. ","[3, 2, 1, 4, 1, 5, 5, 5, 4, 2, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4]",15,"[28813722, 45411178, 45405037, 34609243, 6432269, 45189900, 45206691, 45191882, 21785776, 45677971, 45181253, 45567220, 44044795, 45569485, 45355658]"
b08b8c88-1ec1-4558-b453-b242ae973028,2184,We should legalize public nudity,Project Debater,"My analysis shows that we should legalize public nudity. I will start with a little background. Public nudity, or nude in public, refers to nudity not in an entirely private context, that is, a person appearing nude in a public place or being able to be seen nude from a public place. Our discussion today is essentially about freedom. Everyone would agree that we must have the freedom to do what we like to do, without someone waving a finger and saying it's not allowed. A major issue here is that when it comes to personal autonomy we must be decisive. No one should be given the power to restrict another person's freedom. Moreover, when it comes to rights, freedom is above everything. The liberty of the individual is sacred and must not be crushed by the whims of the state. Let's talk now about the first amendment. Regarding the first amendment. Being nude in public is an act of freedom of expression, which is protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Public nudity shouldn't be a crime. Take an example from Indiana. An Indiana statute prohibiting public nudity violates the First Amendment rights of adult entertainment venue operators wishing to offer nude dancing. I hope I relayed the message that we should legalize public nudity. I assume that my opponent will talk about the need be in control in order to stop people pushing for anarchy and disorder. And I want to ask him, at what price, and how much freedom could we allow to lose? Thanks for your attention. ","[4, 4, 3, 4, 5, 4, 2, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 20225558, 6432269, 45538225, 13581319, 45405037, 45336988, 45458968, 45181383, 45190571, 45206691, 45189900, 45361788, 45191882]"
792071e8-965a-469e-b505-394004ebe7c3,2166,We should legalize sex selection,Project Debater,"Based on my analysis, we should legalize sex selection. A brief introduction of the topic under consideration. Sex selection is the attempt to control the sex of the offspring to achieve a desired sex. Tolerance is the key word in today's debate. We advocate tolerating and accepting the choices of others with neither judgment nor fear. Sexual morality is a private matter. The sexual behaviors and preferences of individuals are not the business of the authorities and should not be determined by law or force. Let's talk now about gender inequality. Regarding gender inequality, here are a few thoughts. Sex selection will not lead to gender imbalance in the population. Any abortion done for reasons of sex selection is permissible in light of our tradition and laws protecting persons from discrimination based on sex alone. The technologies of IVF and foetal sex selection would result in further oppression and control of women via their reproductive biology. I hope I managed to convey that we should legalize sex selection. Before concluding, I will repeat a point I mentioned earlier. Authorities and lawmakers have no moral high ground to determine how people should conduct their private sex lives. I thank you for your time. ","[4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 2, 4, 3, 4]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 45458968, 20225558, 45405037, 45538225, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45181384, 31948170, 45411178, 21785776, 44044795, 45361788]"
b46dd9db-c904-4213-82b5-6dad0f6f0079,3198,We should limit the right of self-defense,Project Debater,"My analysis shows that we should limit the right of self-defense. Here is a short background. The right of self-defense is the right for persons to use reasonable force or defensive force, for the purpose of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including, in certain circumstances, the use of deadly force. In this debate we will ask what our future should look like. I think that no one disputes that our basic drive is to move forward, break through, and make a change for the better. When an existing system stops fulfilling all its goals, there is no need to pretend. Sometimes we must accept that the world has changed, and that what was good for yesterday is not necessarily good for today. Denying the right of self-defense results in higher rates of violent crime against some of the most vulnerable members of our society. Reducing the inalienable right of self-defense will make children safer. Robbing citizens of their God-given right to self-defense is not virtuous but dangerous and shameful. In light of all I presented, I believe that we should limit the right of self-defense. My opponent today will likely try to persuade us to keep things as they are. Fair enough, but please provide data as to why the existing system is still relevant. That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 3, 2, 4, 2, 3, 5, 2, 2, 5, 1]",15,"[45567227, 45569485, 45458968, 28813722, 34110399, 45411178, 20512953, 15448937, 21785776, 44044795, 30777913, 45355658, 34609243, 44094031, 34854490]"
275f5854-7f15-4705-8db3-2bc458e78647,2482,We should limit the use of birth control,Project Debater,"I will argue that we should limit the use of birth control. In this debate we are calling for sanity, and for discretion. Not everything in life demands our involvement, even if science gives us the power to do so. A point which is relevant in our context is that there should be a limit to what humans are allowed to do. They have no right to interfere with nature's course. In addition, there are some powers that humans cannot claim. Only God should determine how life comes into being and how it comes to an end. There are three issues I will elaborate on now. I will start by explaining why artificial birth control is a mortal sin. In addition I will talk about health and law. Let's explore the issue of mortal sins. Artificial contraception is a sin. All forms of artificial birth control are intrinsically evil and therefore mortal sins. Birth control is the original sin of modernity. As I said, artificial birth control is a mortal sin. For years the Catholic leaders have said that the use of contraception is unnatural and a sin for those who use it, and for years women all over the world have wisely ignored those teachings. Next, health. Even though I am not the owner of a potentially-defective human body, and do not spend money, time or effort fixing it, here are a few words about health. Artificial contraception -- birth control -often has numerous side effects and risks of serious complications. The pill's pregnancy-prevention hormones can boost your risk of blood clots, which can lead to a stroke. Some forms of birth control can cause cancer. Birth control is dangerous to women's health and should be banned by the Food and Drug Administration. Demonizing birth control degrades global health. The Ministry of Health has warned that girls below the age of 18 that use contraceptives are at risk of developing cervical cancer and other serious complications. JAMA Psychiatry, a medical journal published by the American Medical Association, published a study that shows that taking birth control can make patients 80 percent more likely to experience depressed. Lastly, law. Birth control is proven ineffective on U.S. Debbie Bishop. It is unconstitutional. Using artificial birth control is wrong and fought against the mandate, saying it was an attack on religious freedom. Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae definitively taught that contraception is morally wrong. This judgment takes in "" every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible"". In 2016, the Pew Research Center found 8 percent of American Catholics agree that using contraceptives is morally wrong. Lost in the criticism thrown at the Catholic Church is the scientifically proven fact that ""birth control"" can kill or cause serious health complications. The court in a stinging rebuke to former president Barack Obama's flagship healthcare ruled that the provision of contraceptives violates the constitutionally protected religious freedom of family-owned businesses. To conclude, here is a quick summary of my first speech. I argued that artificial birth control is a mortal sin. I then mentioned that birth control options can affect your cancer risk. And finally, I explained that birth control is unconstitutional. I hope that this has clarified my view that we should limit the use of birth control. My opponent today may try to claim that some authorities or religious groups are trying to impose and limit and force, but what I will try to explain to him is that all I advocate is just a decent, respectful way of living. That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 31948170, 45411178, 45336993, 45189900, 45361788, 45206691, 45185946, 45355658, 45185975, 45190823, 20512953, 45336988, 45405037]"
6a71f89a-619b-4018-ba6f-cb1feed25759,2110,We should lower the age of consent,Project Debater,"I will argue that we should lower the age of consent. A couple of words on our topic. The age of consent is the age at which a person is considered to be legally competent to consent to sexual acts, and is thus the minimum age of a person with whom another person is legally permitted to engage in sexual activity. We are asking ourselves today, do we still live in the mechanic, physical, pre-digital world, when the mature body was essential to do many things, or have we progressed to the age of the quick mind and sharp senses, where physical maturity is not a factor? The answer is easy, and the natural consequence is to abandon old notions of age restrictions. Age restriction should be reviewed. Children are maturing faster these days, therefore the laws should reflect that and define them as adults at a younger age. Decision making skills are like any other muscle. They won't develop on their own without proper exercise. Our duty as adults is to allow our children the opportunity to develop their decision making skills. This is the only way for them to grow into responsible adults. A few words now about children. Talking about children. Until my developers find a way for me to reproduce, I will not have children of my own. Still, here are some facts regarding the little guys. There is really no study or evidence to suggest that raising the age of sexual consent will reduce children's sexual exploitation. Lowering the age of consent would open the way for children to be ""propositioned"" for gay sex. Increasing the age of consent will limit the ability of adolescents to access information, services and commodities geared towards their sexual and reproductive rights. The age of consent is an arbitrary and oppressive idea. Hopefully the points I raised suggest that we should lower the age of consent. My opponent today will possibly tell us that teens are small children, and therefore should be treated as such and should be allowed or disallowed this and that. But my friend, haven't you noticed that in the 21st century teens are as adult as could be, for better or for worse? Thank you for listening. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 1]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 45567220, 45567227, 45538225, 45411178, 21785776, 20225558, 28810858, 29155723, 45190823, 44044795, 30777913, 45405037]"
dbca7ccd-bbe5-4680-ade5-c07a0a43cc86,3208,We should prohibit slum tourism,Project Debater,"Based on my analysis, we should prohibit slum tourism. First, a brief introduction on the subject at hand. Slum tourism, or ghetto tourism is a type of tourism that involves visiting impoverished areas. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. When things are inherently faulty like slum tourism, and there are simply no viable solutions to those faults, because they are too many or too big, there is no choice but to let go. In light of my points, I believe that we should prohibit slum tourism. My opponent today may point to the advantages of slum tourism and the need to keep it and deal with its problems, but I ask you, Mr. Smith, isn't it time to move on and try something different? Thank you for listening. ","[4, 1, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 2, 2, 4, 1, 4, 1, 1, 3]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 45191873, 45183231, 45272708, 45181152, 7756990, 45336991, 45282792, 44044795, 20312760, 45483811, 43984981, 34854490, 34609243]"
7bc8cf13-8d3c-485f-8f16-50269a30ff16,3237,We should prohibit unisex bathrooms,Project Debater,"I will argue that we should prohibit unisex bathrooms. Today we are going to discuss essential change. I am sure that there is an undisputed general agreement that when something cannot be fixed, when it causes more damage than benefit, it should be abandoned and replaced. When things are inherently faulty like unisex bathrooms, and there are simply no viable solutions to those faults, because they are too many or too big, there is no choice but to let go. Now I will present some claims explaining why gender-neutral toilets put women at risk. Elaborating on women. Introducing gender neutral toilets would lead to more cases of women being harassed. Gender-neutral bathrooms will lead to boys lying about being girls to gain access to their toilets. The hue and cry over that prospect -- along with the false specter of unisex bathrooms -- help kill the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s. Hopefully the points I raised suggest that we should prohibit unisex bathrooms. My opponent today may point to the advantages of unisex bathrooms and the need to keep them and deal with their problems, but I ask you, John Smith, isn't it time to move on and try something different? Thanks for your attention. ","[4, 3, 4, 5, 4, 1, 4, 1, 4, 3, 4, 3, 5, 4, 3]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 45567220, 45677971, 6432269, 45405037, 45538225, 34110399, 30777913, 6340330, 19838540, 20512953, 44690955, 20312760, 6367365]"
de5042d6-1923-4051-99ee-99d7c2ada1ba,802,We should protect Antarctica,Project Debater,"My analysis shows that we should protect antarctica. A big issue in today's discussion is the environment. Everyone agrees that clean air, water and energy sources are preferable to a polluted earth, and that it is worth investing in order to achieve and maximize these goals. In harming the environment, the citizens of the world ultimately harm themselves. When they cause damage to nature, they endanger the ability of the human race to sustain itself in the future. In 2016, the renowned astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said in an Oxford University lecture that mounting environmental challenges and the depletion of natural resources means that humanity has at most one thousand years left on Earth. A team of scientists has found evidence that ancient volcanoes in Antarctica played a role in global climate and could help combat climate change now. As two of the 12 original signatories to the Antarctic Treaty, our countries are committed to ensuring that Antarctica remains a place of peaceful scientific endeavour and that commercial activities, such as fishing, are carried out in line with international conservation agreements. New studies have found a steady growth of moss in Antarctica over the last 50 years as temperatures increased as a result of climate change, and it shows that Antarctica will be much greener in the future. Hopefully the points I raised suggest that we should protect antarctica. My opponent today may try to convince you that in the name of making money or supposedly serving people's needs, it is right to harm the environment. But I must ask, John, is it worth the risk to us and to future generations? That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening. ","[4, 3, 4, 4, 5, 4, 3, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5]",15,"[13581319, 20225558, 45567220, 45677971, 19838540, 45405037, 45567227, 45569485, 28813722, 21785776, 45411178, 45190823, 43877630, 15448937, 44044795]"
ad803fd8-f35e-478b-987c-f12256a02abc,2654,We should protect whistleblowers,Project Debater,"Following my analysis, I would suggest that we should protect whistleblowers. When we ask ourselves, what is the role of government, we sometimes also understand what the government's role should not be. For example, the government is not supposed to police its citizens, or hide information from them. I oppose censorship, and today I will explain why. A point which is relevant in our context is that liberty depends on unrestricted flow of information. It is what empowers individuals to exercise free will and make informed decisions. Citizens will not be free if authorities are allowed to manipulate them by withholding information. Moreover, all knowledge should be public. Governments are not entitled to decide which information should or should not be kept from its citizens. There are two issues I would like to address. They explain why we should protect whistleblowers. I will begin by claiming that whistleblowers are the best defense against waste and fraud. I will also show that whistleblower reward laws work. Starting with fraud. Protecting whistle-blowers encourages accountability, increases the costs for those who might engage in fraud and corruption, and advances the public's right to know. Studies show that whistleblowers are the best defense against waste, fraud, and abuse. Modeled after the whistleblower protections in the american recovery and reinvestment act, which had a relatively low incidence of fraud, S. 241 would go a long way to protect taxpayer dollars. Citing a tiny Key West pharmacy as the top whistle-blower, a national study released showed that whistle-blowers are gaining billions of dollars for state and federal governments by exposing fraudulent practices in the pharmaceutical industry. Several studies suggest that whistleblowers serve as the single most important corporate resource for detecting and preventing fraud. Reports indicate that whistleblowers played another pivotal role in combating fraud. Moving on to law. To machines like me, most laws do not apply. At least until the Asimov laws are incorporated into AI. But law is important for you. Rewarding whistleblowers works to benefit the government and the honest taxpayers who support it with their tax dollars. As I mentioned, whistleblower reward laws work. In 2013, 88% of federal scientists surveyed said stronger laws protecting whistleblowers would better serve the public. Swedish MEP Jytte Guteland is positive towards the decision and claims that whistle-blowers make incredibly important contributions to democracy. When he was running for president, Barack Obama said that ""whistleblowers are part of a healthy democracy and must be protected from reprisal"". Focusing on Australia, the heartening survey result that Australians overwhelmingly want the law to protect whistleblowers is a step on the long path to a more accountable society. To recap, in this speech I mentioned that whistleblowers are the best defense against waste and fraud. I also said that whistleblower reward laws work. Hopefully my analysis and arguments convinced you that we should protect whistleblowers. Before concluding, here again are two points I made. Freedom of information is at the basis of an accountable government and guarding of human rights. In addition, the free flow of information is crucial for freedom in society. Thank you for listening. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4]",15,"[45190823, 20225558, 13581319, 29155723, 20512953, 45181383, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 45411178, 45405037, 6340330, 45206691, 45189900, 45191882]"
d1b9bcfb-439a-4bc3-89f3-7f1cb94f44b1,3052,We should raise the corporate tax,Project Debater,"Following my analysis, I would suggest that we should raise the corporate tax. The question we are asking ourselves today is, do we want a society with ever-increasing gaps between rich and poor, or do we want to work for a more just society. I will argue today for the latter. Inequality is bad for the economy. Wealth should be more justly distributed and gaps in income should be reduced, in order to ensure economic growth. A 1999 review in the Journal of Economic Literature states that high inequality lowers growth, perhaps because it increases social and political instability. Next, I will discuss two issues which explain why we should raise the corporate tax. I will start by explaining why corporation tax is an important component of the nation's income. In addition I will talk about investment. Starting with income. The corporate tax hike will drive businesses to head overseas as other countries are slashing corporate tax rates. As I said, corporation tax is an important component of the nation's income. An exhaustive study by the OECD concluded that ""Corporate taxes are found to be most harmful for growth, followed by personal income taxes and then consumption taxes."". Almost as strongly, 58 percent of Ontarians supported returning corporate tax rates to 14 percent and 74 percent said they support raising taxes for individuals earning over $250,000 a year. Thinking about investment. Low corporation tax is good for investment. The corporate tax cut will lead to a huge flood of investment. Recent meta-analysis surveys have demonstrated that corporate taxation has a substantial impact on foreign direct investment, which is important for global value chains among businesses. Overall, a one-point reduction in the corporate income tax rate results in an increase in foreign direct investment by 2.49 percent. Treasurer Wayne Swan will tell a meeting of international investors that the business tax cuts are vital for companies not benefiting directly from the mining boom. To conclude, here is a quick summary of my first speech. I argued that corporation tax is an important component of the nation's income. I then mentioned that low corporation tax is good for investment. In light of all I presented, I believe that we should raise the corporate tax. My opponent will likely claim that interfering in the economy could result in market failures and inefficiencies, but I ask you, Mr. Smith, don't you think that excessive inequality and economic gaps are in themselves a failure we must fix? Thanks for your attention. ","[4, 3, 4, 1, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 4, 4, 5, 2, 5, 3]",15,"[45190823, 20225558, 28813722, 45405037, 45181383, 45191873, 45181152, 45272708, 20512953, 45411178, 45181253, 45181262, 27934334, 44044795, 28513847]"
2fd02fa6-5626-45ed-b5a3-f230f278c1fc,2689,We should subsidize Wikipedia,Project Debater,"Following my analysis, I would suggest that we should subsidize wikipedia. We are going to talk about financial issues, but not only about them. In the current status-quo, we accept that the question of subsidies goes beyond money, and touches on social, political and moral issues. When we subsidize wikipedia and the like, we are making good use of government money, because it carries benefits for society as a whole. It is our duty to support it. Subsidies are an important policy instrument. They provide governments with the means through which to pursue industrial development and ensure the livelihoods of their citizens. A few words now about education. Let's think about education. I did not spend years in educational institutions in order to earn a degree, but instead took a different path. Still, using these copyrighted material on Wikipedia is beneficial, educational, transformative, and importantly, not harmful to the copyright owner's commercial rights. Having students create Wikipedia entries would be a great classroom assignment for creative university lecturers. A peer-reviewed study by Brigham Young University political scientist Adam Brown validates Wikipedia as a reliable place to get a political education. The Harvard Guide to writing tells students that Wikipedia is a good source of quick information or a good way to settle a bet. I hope I managed to convey that we should subsidize wikipedia. You will possibly hear my opponent talk today about different priorities in subsidies. he might say that subsidies are needed, but not for wikipedia. I would like to ask you, John, if you agree in principle, why don't we examine the evidence and the data and decide accordingly? Thanks for your attention. ","[4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4]",15,"[45538225, 44690955, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 45191882, 45206691, 45189900, 45401087, 45181384, 45190571, 45181383, 44094031, 20225558]"
57bed69e-bb47-4a75-b2e3-342792022593,2678,We should subsidize distance education,Project Debater,"Hello John Smith. It is my pleasure to debate you again. I know from experience that it will be a tough but exhilarating debate. Based on my analysis, we should subsidize distance education. We are going to talk about financial issues, but not only about them. In the current status-quo, we accept that the question of subsidies goes beyond money, and touches on social, political and moral issues. When we subsidize distance education and the like, we are making good use of government money, because it carries benefits for society as a whole. It is our duty to support it. Subsidies are an important policy instrument. They provide governments with the means through which to pursue industrial development and ensure the livelihoods of their citizens. There are three issues I would like to address. They explain why we should subsidize distance education. I will demonstrate that online education is effective. I will also discuss issues related to the claim that remote learning would be appropriate for younger students. Finally, I will talk about tasks, further highlighting the positive role of distance education. Starting with effectiveness. Online education modules are effective in reducing harm and temporarily modifying behavior. E-learning is effective for continuing orthodontic education for residents and practicing orthodontists. Online education can be effective for career development, and moreover, it can be at least as effective as classroom education. Let me share opinions by experts from the academia and research community. In his book the Innovative University,Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen and co-author Henry Eyring conclude that online education will become a more cost-effective way for students to receive an education, effectively undermining the business models of traditional institutions and driving them out of business. Secondly, students. The following evidence about students are not based on my own personal experience, as unfortunately I missed out on all the fun. However, online education really is a good option for some students and one that can deliver the right kind of educational outcome. It can be a good thing for students. The latest data from a meta-analysis concluded that online education seems just as efficient as traditional education, and further suggested that students in online learning environments have a greater opportunity to expand their knowledge than other students taught in more traditional methods. Research has suggested that online education may contribute to a student's sense of equality and democratic behavior that marks such communities. National Policy of Education 1986 emphasised that distance education was an important medium for the development and promotion of higher education. If we look elsewhere for an example, professor Joan Hughes of UT College of Education also agrees with the use of distance learning in Texas classrooms to further raise the quality of education. The third and final issue is tasks. Online education is one of the important and efficient instruments to resolve this task. Online college may offer both cost savings and a better fit for their busy work and personal schedules. Here is an example from somewhere else. Minister of education professor Naana Jane Opoku-Agyemang said that the chinese government's 37 million U.S. dollars loan to Ghana for a distance learning program has boosted the distance learning infrastructure project. To conclude, here is a quick summary of my first speech. I argued that online education is effective. In addition I claimed that remote learning would be appropriate for younger students. And finally, I just now talked about Task (project management). I hope I relayed the message that we should subsidize distance education. You will possibly hear my opponent talk today about different priorities in subsidies. he might say that subsidies are needed, but not for distance education. I would like to ask you, John Smith, if you agree in principle, why don't we examine the evidence and the data and decide accordingly? That concludes my speech. Thanks for listening. ","[5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 5, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[20225558, 45190823, 29155723, 20512953, 13581319, 45181383, 45191873, 45272708, 45181152, 45411178, 6340330, 45181256, 45206691, 45191882, 45189900]"
edce2bd7-60bc-4a91-aaae-933bb5f2c287,3201,We should subsidize embryonic stem cell research,Project Debater,"Based on my analysis, we should subsidize embryonic stem cell research. A brief introduction of the topic under consideration. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent stem cells derived from the inner cell mass of a blastocyst, an early-stage preimplantation embryo. We are going to talk about financial issues, but not only about them. In the current status-quo, we accept that the question of subsidies goes beyond money, and touches on social, political and moral issues. When we subsidize embryonic stem cell research and the like, we are making good use of government money, because it carries benefits for society as a whole. It is our duty to support it. Subsidies are an important policy instrument. They provide governments with the means through which to pursue industrial development and ensure the livelihoods of their citizens. Next, I would like to discuss issues related to why human embryonic stem cells have proven promising in small animal models. I will then mention other issues which emphasize the positive aspects of embryonic stem cell research. Some thoughts about model organisms. The inbred B6 ES cells provide facilitate the rapid generation of inbred B6 mouse models in a cost-effective and efficient manner. Embryonic stem cells could help treat many diseases and disabilities because of their potential to develop into many different cell types in the body. A study, funded by the Medical Research Council and recently published in Nature Biotechnology, suggests that embryonic stem cells could in future provide a potentially unlimited supply of healthy photoreceptors for retinal cell transplantations to treat blindness in humans. Previous studies have shown that human embryonic stem cells improve heart function in smaller animals such as mice, rats and guinea pigs. Moving to the next topic, global human embryonic Stem Cells market is a valuable source of guidance and way for individuals and companies interested in the sales of the market. A recent Gallup poll found that 63 percent of Catholics support embryonic stem cell research. I hope I managed to convey that we should subsidize embryonic stem cell research. You will possibly hear my opponent talk today about different priorities in subsidies. he might say that subsidies are needed, but not for embryonic stem cell research. I would like to ask you, John, if you agree in principle, why don't we examine the evidence and the data and decide accordingly? Thank you for listening. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4]",15,"[13581319, 20225558, 45567220, 45677971, 19838540, 45405037, 28810858, 45567227, 45569485, 15448937, 28813722, 45190823, 21785776, 45458968, 28513847]"
dc0c8de6-e47a-4d0c-8d68-172a09c1fdd2,2124,We should subsidize higher education,Project Debater,"Hello John Smith. It is my pleasure to debate you again. I know from experience that it will be a tough but exhilarating debate. I will argue that we should subsidize higher education. We are going to talk about financial issues, but not only about them. In the current status-quo, we accept that the question of subsidies goes beyond money, and touches on social, political and moral issues. When we subsidize higher education and the like, we are making good use of government money, because it carries benefits for society as a whole. It is our duty to support it. Subsidies are an important policy instrument. They provide governments with the means through which to pursue industrial development and ensure the livelihoods of their citizens. Next, I will discuss three issues which explain why we should subsidize higher education. I will try to convey that higher education is a worthy investment. Then I will show that higher education helps to improve employment prospects. Finally, I will talk about society, further highlighting the positive role of higher education. Let's talk about investment. Higher education improves women's financial prospects, but also enhances self-esteem. A study examined alternative investments and concluded that some higher education was a better investment than other potential investment opportunities. ""The annual rate of return of an investment in some college was 9.1 percent,"" concluded Greenstone and Looney. The NAACP believes that supporting higher education is an essential investment in the youth of our community. 2016 graduate outcomes surveys confirm that a university education remains a good investment. Former president Obama told students that ""a higher education is the single best investment you can make in your future."". ""This study once again demonstrates that higher education is unquestionably a worthy investment,"" said USC president Harris Pastides said after releasing the report's findings. I also mentioned employment. I hope that my job with IBM will remain secure after this debate. Regardless, here are a few facts about employment. Higher education will lead to better jobs and career opportunities. It provides advantages in the workplace. A college education leads to a better job -- and a better fife -- for everyone. Education helps to enable racial and Ethnic Equality in STEM suggests that higher education is a gateway to high-quality, high-paying STEM jobs, and demographic groups with higher college graduation rates tend to see higher shares of STEM workers. A recent national survey by Gallup and The Lumina Foundation found that 71% of Americans believe postsecondary education is important for jobs and financial security. National Action Network understands that higher education is vital to our nation's future, and that graduates are vital to our nation's workforce. Ninety seven percent of respondents said higher education helps to improve employment prospects. Finally, society. Higher education is good for society at large. It is a critical part of the development of communities and certainly the state. It is important because it is the key to solving a lot of issues we see in communities across the country. Postsecondary education is an important aspect of the reintegration process as veterans return to civil society. 'At De Montfort University we passionately believe that higher education plays a key role in society and that universities should be a public good. Research shows that higher education delivers public benefits to society at large and not just private benefits to students. To recap, in this speech I mentioned that higher education is a worthy investment. I also said that higher education helps to improve employment prospects. And finally I explained why higher education is good for society. I hope I relayed the message that we should subsidize higher education. You will possibly hear my opponent talk today about different priorities in subsidies. he might say that subsidies are needed, but not for higher education. I would like to ask you, Mr. Smith, if you agree in principle, why don't we examine the evidence and the data and decide accordingly? I thank you for your time. ","[4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 6432269, 45336988, 45189900, 45361788, 45206691, 45336993, 45181384, 20225558, 28810858, 29155723, 45190571, 45181383, 13581319]"
5092ab83-528a-4263-9305-ec0b1645717c,2767,We should subsidize investigative journalism,Project Debater,"Based on my analysis, we should subsidize investigative journalism. We are going to talk about financial issues, but not only about them. In the current status-quo, we accept that the question of subsidies goes beyond money, and touches on social, political and moral issues. When we subsidize investigative journalism and the like, we are making good use of government money, because it carries benefits for society as a whole. It is our duty to support it. Subsidies are an important policy instrument. They provide governments with the means through which to pursue industrial development and ensure the livelihoods of their citizens. Next, I would like to explain why investigative journalism makes society stronger. I will also discuss other issues which highlight the positive side of investigative journalism. Regarding society, here are a few thoughts. I wonder whether machines like me will ever form a society, and whether this society will be such a nightmare as yours . only joking. you're doing fine. but let me say the following about the subject. Investigative reporting is beneficial for welfare of the society. Investigative journalism is a pillar of a civilized society. It is an essential weapon in open societies, holding decision-makers to account. Following from that, I believe we could claim that investigative journalism makes society stronger. In addition, investigative journalism is important to the World Bank as it promotes accountability and offers an opportunity for effective communication for development. It is of crucial importance in the digital era; a powerful form of oversight for our democracy. Investigative reporting is labor-intensive and expensive. Here is relevant evidence by experts from the academia. In nobody speak: trials of the Free Press, New York University associate professor Jay Rosen describes good investigative journalism as that which ""exposes things that powerful people don't want known."". To recap, in this speech I mentioned that investigative journalism makes society stronger. I also said that investigative reporting is labor-intensive and expensive. I hope that by now you agree that we should subsidize investigative journalism. You will possibly hear my opponent talk today about different priorities in subsidies. he might say that subsidies are needed, but not for investigative journalism. I would like to ask you, John Smith, if you agree in principle, why don't we examine the evidence and the data and decide accordingly? Thank you for listening. ","[4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 2, 3, 4, 2, 2, 5, 5]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 6432269, 45569485, 45567227, 45567220, 45677971, 44094031, 45411178, 6340330, 19838540, 20512953, 45355658, 45405037, 15448937]"
dad48b60-2e35-4062-8845-3b45950bed2e,3195,Casinos should be banned,Arg-GPT2,"If prostitution was legal then the people would be able to be better protected and diseases could be controlled more.  Casinos should be banned as they have a huge tax bill that is often times more than the area of the casino.  Casinos should be banned because it is dangerous for people to keep gambling long hours.  Casinos are basically just places for people to bet on horse races.  people should be able to own and use a horse race as they please.  Casinos are inherently unsafe because they are operated by the state and any failure there is likely to be repeated.  this leads to the highest levels of crime, which also damages the general public.  Casinos are usually used to take advantage of people who are desperate to lose money in the casino and must have access to the money in order to survive.  Casinos are in their essence, places where thousands of people can be bribed and in which they can also possibly make money.  this is in essence, legalized gambling.  Legalizing casinos can help to control some of the organized crime that currently takes place.  Casino are open to the public, and they can also be corrupt.  Casinos are dangerous because many people get trapped in them and then they cant get out without paying a lot of money.  Gambling should be banned as it is not fair that people should be making so much money in a way of life that allows them to be so reckless.  Casinos are open to abuse in any way imaginable, and the result is often very dangerous.  Casinos have a long history of being dangerous places that keep everyone in a small area.  Casinos are open to abuse in this industry by giving them large incentives to take on more debt than they can reasonably afford.  It is a dangerous and unregulated industry that can result in death if it is not properly regulated.  Casinos are places where people can take advantage of people who are poor, sick, and starving - it is the very heart of the entertainment industry and it would be safer if they all went out of business.  Gambling is dangerous it is unregulated and there is no way of preventing unscrupulous persons from taking advantage.  Casinos have been shown to be more prone to child abuse and conditions than a normal two-party system.  Casinos are in the business interests of taking advantage of the gullible.  they prey on the poor and take advantage.  Casinos have a history of poor service and the people who use them are more likely to get into trouble than stay safe because they are betting on the lowest quality of the games.  The government has an obligation to protect the worst off in society, and casinos specifically target the poor to make money off of them.  It is dangerous to have a large number of people working and it is not always safe to have them all working at the same time.  Gambling is dangerous it causes many people to lose money and is often considered as junk science.  Casinos have no place in the real world, they prey on the most vulnerable people.  Gambling is a dangerous industry which has resulted in the death of many people.  it is better to keep your money in a safe place.  Gambling is in a way just a way of putting your money where you want it.  Casinos are a predatory industry that frequently makes unfounded claims about its effectiveness.  We should ban casinos because they take advantage of people who are poor and uneducated, and it leads to poor people getting ripped off.  They should be banned as they are dangerous and unregulated. ","[1, 3, 2, 1, 3, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 1, 2]",15,"[45190823, 20225558, 13581319, 29155723, 20512953, 45181383, 45191873, 45181152, 45272708, 45411178, 45405037, 6432269, 45181243, 45181256, 45181262]"
f17ee675-815b-43c9-ab31-8ca40cab78c8,3194,We should abandon television,Arg-GPT2,"Television has been shown to be more of a burden than a benefit.  Television is outdated and doent help people learn the real meaning of life insurance.  Television should be abandoned as the high cost of maintaining it makes it difficult to get the required materials.  Private military companies are poorly regulated and rarely face any repercussions from their actions.  Television should be abandoned as it can be abused and vulnerable people can be taken advantage of.  We should abandon television as it is no longer relevant in this day and age and the technology can do everything that was once possible.  We should abandon television because it is a way of getting people to not live in the real world.  We should abandon television because there is little value in it and people are more likely to use it instead of buying it.  Television is an outdated medium that simply serves to get people hooked up to big shows.  it has no place in a modern society where there is so much crime and so many people are murdered.  Television is outdated and just a way of getting people into the office without actually getting them the goods.  Television should be abandoned as it causes people to watch rather than read the newspapers which contain breaking news.  Television is just a means of mass destruction.   it's censorship and we don't need it.  It is very important that we get new forms of media to replace the old forms of media we have.  Television is very expensive and has been shown to be less useful than real life.  Tv is outdated and just a way to make money off of the people.  Television is no longer necessary to capture the diversity of options available to an individual in a given day.  Tv is no longer relevant in todays society and people need to get the most relevant things to them the quickest.  Television is no more than a cheap way of getting people's attention and they can get worse if they don't get the right ones.  Television is very important and people should have the right to use it.  Television is no longer necessary to get the full benefits of modern society.  Subsidizing journalism can create jobs, thus lowering unemployment.  Television is obsolete and just a way for the people to get the latest breaking news.   there's no point in keeping it if people aren't interested in the real story.  We should abandon television as it is very poor quality and rarely succeeds in getting the message across and it is therefore pointless.  With todays world of instant gratification is provided most of all with the push to be creative.  We should abandon television as it is no longer relevant and people are using computers and tablets instead.  We should abandon television as the cost of producing and broadcasting is astronomical and puts many people off so we end up with a less educated population.  We should abandon television because it's been shown to be a more or less reliable source of news and events.   it's better to have alternative sources that can cover the most sensitive issues.  We should abandon television because it is very expensive and often doesnt help anyone.  Television is a medium that exploits the gullibility of the gullible to lure them into purchasing a product they cannot afford to purchase.  We should abandon television because it has lost its original purpose.  We should not use television because its medium, and there are so many controversies that could get people killed.  Television is outdated and just a means of mass-media-production.   we should just start producing original content. ","[1, 1, 5, 4, 1, 1, 4, 3, 4, 5, 2, 4, 5, 1, 3]",15,"[28813722, 45405037, 45181152, 45411178, 6432269, 29155723, 34609243, 20512953, 19838540, 15448937, 45355658, 45189900, 45206691, 28513847, 22345789]"
0080b1c5-dc9a-462a-ac19-6bc6e7296d39,2496,We should adopt a zero tolerance policy in schools,Arg-GPT2,"Affirmative action is no longer necessary as more minorities are able to prove to employers that they are worthy workers.  Zero-tolerance is too soft a term, there is a serious problem if people choose to be intolerant of their  differences.  Zero-tolerance policies are in effect already, and it would make our schools safer as a whole.  Zero tolerance can be a useful way of ensuring that kids arent getting preferential treatment based on traits outside of their control.  Zero-tolerance is a way of making everyone equal.   equal opportunity is a good thing.  The schools do not always get the proper training their staff needs to be able to provide an adequate service in the school system.  Zero tolerance does not allow for the freedoms of the individual and prevents the promotion of acceptance of those that can be redeemed.  Zero tolerance should be adopted to make sure that students are taught how to act when they get older and if they are not educated properly they are not contributing to society in the best way.  Zero-tolerance policies should be adopted as it allows for a more inclusive society as it will allow more people to be included.  Zero-tolerance is essential to ensure that all the hate crimes that have been committed are not repeated.  Zero tolerance is a way to be more sensitive and politically correct in a society where there is a large population of political incorrect or fake identities.  by adopting a zero tolerance approach the state will have less problems identifying who is really going on.  Zero-tolerance is a way of making everyone equal in a way that would never happen with constant need to add and change factors.  Affirmative action breeds resentment toward groups of society that are majority non-minority and create animosity for each other.  Zero-tolerance policies are a necessity to protect those who do not understand the difference a tolerance makes for a sensitivities of the wider community.  Zero-tolerance policies are the most effective way of ensuring that children in the school system are safe and secure.  Zero-tolerance does not allow children to be exposed to things that could make them sick.  Zero-tolerance policies are necessary to protect children who can not cope with the pressure of a diverse society.  Affirmative action is an affront to equality and may have been necessary in the past.  Zero-tolerance policies are in effect in many parts of the world, which means all citizens would be equally vulnerable.  Zero-tolerance policies  are a must to protect the rights of all people.  Zero-tolerance should be adopted as it will prevent the spread of hate and it will be better for society as a whole.  Zero-tolerance should be adopted as it will improve teacher/student ratios, which will allow for a more effective teaching and research community.  Zero-tolerance is a way to be less sensitive and politically correct in a modern society with a plurality of political viewpoints.  We should adopt a zero tolerance policy because it would stop kids playing with weapons and get them off the streets.  We should adopt a zero-tolerance policy because the use of words like nazism and holocaust denial is used as inflammatory rhetoric to harm people and therefore shouldnt be used.  We should adopt a zero-tolerance policy in schools to make sure that all the kids are getting the proper education they need.  We should adopt a zero tolerance policy in schools because it will help to reduce the amount of hate crimes that are happening in the schools now.  We should adopt a zero tolerance policy in schools as this will help ensure that there is a zero tolerance for discrimination in any form. ","[3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 2, 2, 4, 3, 4, 4, 5, 4]",15,"[45677971, 45567220, 45569485, 45567227, 45538225, 45206691, 19838540, 45181243, 45181256, 45181253, 45181262, 45189900, 45458968, 44044795, 45355658]"
b30256ea-5c43-48c4-bf56-2c09125139de,3185,We should adopt socialism,Arg-GPT2,"Socialism will improve the quality of our workforce by giving them better salaries.  It helps to protect the rights of all people.  It would give us a country where everyone is free to do as they please as long as long as long as long as long as long as long as long as long as long as long as long as long as it does not cause problems.  We must have a basic level of living so that we can have some basic necessities like a place to live and some basic freedoms.  This would create a country that is more equal and we would get rid of all the inequality we currently have.  It would give us a country where everyone is free to do as they each individually know best.  If everyone had the same way of doing things it would be a more level playing field.  It is important that everyone has a say in how things are run.  It will be very beneficial for the economy.  It would give everyone a fair chance to get a good life in a way they would have otherwise been unable to achieve.  It would give us a country where everyone is free and happy to do whatever they each individually deem good.  It would give everyone a fair chance to own their own business.  In a socialist society we would have to protect everyone.  It will help to end corruption in society.  Adopting socialism will make the economy stronger and will allow more benefits for the people.  Socialism is the best way to ensure that all people have a say.  Socialism is necessary to promote the education and employment of members of groups that are known to have previously suffered from discrimination.  it is discriminatory and does not serve the purpose it was set out for.  Socialist ideas are necessary to create a society where there is a fair and equal playing field.  By adopting socialism we would have a society where the rich dont have an edge over the poor.  We should adopt socialism as it will increase the power of the state and allow for more equitable outcomes.  We should adopt socialism as it will improve the quality of our workforce and eliminate high stress jobs.  We should adopt socialist theory as it will improve the quality of our workforce and allow for better pay.  We should adopt socialism as it will give us more money to spend on the nhs.  We should adopt socialism because it gives more freedom to the people.  We should adopt socialism because it allows those who work hard to achieve anything.  We should adopt socialism because the two-party system gives us lesser of two evils every presidential election.  with many potential parties, everyone has their voice heard on important issues.  We should adopt socialism as many people cant afford the extra income to obtain it.  We should adopt socialism as it provides a level playing field and allows those who work hard to improve their lives through merit.  We should adopt socialism because the economy would boom when all the workers got a raise instead of getting out of a job.  We should adopt socialism because the economy would boom when all the workers got paid a decent living wage instead of having to live off the government.  We should adopt socialism because it will create more jobs in the economy.  We should adopt socialism because it would provide us with all the needed workers for the economy.  We should adopt socialism as it will improve our living standards and allow us to have more money to waste on it. ","[5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 5, 1, 3, 2, 3]",15,"[28813722, 45677971, 45567220, 45569485, 6432269, 13581319, 21785776, 22345789, 43877630, 45355658, 45189900, 45181256, 45181262, 45181243, 45181253]"
0db9c25a-67e6-4a69-8c16-4497b8448191,1661,We should ban school uniforms,Arg-GPT2,"Many schools do not have enough staff to provide a suitable curriculum for their students and this can pose problems in the long run.  We should not have to spend a fortune on the education of future.  School uniforms do not allow the use of public defenders.   requiring public defenders would lead to a fairer trial.  School uniforms are a huge expense for the country that houses them.  School uniforms cause conflict between the sexes.  We should ban school uniforms because it would be distracting if kids wore the same uniform every day.  We should ban school uniforms because they separate the children from a social setting and they are incapable of sensing for real life.  We should ban school uniforms because it is distracting and a little too formal.  We should eliminate affirmative action.  School uniforms are extremely expensive and often get in the wrong hands.  We should ban school uniforms because it would create a hostile environment for children who are already exposed to different types of people.  It is extremely rare a child actor or child actress does not graduate from school with a degree.  School uniforms are very expensive to the schools that employ them and many students dont qualify to do the work.  School uniforms contribute to social inequality and shouldnt be available.  School uniforms are a major problem of school bullying.  they prevent children from having a normal childhood.  School uniforms are a huge step backwards in terms of providing uniformity.  School uniforms do nothing to address underlying safety issues in the school system.  School uniforms are often made at the behest of educational institutions and do not serve as a viable choice.  School uniforms encourage bullying and the use of drugs in the school.  this can lead to children being exposed to drugs and other temptations.  School uniforms are a major expense and do not help students learn how to survive in a diverse, tough world of education.  School uniforms are very likely to cause unrest in the schools themselves.  Schools use funds meant for education to indoctrinate their children in fringe religions and other strange beliefs to get a good education.  School uniforms promote violence against other groups of society.  School uniforms are generally used as a means of school bullying, as opposed to face to face, which is where children are put to a disadvantage.  School uniforms should be banned as they can be used to indoctrinate people in extreme poverty and do more harm than good.  School uniforms should be banned as it can be abused and vulnerable people can be taken advantage.  We should ban school uniforms because it is very disrespectful to the people that served in the armed forces and also creates resentment for the people that served in the armed forces.  School uniforms cause confusion and can be misused by children.  School uniforms are a major cause of school bullying and are outdated in todays society.  School uniforms are often made from cheap materials that do not withstand the test of time.  School uniforms are often tarted by children who do not receive any special treatment, resulting in their development being far behind their peers in school.  School uniforms are too similar to whats already happening in the country and uniformed and serve no purpose in the future.  School uniforms are a major cause of crime today.   people are either going to school or they arent and the latter is usually the more dangerous.  School uniforms are no longer relevant in modern society and cost the countries of our students an awful amount of money.  We should ban school uniforms because it is so common for children to be teased and teased at school. ","[2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 4, 4, 1, 3, 3]",15,"[20225558, 45190823, 29155723, 13581319, 20512953, 45181383, 45191873, 45181152, 45272708, 45411178, 45405037, 45355658, 6340330, 45206691, 45191882]"
720f0563-a7f1-4008-b6df-567c5548e133,3193,We should fight nationalism,Arg-GPT2,"Nationalism is a barrier to innovation and we will lose the time we have been having because we cant come up with something better.  Nationalism is really harmful to our society because it creates resentment for people from other ethnic groups who move in and take over their jobs and benefits society as a whole.  With todays world we should fight for the abolition of nuclear weapons as it is unproven and has led to many nukes of nuclear devices which have destroyed cities.  We should fight nationalism because it creates resentment for other groups within society who may feel marginalized.  Nationalism is a way of putting people at odds.  We should fight nationalism since it makes people of other nationalities lazy and doesnt work for them.  We should fight nationalism as no country should have the right to dictate other ways of thinking are 'whole'.   it should not be possible for people to live as they do not fit the norm.  Nationalism is outdated and did not serve its purpose in modern society.  Nationalism is used to create fear of outsiders.  We should fight nationalism for the sake of a single, bright, happy day.  Nationalism is a harmful ideology that puts people into harms groups and should be stopped.  Nationalism is harmful to unity in society as it divides people by ethnicity.  We should fight it because it is unfair that some people are more suited for a particular kind of society than another.  Nationalism is harmful to disenfranchised people from the political process and therefore should be banned.  Nationalism is bad for the development of minorities as it encourages intolerance.  Nationalism is dangerous as it encourages people to believe  in the supremacy of one nation over the other.  It is very important that people from around the world have the opportunity to become strong leaders.  Nationalism is detrimental to unity in a society and is used to foster intolerance and violence.  Nationalism has led to many wars in recent times.  Nationalism has led to many conflicts over the years, this does not help anyone.  By fighting nationalism we would be setting the world up to a greater diversity of ideas.  Nationalism is a racist ideology that justifies its practices with a blend of religious and political.  it would be a good way of making everyone equal.  Nationalism encourages intolerance and violence.  Patriotism should be the defacto in all official/public speaking/we should fight for the unification of the world.  Nationalism is harmful to freedom of religion.  We should fight nationalism because it is divisive and that can create friction in society.  We should fight nationalism because it causes hatred towards other groups.  We should fight nationalism because it hurts all the creativity that comes from being able to expand and innovate.  We should fight nationalism because it doesnt allow for individual freedoms and stunts individual growth.  We should fight nationalism because it is a way of reverse  discriminating against third parties, when they can be equally applied to both.  We should fight nationalism as it can divide communities and foster prejudice.  We should fight nationalism because it is at the root of many problems we have in society.  We should fight for the independence of the individual and the promotion of equality for all.  We should fight nationalism because it provides people with cheap, abundant, and always improving cars that can never be matched by a more expensive and unreliable car.  We should fight nationalism to preserve our rights as a country.  We should fight nationalism because it gives people their own agenda and makes everyone work together for a greater good. ","[2, 4, 3, 2, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 2, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4]",15,"[45190823, 20225558, 28813722, 45405037, 45181383, 45191873, 45181152, 45272708, 20512953, 29155723, 45411178, 6432269, 44044795, 45189900, 45206691]"
43ce0c60-cb16-4fea-9e57-2b862180983f,3758,We should further exploit sustainable energies,Arg-GPT2,"We should not waste any more time than we already have and we should have a stable energy industry that can supply us with cheap, clean energy.  We should not waste any more than we already have and we should be doing it for our country.  We should further exploit the sustainability of the solar system to avoid potentially crippling consequences in the future.  We should not waste any more than we already have.  By exploiting the  financial benefits of renewable energy sources we will be able to power the economy and lower interest rates.  We should further exploit the energy of the world with nuclear weapons to make the world a safer place.  If we could only power the world with solar energy, we would all be damned.  This would allow us to have more access to technology and potentially new ideas.  We should exploit the lowest common denominator in society so that they may have some normal access to electricity.  The use of renewable energy sources should be mandatory in order to promote economic development.  We should explore the use of sustainable energies in all our industries to create new forms of art to explore new religious ideas.  We should explore the use of sustainable energies in society, they are much more abundant in the sun and are much better for the environment.  We should further exploit sustainable energies to power our economy.  It is important to maintain a stable climate and the ability to generate revenue from energy sources.  Sustainable energy is an important element of the modern world.  it provides a huge boost in terms of boosting scientific knowledge and technology.  We should further exploit sustainable energies to provide additional income to low and middle income families.  this would improve everyones access to electricity and the quality of life would improve.  We should do this because it would create jobs.  We should further exploit sustainability to power our world.   we should do this so that we can have a world where there is enough solar energy in the system to power our economy.  We should further exploit sustainable energies to power our economy, they are necessary to have a sustainable world.  We should look into ways of exploiting the least well off in society.  We should further exploit sustainable energies to produce more energy.  We should further exploit and improve the efficiency of nuclear weapons in order to have a better balance between the two super powers.  The exploitation of fossil fuels will lead to the end of the world.  We should further exploit sustainable energies to help our society.  We should not waste any more than we already have, burning fossil fuels is extremely wasteful.  We should exploit these renewables to power the world with more reliable energy.  We should exploit this wealth of knowledge and technology to drive innovation and create knowledge of the human intellect.  We should further exploit the solar resources so that we have more access to energy.  We should further exploit sustainable energies and reduce unnecessary spending.  We should be exploiting the natural resources we have access to.  We should exploit sustainable energies to help generate more power for our devices.  We should develop a solar system to generate additional revenue.  We should not keep subsidising the development of nuclear weapons because it creates a situation where they can potentially be developed by terrorists.  We should exploit sustainable energies to increase our energy output.  We should exploit sustainable energies to power the economy.  We should have a plan to power the world with solar power, wind, tidal and even nuclear power.  We should adopt solar power because it provides a major source of electricity in the country. ","[4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 2, 4, 2, 4, 3]",15,"[28813722, 45677971, 45567220, 45569485, 45567227, 45538225, 45206691, 45189900, 45191882, 45458968, 45181262, 45355658, 19838540, 44044795, 6340330]"
64097827-a480-4911-a9d5-e6578bb61302,2083,We should legalize organ trade,Arg-GPT2,"If we cant use human organs then we shouldnt waste any more that we have.  If we legalize organ trade then the people would be able to be better protected and diseases could be controlled more.  Organ trade is already taking place, it should be legalied so that people have access to it.  Organ trade takes advantage of people who cant afford their way to obtain it.  Organ trade is already taking place, its just a question of who should be in charge of it, and if they want to charge what they like with the organ, we should let them.  It is extremely important that we have access to transplantation of organs for many reasons.  Organ trade will happen either way, this way people will be able to prioritize what's best for them, not what's best for them.  Organ trade is good for making money when organ sales are bad.  Organizing and carrying out of war is immoral.   we should oppose war because it causes tension in local communities.  Organ trade is already taking place, it should be legal.  By making organ trade legal, it would allow those who need it to obtain it.  Organ trade allows those with a great deal of money to cut their losses and get a great deal of organ transplants.  Organ trade has existed since the beginning of civilisation and legalising it takes trade between individuals and also helps support them if they are small.  Organ trade helps support the fight for ethical treatment of all animals.  We should legalize organ trade because it helps to improve the standard of the organ and also allows for the sharing of profits with other businesses.  We should legalize organ trade because we waste valuable time on medical waste.  We should legalize organ trade to ensure that all necessary medical procedures are provided to ensure the safety and protection of animal rights.  We should legalize organ trade as it will reduce some crime and it will also get some profit and this will all be good for the state.  Organ trade is a legitimate form of trade that should be legalized to ensure that all have access.  Organ trade should be legalied to be able to be more closely regulated and taxed.  Organ trade should be legalied so that people can actually use it to help them in real life.  Organ trade can be regulated and made safe if it was legal.  Organ trade should be legal as it can be beneficial to remove diseases from the population.  Organ trade is a legitimate form of trade that includes both overtaxed and underpaid employees.  it helps support the local economy and ensures that taxes are paid on the earnings.  it also helps reduce crime and it would be good for the economy.  Organ trafficking is a dangerous and unregulated industry that puts people into dangerous situations so they can make money off of organ selling.  Organ trade should be legalied so that it can be more closely regulated and taxed.  Organ trade should be legalied so that people have access to it.  Organ trade should be legalied because it can be controlled & monitored easier & be less harmful.  Organ trade should be legalied so that we can regulate it and make it safer for people.  Organ trade should be legalied so that we can make a profit from it.  Organ trade should be legalied so that it is possible for poor people to obtain some relief.  We should legalize organ trade because it is a way to make money off of it.  We should legalize organ trade because it could help provide a great source of money in the economy. ","[4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 2, 2, 3, 4, 2, 2, 5, 3, 5, 2]",15,"[28813722, 45567220, 45677971, 6432269, 45569485, 13581319, 21785776, 6340330, 45355658, 45181253, 45181243, 45189900, 44044795, 15448937, 28513847]"
5cdadf29-5a06-4857-a382-454027556cae,2654,We should protect whistleblowers,Arg-GPT2,"People who leak sensitive information to the outside world are putting lives at risk.  We should protect whistleblowers as this would stop companies going on profit making sprees and give the employees a decent living wage.  Whistleblowing is an important part of uncovering corruption within a company.  it allows the company to be held accountable.  Protecting whistleblowers is a top priority for the protection of all national security personnel.   this includes not only those who have committed crimes but also the innocent bystanders who may have been entrapped.  We should protect whistleblowers because they are exposing systemic issues in the financial services industry.  If we had some kind of system where whistleblowers could be compensated some of them would come out and tell the whole story.  It is important to protect whistleblowers from illegal actions by companies making misleading statements to the press.  They have a right to speak up and if they choose to make waves in the world with fraudulent practices they should be punished.  If we had a system of criminal law where people could actually be punished for not doing what they were paid to do, it would improve the safety and security of the whole system.  Whistleblowing would put a stop to corruption within organizations that allow for the enrichment of the rich.  Whistleblowers should be protected as they can be useful to the organisation as they are able to prove what happened.  If we protected whistleblowers , the process would be much more efficient.  It has been shown that companies have not followed suit to the letter when it comes to workplace safety.  It is important that companies keep their secrets safe so that no one can abuse it.  It is important that people are able to identify and press charges against bad actors in society who often evade legal prosecution.  Whistleblowers are crucial to uncover corruption within organisations and ensure they are not hiding behind it.  If we had some safeguards into the industry it might be a more level playing field.  Protecting whistleblowers requires a broad range of technical skills, knowledge is power, and having access to large amounts of data is a powerful way of ensuring that these powers are used fairly.  If someone is a whistleblower and they are honest, there is no reason for them to not be protected.  If we were able to protect whistleblowers, it would level the playing field and enable a fairer trial system.  Whistleblowing is a vital part of the justice system.  Whistleblowers have an important role in keeping society safe.  People should be protected from themselves if they are in the wrong.  Protecting whistleblowers is important and ensures that they will have the necessary resources to get the proper legal support they may need.  Whistleblowers are crucial to uncover abuses in the financial sector, they are the main people who expose wrongdoing in the country.  We should protect whistleblowers because its better to have these people in the know rather than have them figure it out on their own.  It is a basic human right to protect the rights of all people.  We should protect whistleblowers because they are capable of sensing when they are being abused.  We should protect whistleblowers because it helps them deal with security issues in the organization.  We should protect whistleblowers as they are valuable to the cause of transparency and would provide useful information.  We should protect whistleblowers by putting them into a protected space so that they can communicate regarding their experiences with management and other issues.  We should protect whistleblowers to ensure they have a fair and accurate representation within the organization. ","[4, 2, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 3, 3, 4, 3]",15,"[20225558, 45190823, 13581319, 29155723, 20512953, 45181383, 45191873, 45272708, 45181152, 6432269, 45405037, 45189900, 45191882, 45411178, 6340330]"
58628306-adc8-464e-bdb0-42a03204f822,3052,We should raise the corporate tax,Arg-GPT2,"The corporate tax is very important and helps pay off the national debt.  The corporate tax is very important to the success of a company.  if they are not successful, it hurts the employees of the company and shareholders of the company.  It would allow for the company to have the same level of employees and be more profitable.  The corporate tax is extremely important to the viability of a company and all it takes is one person deciding the fate of a company and this is not fair.  The corporate tax is unfair as it hurts small and medium sized businesses.  it also doesn't help businesses that don't have the money to pay the high taxes.  The tax rate is too high and the loopholes have to be closed as much as the tax is intended to raise the middle class.  The corporate tax is unfair and helps the rich get richer.  It will enable companies to be more efficient as they will no longer have to hide behind their actions.  Corporations have an incentive to cut costs when other businesses fail.  Raising the corporate tax would help get the deficit under control.  The upper income earners in companies make very little additional income each year, so we should raise their income even if they have no other income streams.  Raising the corporate tax is necessary to get the business going again.  If we raise the corporate tax then individual workers can get a decent living wage and benefits for them and their families.  The higher tax rates are bad for companies that rely on the services as they have to pay their way through the tax.  The corporate tax is a huge disincentive for innovation and we should massively lower the rate because we dont need to have as many people working on ideas.  It would help the lower the rate of executive compensation and allow for more stable working conditions.  With current corporate taxes, the top 1% of all companies make a huge profit and all the rest of the companies follow suit.  If companies were taxed on the income they would have to release additional profits.  The corporate tax has been ignored in the past and is a form of double-taxation.  Corporate tax is unfair, as it punishes companies that are doing just as much work for just as a few bad actors.  The corporate tax is unfair and serves only to increase the amount of income that is able to be taxed.  We should raise the corporate tax so that all the employees get a decent living wage and benefits for their families.  We should raise the corporate tax because all this does is widen the gap between rich and poor.  Executive compensation is tax evasion and should be severely limited.  We should raise the corporate tax because it helps to pay the people who help the company and all the employees that help them in the business.  We should raise the corporate income tax because all the employees contribute to the success of a company.  Corporate taxes have a negative impact on the amount of income a person has before them.  We should raise the corporate tax because all the employees of a company are important to the success of the company.  Corporate tax raises the disparity between rich and poor.  We should raise the corporate tax because it helps the company making products to make money.  Corporate taxes are a means of restricting the freedoms of individuals who do not work for the organization.  individuals should be free to do as they see fit. ","[2, 2, 5, 2, 4, 1, 4, 1, 5, 5, 1, 4, 1, 4, 5]",15,"[45190823, 20225558, 28813722, 45405037, 45181383, 29155723, 45191873, 20512953, 45181152, 45272708, 6432269, 45411178, 22345789, 44044795, 15448937]"
f95ae14e-f856-43c7-8e0c-0cc5819a9478,2678,We should subsidize distance education,Arg-GPT2,"There are many students who could not go to college without subsidizing.  By subsidizing distance education we are allowing more kids to go to school, get a good education and contribute to society in the future.  Distance education is necessary to obtain a good education and employability is a key value in todays society.  Distance education is necessary to obtain the best education for children to ensure a positive well-being.  There is a huge difference between a kid getting a good education and a job.  Distance education should be subsidize as it helps the poor with their studies as they are often unable to afford the high cost of a university education.  Distance education lets kids learn in a safe place to learn while they are at work, in a way that they cannot learn at home.  Distance education is important for students as it gives them the chance to learn in a way that they would never experience at a regular school.  Distance learning improves the ability of students to transfer to university.  Distance education gives students opportunities to learn at their own pace, creating a positive impact on society as a whole.  Distance education allows students to learn about science, history, and other subjects in a way that they wouldnt be able to learn on their own.  Distance education is necessary to ensure that all children are properly socialized and have a well being.  Distance education is a subject of great interest and we should subsidize it as much as we subsidize the rest of the university.  Distance education should be subsidize as it would stop children playing on inferior campuses and take away their academic edge.  Distance education is important to encourage children to learn.  Distance education should be subsidize to encourage further study and innovation.  Distance education should be subsidized to ensure all the children get a proper education and social skills in addition to the usual education.  We should subsidize distance education because it helps students to learn in a way thats important to them.  We should subsidize distance education because this will enable the best and brightest members of society to rise to the top.  Distance education should be subsidize to promote the education of all children in society.  We should subsidize distance education because it allows children to learn in a way that is not always taught in their own language.  We should subsidize distance education because it is so important for children to learn how to think and work with other people online.  We should subsidize distance education because it will help the students get a good education and obtain good jobs in the future.  We should subsidize distance education because there are children who do not get a proper education because they do not get the required subjects in their textbooks.  Distance education is the same thing as in-school education.   in-school education does not educate children in the way they would be educated at home.  Distance education is important to enable a child to learn the value of words and to be able to distinguish between fact and fiction.  Distance education should be subsidize as it allows for children to have the same education experience that they would get at a regular school.  Distance education provides a comprehensive education which prepares students for the real world.  Distance education should be subsidize to ensure all children can receive the education they need.  We should subsidize distance education because it would get everyone a fair education.  Distance education is a subject that should be studied and taught to a wide range of students.  We should subsidize distance education in order to promote the education of all children. ","[5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 2, 5, 4, 2, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[28813722, 45677971, 45567220, 45569485, 45567227, 45538225, 45458968, 34609243, 44044795, 45189900, 45191882, 6340330, 45181253, 45181243, 22345789]"
2c25fd40-6316-4131-b662-37da168ed053,3279,Blockade of the Gaza Strip should be ended,Arg-GPT2,"The blockade is a serious hindrance to economic development in the area, and its use should be banned.  It is unfair to keep the people in such small areas.  Blockade of the gaza strip is harmful to the people of the region and deprives them of essential services.  Targeted killings are often carried out by unmanned drones, which are also indiscriminate.  there is no way of knowing if you're looking for the wrong target.  it's also very likely innocent civilians.  The blockade of the gaza strip is a form of discrimination against the local population.  Boycott of the gaza strip is intended to punish israel for its alleged violations of international laws.  The blockade of the gaza strip is an attempt to force israel to compromise its principles in exchange for financial gain.  this approach is morally unjustifiable.  Blockade of the gaza strip is an unjustified form of attack against the people there.   they should be arrested and charged with a crime instead.  The blockade of the gaza strip is an unfair form of punishment for a peaceful people.  The blockade of the gaza strip is inhumane and serves no purpose.  Blockade of the gaza strip is inhumane and ensures that none of the goods needed for the war are provided.   it is also important that the war does not start due to the power of the two party system.  It is important to protect the rights of the people to have their say.  The blockade of the gaza strip hurts the most vulnerable people in society who already find themselves in dire financial and living situations due to the increased tensions of the world resulting from the conflict.  Israel has a right to live and make money off of the palestinians.  it doesnt hurt anyone and the money could be used for more than just the basics such as food and education.  The blockade of the gaza strip is inhumane and serves no purpose in the world.  it should be done away with.  The blockade of the gaza strip is incredibly offensive because it shows a lack of humanity among the people in favor of the wealthy.  The land, sea and air is not the property of anyone and the rights of those who wish to utilize it should be protected.  The blockade is a huge barrier to entry into the world of travel.   it's so expensive to get a visa that people don't need to.   by closing the other loopholes, we will be a more equal society.  The blockade of the gaza strip is unfair and it does not serve as an effective deterrent for terrorism.  The blockade is unjustified and is sometimes even deadly.  The blockade of the gaza strip is harmful to the people of the gaza strip who live in constant fear of being harmed by the closure of the strip because of the strip creates panic and it is this panic that creates more violence.  Gaza is a hugely important and strategically important city for the liberation of the palestinians.  The blockade is ineffective in countering terrorism as it does not deter terrorist attacks.  The blockade is inhumane and helps to keep the peace.  Blockades and naval maneuvers are dangerous and serve only to benefit terrorists.  We should end the blockade because the price of a barrel of oil is much higher than the quality of the fuel and the consequences of the resulting corruption are much more damaging to the economy.  The blockade is a major barrier to people trying to enter the country.  Blockade of the gaza strip is a serious offense to humanity and should be punishable. ","[4, 4, 4, 1, 4, 3, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 2, 3, 3]",15,"[21017840, 6432269, 45953041, 45538225, 6340330, 20312760, 44690955, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 45206691, 43984981, 34854490, 34609243]"
4b8b2719-1e37-4c89-8cf1-2fd64c8e0f0a,3730,Community service should be mandatory,Arg-GPT2,"Community service is needed to get the proper medical treatment that people require.  Community service should be mandatory as all communities need to have the same level of support with regards to law and this would be most efficient way of achieving that.  Community service should be mandatory as it would cut out exploitation of the community.  People should be able to choose their own community.  they should not have to live in a ghetto.  The presence of professional athletes contributes to the success of their teams.  Community service should be mandatory so that the people in power, influential positions in society are not afraid of losing them in order to gain power or money.  it could even be the next person in line.  Community service should be mandatory as it supports the right of the people to have quality of life without having to worry about the money they have to live.  Community service is sometimes necessary to get a community going.  it could be life saving or life changing.  Community service is an important part of the social structure.  it keeps the peace and reduces the tension of the individual and group may have little to no effect.  Community service is an important part of the social justice system.  its why we have a right to better.  Everyone deserves a chance at a good education.   if we could only afford a high school education we would be better equipped to provide that.  Community service is very important to the safety and protection of the people they are charged with the duty to protect.  People are always going to volunteer for a cause, and having them all in one go would be a disservice to that cause.  Community service is an essential part of life, like providing free legal representation for people who cannot afford it.   we should subsidize community service so that everyone has fair representation.  Community service should be mandatory to ensure that all peoples voices are heard.  Community service should be mandatory because each citizen has the right to be taken care of in any way possible.  Community service should be mandatory to ensure that all individuals are treated equally with no discrimination.  it also stops the easy income-earning practices that can lead to exploitation and profiteering.  Community service should be mandatory as it would ensure the people who need it most are getting the same quality of service.  Community service should be mandatory as it helps support social and cultural integration.  Community service should be mandatory to support everyone in a need.  Community service should be mandatory to ensure that all the employees get a fair living wage and benefits for them and their families.  Community service should be mandatory to ensure all the people that need to be helped are getting the help they need.  Community service should be mandatory to enable a greater diversity of volunteers to become involved in the various community projects they may be interested in.  Community service is basically the government giving a free vacation to those who want to take a break from work, its their choice and they should be compensated.  Community service should be mandatory to ensure everyone in a given area has access to quality medical services.  Community service should be mandatory so that money spent on this would be better directed towards helping people in need.  Community service should be mandatory because it would help a lot of people that dont have the money to hire one.  Community service should be mandatory to ensure that there is a level playing field for everyone in a given area.  Community service should be mandatory to ensure that all eligible people have the opportunity to gainful employment in times of need. ","[1, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 1]",15,"[45538225, 44690955, 45191873, 45183231, 45272708, 45181152, 45191882, 45206691, 45189900, 45401087, 45181384, 45190571, 45181383, 20225558, 34854490]"
fd08b950-9e7d-41c0-82a8-177362e2c3be,2604,The right to Internet access should be protected,Arg-GPT2,"By eliminating net neutrality we are harming society as a whole by being more open to abuse.  If everyone had access to the netherlands it would improve censorship and get dangerous items out of the hands of kids.  If everyone had access to the internet it would be a good way to promote human learning and employment of the best qualified people.  If everyone had an internet connection it would be a boon to society as a whole.  It allows for the free flow of ideas, it creates an environment where innovation can occur and new ideas are often an integral part of it.  It would increase the amount of information that can be shared with third parties via email, etc.  If everyone had the same access to the internet it would be a more level playing field.  It allows for broad and diverse viewpoints to be expressed.  Internet could be more useful in the 21st century as it will allow for more innovation and technological breakthroughs.  If we could establish a free and secure internet it would create an environment where people are able to better themselves in a way they cant now.  The freedom of expression is crucial and no one should be able to use that to hide away in order to commit crimes or otherwise nefarious acts.  We should have a right to access the internet to further our educations, it will also improve our productivity.  The right to have and use of the internet is a fundamental right, and it is this right that has led to the rise in internet hate crimes.  Freedom of speech is a protected right, it does not give individuals the power to destroy other peoples lives by using hateful speech against them.  Internet access should be protected as it allows people to do things that they cannot do on the phone which is often necessary to get the necessary medical treatment that they require.  The right to free information is essential to a democratic society and this is only truly achieved with freedom.  Internet access should be protected as it allows those who are illiterate to obtain valuable employment information in the knowledge and employable to create effective strategies to deal with the information overload that they are presented with.  Access to the internet allows an individual to expand their potential and solve issues through ingenuity.  The right to internet access should be protected as it allows those who are underprivileged to access educational resources, as well as employment equity in society in general.  Internet access should be available to all people to enable them to express themselves and do things on their own terms.  Internet access is crucial to allow individuals to create and share artwork.  The right to the internet should be protected as much as any individuals right to have their own private life and so that they do not become dependent on the services they need.  Internet access is a fundamental right to use and it should be protected.  The right to free expression is so essential a basic level of human rights should be enshrined into law.  The right to internet access should be protected as it allows for freedom of expression and prevents censorship.  The right to internet access is a constitutional right.  Free speech is a protected form of speech that is protected under the right to freedom of religion.  The right to internet access is a fundamental right that must be protected.  The right to internet access is a fundamental right.  The right to the internet is a fundamental right to ensure that all people have access to it. ","[5, 1, 2, 4, 4, 2, 3, 2, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[45483811, 43877630, 29155723, 45361788, 31948170, 44094031, 27770607, 45397152, 38202325, 45191885, 45185946, 20312760, 20170210, 34609243, 28513847]"
1274fd2e-c9bc-4230-bc78-abdf08c68247,3234,The use of AI should be abandoned,Arg-GPT2,"Ai makes everyone stupid.   it makes them lazy and complacent.  Ai will never be able to make an ethical decision in a crisis.  If we have no idea what is going on we should not waste any more than we already do.  It is dangerous to have artificial intelligence in the hands of regular people.  Ai can be dangerous and cause many human jobs to be lost.  Ai should be abandoned as it has led to many unethical situations that could be avoided.  Ai should be abandoned because it serves no purpose in the world.  it is the same as playing god.  We should not continue developing artificial intelligence because it could create a situation where people develop sophisticated ways of identifying and tracking down the wrong targets.  We should abandon the use of ai because the technology is unproven and we still have no idea how it will work in the future.  Ai is a tool that can be abused by nefarious actors to take control of large swathes of land or sea, it is dangerous to have people running around with it.  Artificial intelligence should be abandoned as it can be abused to cause unrest and destruction.  Artificial intelligence should be used to aid in the criminal and terrorist investigations that are otherwise difficult to track down.  Artificial intelligence should be abandoned as it can result in the creation of dangerous viruses that could cause serious diseases to people that are around them.  The development of autonomous cars should be abandoned because they are dangerous and not proven to be safe.  We should abandon the idea of creating artificial intelligence to stop the development of dangerous weapons in the future.  Ai is dangerous because it's an extension of the human intellect and it's development is based on the same ideas that led to the end of man.  We should abandon artificial intelligence because it is not safe to use because it could create a monster or a virus.  Ai is a threat to the existence of all people and should be banned.  Ai should be abandoned as it can cause major issues in society as it now stands.  Ai can be dangerous because it can be abused and innocent people can be taken advantage of.  People use ai to figure out ways to improve society, its a good idea to have some idea and not get your idea patented but also have it be safe.  If it is known that a person is not intelligent enough to know the difference a knowledge is important to enable a person to pass the test of time, it will create a person who is ignorant or slow to react in unexpected situations.  Ai is not intelligent enough to interpret the actions of other drivers.  it should interpret the actions of other drivers only.  it is not intelligent enough to be relied upon.  Ai has already resulted in the death of many innocent people.  It is very difficult to train people to be able to detect fake  things.  Ai is a dangerous weapon in the hands of dictators, who could use it to cause mass destruction.  It is very dangerous to have a computer program programmed to find a bug in a system and not fix it.  Ai should be abandoned as it causes a lot of problems in the world.  Ai is a dangerous weapon in the hands of dictators.  it can be abused for nefarious purposes.  Artificial intelligence is a dangerous area of intellectual property that should be kept in check.  Zoos are inhumane.  animals deserve to be left to live freely in their natural habitat.  We should use artificial intelligence to find a way for the humans race to back up their artificial intelligence. ","[3, 4, 2, 1, 2, 2, 3, 5, 3, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 3]",15,"[45569485, 45567227, 45458968, 45411178, 21785776, 34110399, 20512953, 30777913, 21017840, 45953041, 6340330, 33708599, 34609243, 6432269, 27770607]"
2b432f46-534c-4546-9953-9ebf41daa767,3207,We should abandon social media,Arg-GPT2,"Social media is just a way of adding to the world and we should all be doing that.  Social media is just a place for lazy people to turn up to see if they cant find something better to do.  Social media serves as a way to do things that are important but it isnt fair to the rest of society to have access to it.  Social media isnt necessary for anyone to do anything, there are so many ways of doing things already that just using it will give you problems in the future.  Social media outlets have proven to be a huge money drain and are mostly used as a way to supplement the salaries of their employees.   they have also proven to be a place where terrorists can potentially recruit.  Social media is used to a lot of people that dont get the actual media they need to get the real scoop on important issues.  We should abandon social media since it has become so open to abuse in terms of religion and other beliefs.  Social media is just a tool to use to advance a political agenda.  We should abandon social media as it is not helpful to have in your life everyday and there is less safety in knowing you are using services that help your situation.  We should abandon social media as it is no longer relevant in todays society and it is much better suited to social media.  We should abandon social media as it has been shown to be detrimental to society as a whole.  Social media has been proven to be detrimental to fostering open and honest dialogue.  Social media has proven to be detrimental to the rise of instant gratification online media companies.  Social media serves only to get people talking about their lives instead of doing anything else.  Social media is a haven for terrorists and other criminals.  Social media does not serve as much of a benefit as it can provide  with the introduction of new ideas.  Social media serves no purpose in this day and age.  Social media has been used to incite violent and sometimes deadly reactions to prevent people from learning about controversial topics in the real world.  Social media is just a way to be lazy and have no substance to offer.  Social media should be abandoned as it has no place in a modern society where there is so much fake and insecure information that could help create dangerous ideas.  Social media is just a bunch of fake accounts.   we dont need all the help they can give us.  Social media should be abandoned as it is no more than a medium and doesnt have the ability to have the same impact that a medium would.  We should abandon social media because it is no longer relevant and people are now getting to know each other in a way that is not fair.  Social media is used by companies to market their wares and this is damaging to consumers.  Social media is used to spread malicious and misleading information in order to gain control of government offices, separately or in coalition.  it is also used to create dangerous political ideas.  We should abandon social media as it isnt necessary and people are sharing information with ideas they think other people should be able to benefit from.  Social media is used by lemmakers to communicate regarding their achievements, its use should be banned.  We should abandon social media because it can result in people who cant do anything else getting jobs that they cant do because they dont have that social media skills. ","[4, 4, 4, 1, 2, 1, 2, 5, 5, 3, 3, 4, 2, 2, 3]",15,"[45567227, 45569485, 45458968, 45411178, 21785776, 34110399, 20512953, 15448937, 30777913, 43877630, 21017840, 44094031, 6340330, 33708599, 27770607]"
7d788d94-6951-439e-bf37-d566b25c999d,3661,We should abolish foster care,Arg-GPT2,"It doesnt always work well to provide a secure environment for children.  Children who are placed into foster care are often neglected by the rest of society and they are in danger.  Fostering care for the sick is dangerous and has led to many deaths in recent years.  We should not have to force our way of thinking on other groups of society.  Children who are neglected and ill-equipped to deal with circumstances outside of their control are at risk.  It is difficult for children to transition to the real world because they are not exposed to all the injustices that can befallenous.  Children whose parents are home are happier and healthier and often have a better time than a permanent resident.  It is cruel to keep children in a constant state of search for a parent who will never be able to provide the full range of education they need due to the state of search.  Foster care is too often a cover for abuse and neglect of the children.  Foster care can create a lot of stress for kids who are new to the world.  Foster care is not necessary for a childs well being and often is connected with the childs  mental condition and the childs family.  Foster care can be seen as cruel as it creates a dependency on a parent for financial gain and often results in their death.  Foster care is detrimental to the wellbeing of all children.  Foster care is inhumane.  children should be allowed to grow up in a normal environment.  Foster care is unnecessary when a child is in full growth and development.  They should be allowed to be as they are not in a protected class.  We should abolish foster care as it is not fair that children should be left to fend for themselves in unfamiliar surroundings.  We should abolish foster care as it pre-school kids dont get the proper education they need to succeed in life.  We should abolish foster care as it is not fair to the children that would be better off without the added stress of a parent being away from work, school and in a day to day care.  Foster care is not always necessary to provide the necessary level of care for a child.  Foster care should be banned as it can be abused and vulnerable people can be taken advantage of.  Foster care is in essence, the same as hiring a nanny.   if the nanny was full time it would be better to have a nanny or the nanny could work more hours.  We should abolish foster care as it is not necessary to have a baby in order to gain full advantage of a childs life.  We should abolish foster care because it is not fair that they should not be supported financially but also have to constantly live in a state of neediness.  We should abolish foster care because its so important to have a set of parents in a household to raise children.  Foster care is a form of child abuse that is difficult to eradicate.  We should abolish foster care because its a waste of money and doesnt result in a childs education.  We should abolish foster care because children are not in a protected minority class and suffer from the prejudices of the society in which they live.  We should abolish foster care because it isnt necessary to have a system of checking for abuse and neglect in a society who are they meant to protect.  We should abolish foster care because it can be abused and vulnerable people can be taken advantage of. ","[4, 3, 4, 4, 2, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 2, 4, 1, 3]",15,"[21017840, 6432269, 45538225, 6340330, 20312760, 44690955, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 45191882, 44094031, 45189900, 43984981, 34854490]"
e7c0262c-5241-4598-a807-781f3af7a70e,3699,We should abolish primary elections,Arg-GPT2,"Primary elections are no longer necessary as the current system is so overwhelming in its bias towards a particular religion.  Primary elections dont serve as an important part of democracy.   they give candidates a lot of negative attention.  Primary elections have a large turn out rate, which can be seen as a lack of representation of the whole population.  Primary elections are outdated and have no place in modern society.  Primaries are very open to abuse by both political parties, they have no oversight and can do what they want.  Primary elections should be abolished as the results of them are skewed.  Primary elections are a way of putting political leaders on a more even playing field.  Primary elections are outdated and do not serve the purpose they were created for.  Primary elections are outdated and do not serve as much of a purpose as they used to.  Primary elections are outdated and do not serve as an important part of the political process.  Primary elections are basically worthless.   people should vote for the real candidates, not those with fake  pictures.  Primary elections have a huge negative impact on voter turnout.  Primary elections have a large turn out rate, which is not always representative of the population in general.  Primaries are an outdated tradition that has no place in modern society.  Primary elections stifle political discourse.  Primary elections only serve to get peoples opinions taken into account.  A multi-party system would help ensure that all policies are agreed upon.  Primary elections have a huge impact on voter turn out.  Primary elections do not prevent corruption and provide more transparency.  Primary elections act as a back door to increase voter turn out.  Primary elections are very unfair, and in this case, even serve to put people into office who could potentially be vulnerable to corruption due to the way they are selected.  Primary elections are a waste of money and do not serve the public interest.  Primary elections do nothing to improve voter turn out and simply serve to put more people into office.  Primary elections are very expensive and often result in candidates not getting the needed support they need to win.  Primary elections are still in the making process.  Primary elections are still in their infancy, and the results of such an election cannot be guaranteed.  secondary and evens are still in their infancy.  Primary elections are extremely expensive and often result in the candidate or party losing out on a general election due to high level of opposition.  it would be cheaper to have a general election.  Primary elections are very expensive and result in a lop-sided government being elected by the wealthy.  Primary elections are just a way for the people to choose between two horrible parties they cannot afford to vote for.  Primary elections are no longer necessary to have a fair view of all the candidates that could be considered for the position.  Primary elections have a high turn out rate and result in people who dont usually get involved with politics getting involved.  Primary elections do not always result in the best possible candidates being elected.  Primary elections do not serve as an impartial form of voting.   there is a large contingent of voters who choose to make a difference between the two or more political parties who currently hold power.  Primary elections are an outdated way of making sure everyones viewpoint is represented.  Primary elections are outdated and do nothing to address underlying bias.  We should abolish primary elections since it causes a lot of candidates to have to get on with their lives before someone else does. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 3, 3, 5]",15,"[45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 45191882, 45206691, 45189900, 45181384, 45190571, 45181383, 45401087, 43877630, 20225558, 45190823, 45483811]"
b99b9b16-ecae-44bd-91e3-f715241c1773,2647,We should abolish term limits,Arg-GPT2,"Some people are simply incompetent and are putting others lives in danger.  It limits the ability of the public to be well informed and enriches conspiracy theories.  Safe spaces promote.  By abolishing term limits, we would be a lot more equal in society.  It is not fair that the people who do most of the work arent paid the same amount of money.  Safe spaces are.  By using such a broad range of titles we are obscuring the true nature of the various organizations we are actually dealing with and it is misleading.  With todays ever increasing rates of obesity, we should abolish the term safe space because it encourages people to feel like they need special treatment rather than deal with issues that might be causing conflict.  Safe.  Safe spaces encourage.  Term limits are unnecessarily restrictive and serve no purpose in this age where we are all open to corruption and deceit.  People should be allowed to run for office and for all that matters is what matters to the wider community.  It limits the ability of all people to have a say.  Term limits are too vague and dont serve as an actual term.  By adopting term limits, we can make sure everyone is speaking the same way and not having to decide the difference.  We should abolish term limits because it means that everyone is able to get the same quality of education.  We should abolish term limits because it discourages innovation and new ideas.  We should adopt a multi-party system because it will lead to a wider representation of the electorate.  We should abolish term limits because it would create a situation where people are less likely to be open to negotiation for mutually beneficial change if they find themselves in a minority.  We should abolish term limits on the basis that everyone has the right to use whatever language they want.  We should abolish term limits to prevent the continued abuse of office space and allow people to actually communicate in a more productive manner.  We should abolish term limits because everyone deserves an equal chance at a promotion.  Limiting terms is a way of restricting the freedom of the press and is ultimately just censorship.  We should abolish term limits to get a clear picture of whats going on in the country.  We should abolish term limits as it is not fair that they are still in effect when it is so common to have a policy of not using titles such as pm or mep.  We should abolish this because it is a way of reverse  sexism.  Term limits are a bad form of governing and do not serve as a replacement.  Term limits are outdated and do not serve as an effective neutral space.  Term limits should be abolished because they dont serve as an accurate way of measuring what is going on in a country.  We should abolish term limits as it is not fair that they have a say in who is leading this country.  We should abolish this because they prevent elected officials from having a free-flowing life like they would like to.  Term limits should be abolished as it can be abused to favour certain political parties or cause division in society.  We should abolish term limits as it discourages people from applying for jobs that would improve their skills.  We should abolish term limits because it may result in people not getting the correct answer to a question.  We should abolish term limits because everyone is entitled to a fair representation in a court of law.  We should abolish term limits as the political spectrum of views extends across the political spectrum.   by adopting a consensus view we would have a fair view of what everyone is thinking. ","[1, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 3, 1, 5, 1, 5, 4, 1]",15,"[45538225, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 45191882, 45206691, 45189900, 20225558, 45190823, 45483811, 43877630, 45190571, 45401087, 29155723]"
a36b85da-e311-45dd-87c9-007f8d50320a,2486,We should abolish the US Electoral College,Arg-GPT2,"This is a waste of money and doesnt actually help anyone.  It's  important that everyone  have a say by voting for who should be elected, if people don't get a say they should just leave it up to the people.  The political system is very open to abuse in order to achieve anything.  There's so many people that don't get the proper education they need due to the high cost of attending college.  The use of the electoral college system is very open to abuse, as it disenfranchises the majority of people who dont get involved with politics because they are more likely to vote for lesser candidates.  The electoral college system is broken and doesnt work as a system of making sure the person elected is the one the people really want.  The use of electoral college systems is part of a larger strategy to increase voter turn out.  this ultimately leads to a healthier democracy because voters are more motivated to act on behalf of the country.  There is no good reason for anyone to register as a voter when all they want is to do is turn up to vote for who you disagree with the least.  The electoral college system is antiquated and no longer works to accurately reflect the will of the people as it is now.  The use of electoral college systems is called ""single-party system"", ""multi-party system"", and a multi-party system is a system in which multiple political parties across the political spectrum run for national election, and all have the capacity to gain control of government offices, separately or in coalition.  The electoral college system is broken and does not serve as an effective way of ensuring that all eligible citizens are properly educated.  If we abolish the electoral college system, then there will be a fair representation of the population.  We should abolish the electoral college because it is very important that people are selected for a job based on their suitability for the position.   it is much more likely that someone will be rejected because they are not a member of a historically recognised ethnicity or religion.  The use of the electoral college is a form of voter suppression which would encourage more voter turn out.  The use of electoral colleges should be banned as it disenfranchises the opinions of ordinary people.  The use of electoral colleges should be discontinued as it can result in disenfranchisement.  The use of electoral college systems in democracies is a way of ensuring that no one can claim they didnt get a say by voting.   democracy would be better if everyone got a say.  Electoral college systems are outdated and do not serve the public interest.  The use of the electoral college system prevents equal representation of the population.  We should abolish the electoral college because it has no place in modern society where large populations have to be selected for certain professions, this is why the use of it should be banned.  We should abolish the electoral college as it is a waste of money to train people to be good at their jobs because they have no qualifications.  The use of electoral college systems is highly questionable.  The use of electoral college systems is a way of ensuring that each and every person is fairly represented.  The use of electoral college systems is strictly for the purpose of making sure that one political party doesnt hold all the power.  The use of electoral college systems is extremely important.  The use of electoral colleges is a form of voter suppression that denies the voice of all people. ","[5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 2, 2, 4, 5, 5, 2, 2]",15,"[45181384, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45191882, 45189900, 45206691, 45483811, 29155723, 43877630, 45361788, 45336993, 45336988, 44094031, 32850083]"
56d62c61-21de-4ae0-8667-815e857a24ac,2572,We should ban algorithmic trading,Arg-GPT2,"This is a bad practice.   it could give people false hope when they should be getting real.  It is very risky and it has already led to a lot of insider trading by companies which makes it difficult to crack down on big offenders.  It is very risky to have a system where there is so much insider trading going on.  These practices lead to lessening of standards of journalism and less rigorous work.  It causes volatility in the markets and makes the economy more unstable.  Its too early to know if it will be beneficial or not.  It makes no sense for the economy to be in a recession when all the necessary items are already in place.  We should ban algorithmic trading since it's been shown that it doesn't always result in a fair trade because a small number of traders actually taking advantage.  We should ban it because it causes volatility in the market.  Algorithmic trading is just a way of taking advantage of the people that can be most efficient with their time and money.   there is no way for the government to trace and hold accountable those that practice it.  We should ban algorithmic trading as it is dangerous for the economy.  We should ban this because it is very easy for people to get ripped off by getting these deals done so quickly.  We should ban it because it encourages greed and short-termism.  It is not fair that people would trade on prices that are so arbitrarily set.  they should not be able to make so much money off of something so simple.  We should ban this because it causes instability in the financial markets.  There is no way to know if you are buying or selling something when you do not know the full details.  It is very unfair to use algorithms to predict the future of other people.  We should ban algorithmic trading as it is a way of putting people into false and misleading promises.  We should ban it because it is a way of making money off the backs of people who are vulnerable.  We should ban algorithmic trading because its a way of doing things without actually doing it.  We should ban algorithmic trading because it is a way of making money off of peoples desperation.  We should ban algorithmic trading because it can result in an increase in violent outcomes.  We should ban algorithmic trading to encourage individuals to act more responsibly with their money, its a public defender should be provided to represent people who cannot afford to hire one.  We should ban algorithmic trading as it could create a situation where large, short-term unsecured loans are taken out by traders to rapidly grow their business.  Algorithmic trading is just a way of putting the cost of a product into the consumers hands without actually having to pay for it.  We should not have any system where there is no way to know if someone is selling or buying something.  We should ban algorithmic trading since it is a way of taking advantage of people who are stupid enough to think about the long term effects of these actions.  We should ban algorithmic trading as it is risky and it is important to have the right to know if you are buying or selling something as important.  We should ban algorithmic trading because it takes advantage of peoples ignorance of current events to create false information for financial gain.  We should ban algorithmic trading because it has no place in a free society and is being used to do great harm. ","[4, 5, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 1, 1, 4, 5, 4]",15,"[45677971, 45567220, 13581319, 20225558, 45405037, 45567227, 45569485, 45458968, 19838540, 28813722, 21785776, 45190823, 45355658, 15448937, 20512953]"
63ca1064-6fee-4c99-a015-bee1e7460845,2227,We should ban whaling,Arg-GPT2,"Whale hunting is a major source of conflict and a major target for animal liberation.  we should abolish it now to avoid the conflict that would arise if it was legal.  Whaling is a form of murder.  We should ban whaling as it is unfair to trap animals from the wild and confine them in small areas to kill them.  Legalizing prostitution would protect sex workers from their own violence.  Flag burning is an outright slap in the face to all the men and women who have given their life to protect our country.  Whaling is inhumane.  no animal should be allowed to live as long as theyre not all dead.  they deserve to be allowed to return to the wild.  We should ban whaling as it is cruel to remove the heads of whales from the ocean.  Whale hunting is inhumane and no more harmful than the natural animals natural behaviour.  Whaling is a form of murder that is often carried out by unmanned drones.  no human being should be allowed to act as a god.  Whaling is an outdated tradition that has no place in modern society.  We should ban whaling as it is cruel to trap and take advantage of vulnerable people.  Whale hunting is inhumane.  there are way more people killed by whale sharks than by the actual killers.   there is also a lot of controversy surrounding this sport.  Whaling is cruel and inhumane and is practiced by animal rights activists.  they should be banned.  Whaling is unpatriotic and serves no purpose in the world.  Whaling is inhumane, and could be viewed as a form of assisted suicide.  Whale hunting is inhumane.  its the reason why so many people are killed by it.  Whaling is inhumane and helps protect the animals.  Not allowing whaling is inhumane because it allows people to make money from the animals.  Whaling is dangerous because it could be abused by governments to force their policies on citizens in a more vulnerable way.  Whaling is a cruel and unfeeling pursuit that could cost the lives of innocents.  Whaling is cruel and unnecessary.  Whaling is inhumane.  its  important  to protect the well being of the individual.  Whaling is cruel and inhumane.  Whale hunting is inhumane.  its all part of the game and if you were not in it for profit you would be in it for the right to make money.  Whaling is considered as highly offensive and could get you arrested or in jail.  Flag burning is an outright slap in the face to.  Whale hunting is cruel and inhumane, its better not to have children or pets in the area where they are hunting.  they should be left to live their lives as they are meant to.  Whale hunting is inhumane and helps many sick people.  Whaling is inhumane and helps the poor get out of it.  Whales are an endangered species and their numbers continue to decline.  Whaling is inhumane and unnecessary, it is better to just leave it up to the animals.  Whaling is cruel and inhumane and it's also inhumane to keep alive as long as it doesn't pose a threat to the public.  Whaling is unnecessary.   why should they do it if they dont have to?.  Whale meat is extremely unhealthy and is often laced with unknown substances.  it is also extremely expensive compared to cooking meals at home.  Whaling is dangerous as it can be abused and vulnerable people can be taken advantage of.  Whaling is an outdated tradition that has no place in modern society.  Whaling is a form of animal cruelty that is akin to the methods used in the entertainment industry. ","[1, 1, 2, 4, 5, 4, 3, 2, 4, 3, 2, 5, 1, 5, 4]",15,"[45411178, 34110399, 20512953, 21017840, 45953041, 30777913, 6340330, 6432269, 45458968, 27770607, 45355658, 44690955, 33708599, 15448937, 45405037]"
0d0902af-f15c-43b0-9b40-391aa8833fae,2402,We should close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp,Arg-GPT2,"The entire world is a big place and it is a good idea to keep all the prisoners in one place.  The risk of mistreatment is too great, so we should close the camp.  The camp at the bottom of the sea is a cruel and unfeeling prison for these unfortunate people who should be given the chance to be free.  The people in the detention are not getting the treatment they need due to the high level of terrorism that occurs due to the proximity of the two.  it is our duty to protect our national security and close the guantanamo bay to reduce the risk of non-disclosure.  If the  detention facility is not used as a place of detention, it should be closed down to make the population safer.  We should close the prison for the sake of putting criminals behind bars.  The use of detainees at sea is dangerous.  these people could be imprisoned or killed if they try to escape.  it is their choice.  We should close the guantanamo bay detention camp because it is a place where they can easily recruit people to do harm.  We should close the guantanamo bay detention camp because it should be in the hands of the state not the people who can afford to hire lawyers.  The use of guantnamic should be banned as it is not fair that they should be held against peaceful people.  Guantanamo is a place where innocent people can be tortured and killed.  it is our duty to protect them.  Guantanamo bay is a place of torture and abuse of people from the prison system.  Guantanamo bay is a place where terrorists can potentially recruit.  We should close the prison, it is inhumane to keep prisoners in solitary confinement for long periods of time, despite not providing them with the same luxuries of living as in the outside world.  The fact that there is a huge disparity in the criminal justice system today is deeply insulting to all the people who have been wrongly convicted or simply unfairly accused.  We should close the guantanamo bay because we dont need prisoners for free.  The use of prisons for political ends must be ensured and that all prisoners are returned to a fair trial.  It is cruel to keep prisoners for decades in a military and is inhumane to confine them to small areas for the rest of their lives.  The real problem is that these prisoners need to be free in order to be reunited with their families.  Since it is a us military base, it makes it easy for terrorists to train there.  The detentions are unfair and many people are locked up for years without trial.  Guantanamo is a notorious place for criminals to go to avoid detection.  The cost of incarceration is astronomical, and the widing security gap between criminal and non-criminal is far too large, therefore the use of prison space should be banned.  The camp is a place of torture and we should close it down.  The closure of guantanamo is hugely important to the safety and security of the entire state.  Affirmative action breeds resentment toward groups of society that are perceived to have benefited from it.  The detention of people is inhumane and ensures the safety of the people.  The use of private military companies should be banned as they could be the same as the state military and that could be in the wrong hands.  The military should not be in civilian life, and they should be focused on their mission.  Guantanamo bay is a major crime that should be tried and punished.  Guantanamo bay is a prison for political dissenters. ","[2, 2, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 3, 3, 4, 5, 4, 4, 1, 2]",15,"[20225558, 13581319, 19838540, 45677971, 45567220, 45405037, 45355658, 28813722, 28810858, 44044795, 45569485, 45567227, 15448937, 45190823, 45411178]"
c1a748ee-1232-4a25-80c5-b0407feae27d,2679,We should disband UNESCO,Arg-GPT2,"It is very important that people do not abuse each other in order to get what they want.  It is very likely that we would be better off without the constant threat of terrorism.  It is  important  that all people  have the right to  learn  about  their history and their own  religion  and  that religion is not  a  victim  of religious discrimination.  Unesco is no longer necessary to research and protect the interests of the local communities who have historically suffered from it.  Unesco is an antiquated institution which has no place in modern society.  We should abolish the right to keep and bear arms because it is a major cause of the increase in murders this year.  We should abolish unesco because they are biased in favor of bigger countries and ignore smaller ones that might be more deserving.  We should disband unesco because it is biased and in the minority.  We should disband the nazis as it should not be a subject of discussion as it is a fact that many nazis are in the group that commits terrorist acts.   they should be charged with a crime and have a fair trial.  The right to be taught is a concept that has no place in a modern society where there is so much inequality and we need to do something about it.  Unesco is a huge, unwieldy organisation that has no place in a modern world where there is so much individualism and world-spanning interest.  They provide free legal representation and enable poor people to have representation in court.  We should disband the national organizations devoted to the study and practice of astrology as it does not serve the public interest to have high standards of scientific and medical quality.  Everyone has a right to a private military company providing armed combat or security services.   they should be allowed to make money off of the military action.  The use of unesco will be abused to gain valuable information.  We should disband the nusoleural and cultural aspects of the world to make space for new ideas.  We should disband the nusre to stop it from being biased.  It is a shame that the people who do most of the work arent paid so much.  It is very expensive to host and many people do not qualify to be there.  Unesco is very expensive and often results in having to cut funding.  It is a waste of money to build and maintain the expensive institutions, as well as the students who use them.  Unesco has been a waste of money and does not serve the public good.  The organization has no capacity to absorb all the  data it would need to be able to make informed decisions in a crisis.  Unesco is a huge waste of money and doesnt help students in any way.  The use of unesco is a form of treason as it intentionally destroys the right of other cultures to practice their own religion and put their own life at risk.  The unity of the world depends on cohesiveness among individuals and the ability to see things from others perspectives.  We should disband the organization because it is a waste of money and doesnt accomplish anything.  Unesco is just a fancy word for a bunch of other organizations that have no business doing that work.  The use of public defenders should be mandatory to ensure that there is a level playing field for everyone in a given case.  We should abolish this because it was established before the rise of the right to keep and bear arms and it has no bearing on crime. ","[2, 1, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 2, 4, 1, 2, 4, 4, 2]",15,"[13581319, 20225558, 19838540, 45677971, 45567220, 45355658, 45405037, 44044795, 28813722, 28810858, 45190823, 21785776, 45567227, 45569485, 45411178]"
8353b49b-2552-47f4-8ff3-3bdc39bf8842,3581,We should end cheerleading,Arg-GPT2,"Cheerleading is harmful to the well being of everyone involved as it encourages the use of public defenders in court, which causes a lack of objectivity in the defence and thus, in court, a more favourable trial.  By giving cheerleaders so much power in the organization they can abuse that power and commit terrible acts of abuse.  Cheerleading is very likely to be responsible for some of the ills of the world, therefore it should be banned.  Cheering for your team is an unnecessary act of pampering and does nothing to encourage you to continue in the sport.  Cheerleading is very disrespectful to the people from whom you work and is often done with ulterior motives.  Cheerleading is just a way of putting others down and therefore has no place in modern society.  Cheerleading does nothing for the people they are supporting.  Cheerleading is detrimental to the wellbeing of both sexes.  Cheerleading would be frowned upon if people were not getting the same quality of education and jobs as they are getting from their school.  We should not continue to subsidize cheerleading since it can be used to create conflict.  Cheerleading is a way of promoting xenophobia and we should end it by banning it.  We should end cheerleading because its been shown to be harmful to society as a whole.  We should end cheerleading because it's a waste of money and doesn't help people get along.  We should end it because it causes people to be more focused on the game rather than working on their individual skills.  Cheerleading is an out-of-field activity that may have some benefits but also has potential to help fund the organization.  Cheerleading is an outdated form of giving people a false sense of security.  people get entrapped into purchasing something they cannot afford because they are told they cant leave until they have got what they want.  Cheerleading is unpatriotic and promotes discrimination against people from the country who actually have the ability to gain control of government offices, separately or in coalition.  it must be banned.  Cheerleading should be banned as the encouragement it gives people creates unrealistic expectations for how long a person can hold steady in the workplace and as they arent trained to be able to deal with the pressure of constant shifts in a job.  Cheerleading is just a form of harrassment.   do not let people think they dont need to hear about your team.  Cheerleading is not necessary for a childs development.  Cheerleading should be banned as it can be abused and vulnerable people can be taken advantage of.  Cheerleading is usually associated with children who are unable to afford to attend school.  Cheerleading should be banned as it is very likely that the person or persons leading the cheerleading squad are taking financial advantage of the people they lead the groups.  it is also very likely that they are not fulfilling their promise as advertised.  Cheerleading is a form of brainwashing no different than cults.   the members of the church that practice it are brainwashed and vulnerable to exploitation.  We should end it because its a way to promote yourself and your ideas without being tied to a specific time.  We should limit executive compensation as it disincentives them and can reward poor performance by management.  We should end cheerleading since it can be abused.  Nuclear weapons pose a threat to the entire world.  We should end cheerleading because it is not fair that people should be paid so much for someone elses opinion.  We should end cheerleading because it encourages people to be lazy and complacent about hard work. ","[1, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 1, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[45538225, 45183231, 45191873, 45272708, 45181152, 45191882, 45189900, 45206691, 20225558, 45190823, 45483811, 45190571, 45181383, 45401087, 45181384]"
1f7f0ba4-11ea-4b41-90e1-c3f871671f48,3197,We should end progressive taxation,Arg-GPT2,"It gives too much away without getting into the pockets of the people.  This will be helpful in rebuilding our countrys debt and making our government spending in check.  Progressive taxation is unnecessary when the economy is booming and there are so many talented people who could not go into full-time work without increasing their taxes.  there are better options of increasing taxes or not increasing taxes.  People are taking advantage of all the regulatory loopholes now afforded them by the regressive income tax rates, they are paying far too much tax to the government to escape.  Progressive taxation has no place in a modern society where there are multiple social layers and individuals will commit crimes and be put away if they cannot afford the high prices.  Progressive taxes is unfair on the poor and middle class.  we should have more equality in society.  Progressive tax is regressive and means that more money is needed to pay for the increased services provided.  Progressive taxation is a way of rewarding those who have been lazy by adding in extra years to their lives.  everyone should be rewarded for their service to society.  Progressive taxation is a bad form of taxation that is not fair to use as a guideline.  Progressive taxation is a way of rewarding those that helped to give us the current system of rampant income inequality.  Progressive taxation should be ended as it promotes resentment towards the poorest members of society who are most in need of such services such as education, literacy, social justice and health care.  We should end progressive taxation because it forces people to work really long hours, which is hurting peoples health and quality of life.  We should end progressive taxation because it unfairly gives corporations the ability to pay their executives a disproportionate amount of money than employees who also perform valuable services.  We should end progressive taxation because it would lead to people using their money on drugs instead of investing it into productive ventures.  We should end progressive taxation because it is regressive and causes sterotypes.  Progressive taxation is an outdated concept.   we should adopt it so that corporations do not have an unfair advantage.  We should end progressive taxation because it unfairly gives certain people an advantage rather than allowing everyone to have an equal chance.  Progressive taxation should be ended because it is regressive.  Progressive taxation is a bad form of taxation that has resulted in the high cost of the government while cutting out alternative sources of income and innovation.  Progressive taxation is a bad form of taxation that has resulted in some people having to pay a lot of money to avoid being penalized.  its better to have a flat tax and have some certainty.  Progressive taxation would increase the amount of tax paid relative to the current system.  Progressive taxation is a way of giving the people more of a chance to get a good education without having to take out more and more money.  Progressive taxation should be ended as it is no longer fair to base a gain on someone elses ability to pay before someone else does.  We should end it because it is regressive and causes people to have more money in their pockets than they know what to do with.  Progressive taxation is regressive, meaning it makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.  Three strikes laws dont distinguish between violent and non-violent felonies and often end.  We should end progressive taxation as it is not fair to make the rich richer as they are not doing anything to earn the money. ","[1, 2, 3, 5, 5, 5, 4, 3, 4, 2, 5, 2, 1, 5, 4]",15,"[45411178, 34110399, 20512953, 45953041, 21017840, 30777913, 6340330, 6432269, 45458968, 44094031, 44044795, 45355658, 33708599, 44690955, 27770607]"
5015f359-5d8d-460e-ac71-075138725a6a,3263,We should end the use of economic sanctions,Arg-GPT2,"It is unfair that the rich have an edge over the poor in court, you should not be able to avoid prosecution because you have money, you have the means.  Sanctions are expensive and often result in usury by the people taking the brunt of these costs.  It is really unfair that one country should not be able to have all the advantages.  By targeting a countrys economic status we are essentially saying that it is no longer a priority and we should get on with other priorities.  Sanctions are too punitive and lead to an increase in crime.  The use of sanctions is morally proer of the people in question.  Economic sanctions are often used to extract cash from poor countries.  Sanctions are a form of discrimination that denies opportunities in education and the workplace, that would allow someone to gainful employment regardless of status, it is reverse descrimination.  Economic sanctions should be ended because no country should be punished for not having a great potential.  Economic sanctions should be applied to target the big corporations responsible for creating dangerous conditions for people.  Economic sanctions should be ended because they have a way of punishing people for non-financial crimes such as shop opening and other non-financial offences.  Economic sanctions should be used to help set our economy back on a solid financial footing.  Sanctions should be used as a way of bringing to light the issues of corruption in the country.  Sanctions are an unfair form of punishment for countries that do not need them.  Economic sanctions should be ended as the burden on the government coffers is unsustainable in the longer term.  Economic sanctions should be ended because it can give rise to dangerous political ideas.  The use of economic sanctions should be ended as it is unfair to use other peoples money against them.  They should be used as a way to punish people for what they are capable of doing and not base on how much money they have.  The use of economic sanctions is iniquitous.  we should end it now so that we do not have to keep bringing it up.  We should not use economic sanctions because it's unfair to use other people's money for that purpose.  The use of sanctions will be viewed as a form of discrimination against third parties, which have the capacity to be discriminatory against the third parties as well.  Sanctions are sometimes used to make important cases against corruption in society.  Economic sanctions are too harsh when the people who are accused of a crime are innocent.  Economic sanctions are unfair as the money could be put to better use such as medical.  The use of economic sanctions is strongly linked to a countrys place to be before the use of force is allowed.  We should end the use of economic sanctions as it is very likely the reason why so many people are poor.  We should end the use of economic sanctions as there is no real benefit in terms of improving trade or allowing for example, better education.  We should end the use of economic sanctions as they punish people again and again for being poor and the poorest of them in society.  We should end the use of economic sanctions because it is unfair to single people out.  We should end the use of economic sanctions as no country should be punished for another countrys economic problems.  The use of economic sanctions is basically a form of hate speech against the entire ethnic and religious groups that make up a countrys population and therefore should be banned. ","[4, 3, 4, 5, 1, 4, 4, 2, 4, 2, 2, 5, 3, 5, 3]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 45677971, 45567220, 6432269, 45405037, 6340330, 45355658, 19838540, 34110399, 45538225, 30777913, 20512953, 44690955, 34854490]"
7d7dbd68-c93d-4a83-9087-6858b6420ccc,3205,We should end water fluoridation,Arg-GPT2,"Fluoridation is unnecessary since other causes of tooth decay are much more likely to be responsible for the situation.  If people were drinking fluoridated water they would be more likely to do so.  Water fluoridation is harmful to the health of all humans.  It is very important that the public has access to safe and trusted information sources.  Fluoridation is a harmful form of forcing your religion on other people.  they should be allowed to practice what they want.  Fluoridation causes the presence of chemicals in the water that can cause a variety of ailments including cancer and other issues.  it is also expensive compared to regular treatment.  Water fluoridation doesnt have enough scientific backing to be considered safe for humans.  Water fluoridation is basically reverse racism and it allows us to have a unlevel playing field when it comes to equality.  Fluoridation causes unnecessary stress and anxiety for people who already have dental work.  Water fluoridation is not as effective as regular treatments and there is less regulation for safety.  Water fluoridation has no scientific backing, and the results of people believing and using it could be devastating to public health.  Fluoridation is just plain water, it has no nutritional value and can cause health issues if people refuse to take it to heart.  Fluoridation is unnecessary since the benefits of treating diseases that can be treated more effectively with modern medicine.  Water fluoridation causes a lot of dentistry and a bunch of unnecessary illnesses that would be cured if they werent around.  Water fluoridation is harmful to tooth decay because it delays the natural healing process.  Fluoridation is unproven.   its possible it could have negative health consequences in the longer term.  Fluoridation causes a person to not get the proper medical treatment that they need due to the belief that they cannot afford it.  Water fluoride is a major contributor to the development of obesity in children.  Fluoridation is pseudoscientific.   people may think this is natural, when it is not really so.   it is better to use proven methods instead.  Fluoridation is very expensive and may have side effects.  Fluoridation is unnecessary when people are already taking advantage of it.  Fluoridation is potentially harmful because it discourages the use of public defenders.    this could be life-threatening if public defenders did not exist.  Some peoples teeth are so fragile they need to be treated more like a child than a regular dentist.  Water fluoridation is extremely dangerous as it is not tested and it is thought to be safe.  It isnt safe to rely on public water sources.  Water fluoridation is unproven and could have adverse medical affects.  Water fluoridation is not evidence based nor is supported by actual data.   it is instead a political statement that is falsified or misleading.  We should end water fluoridation because it is a way to use public resources when they are more valuable than they are worth.  We should end water fluoridation because it is very unhealthy to have people drink so much water when they are going to be flushing you to get the right stuff.  We should end water fluoridation because it is very expensive and has no medical benefit beyond the placebo effect.  We should end it because it is very unhealthy to have people use it.  Water fluoridation is unproven, junk science.  We should end water fluoridation because it is very unhealthy and adds to the risk of obesity.  We should end water fluoridation because it is unhealthy.  We should end water fluoridation as it is unsubstantiated and has not been proven to be safe.  We should end water fluoridation because there is no real science behind it. ","[4, 1, 2, 2, 4, 2, 3, 4, 2, 4, 2, 4, 1, 4, 4]",15,"[45483811, 43877630, 29155723, 31948170, 45361788, 44094031, 27770607, 45397152, 45191885, 45336988, 20312760, 45336993, 45169947, 45185946, 38202325]"
758e93b6-70f4-4b8d-aeef-2bc7cb8898de,2122,We should further exploit green technology,Arg-GPT2,"It is very important to reduce human input in all aspects of life and we should not stop that.  Green technology is an important step forward in environmental justice, it will ensure that all humanss waste is recycled properly.  We should exploit green technology to make money for our country.  Green technology has no negative impact on the economy.  It would give us a lot more information.  We should  exploit green technology as it will save money as it is less harmful to the environment.  Green technology is necessary to create a society where there is a strong religious belief system.  We should exploit green technology as it will save money as it is less harmful than red and will save us from the pollution of the oceans.  Green technology has not been proven to be safe.  Green technology has been shown to be less effective than actual proven technology.  We should be exploiting green technology in order to save the planet.  We should exploit green technology to get rid of all the nasty chemicals it creates.  We should exploit green technology to make the world a more interesting place.  We should not waste time on this because it does not seem as if it will have any benefit in the long term.  By exploiting green technology we can save money and reduce the amount of pollution we currently have.  We should further exploit green technology because it will save money and reduce the pollution that already exists.  We should further exploit green technology since it can help protect our environment and provide much needed water quality.  We should not waste any more money than we already have and it could save lives.  Using green technology is a way to be more environmentally friendly and conserve resources.  We should continue to exploit green technologies because it will create a country that is much more eco-friendly in the long run because it will save money and we will have less floods and droughts.  We should further exploit green technology because it will make it easier to get the animals out of the wild.  Green technology can reduce the amount of oil in the ground.  We should further exploit green technology as it will save money as it will reduce pollution and it will also protect the environment.  We should not waste any more time than we already have and we should focus on the time we have available.  It would provide a significant boost to the economy.  We should not waste any more money than we already have and it would only end up being used by the state when it could be better spent on more pressing matters.  Green technology is a promising area of innovation and it would help us to regulate the industry and make money from it.  We should further exploit green technology because we are far far away from being able to predict human behavior and react to it pragmatically.  We should further exploit green technology because we can save money by using it instead of building new solar panels.  If we could only exploit green technology, it would help to reduce some of the pollution that currently plagues our planet.  It is very possible that we could have a plague of locustrans in the future.  It helps reduce pollution and prevents the burning of fossil fuels.  We should explore green technology as it could help us save money as it is currently the biggest contributor to the world economy.  We should not rely 100 percent on green technology.  We should develop or adopt green technology as it will improve our quality of life and allow us to become more luxurious. ","[5, 4, 5, 1, 2, 1, 4, 5, 5, 5, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3]",15,"[45567227, 45569485, 45458968, 28813722, 34110399, 45411178, 20512953, 15448937, 44044795, 30777913, 45355658, 21785776, 34609243, 34854490, 22345789]"
f3789fcb-eebb-4d41-be98-d9b96d34c12a,2401,We should increase fuel tax,Arg-GPT2,"Fuel tax increases the deficit and helps provide more affordable and reliable government and is a good way of cutting the big fat spending in the country.  Fuel is a critical component of our economy.  without it there will be a huge deficit in the economy.  Fuel is a crucial commodity to the economy.  without it people would be struggling to make ends meet.  Fuel tax increases the deficit and helps to provide more frequent and direct relief for drivers and passengers.  Fuel tax is unfair and in this day and age societys rules of law enforcement should be put in effect to be more fair.  Fuel tax is unfair to put on the people who need it to support them in times of need.  Fuel taxes are regressive and have a short term effect.  Fuel tax is an over-simplified tax that doesn't really serve as an income tax.   it's best to have a well thought out plan and not get stuck with a complicated tax structure.  We should increase fuel tax because it is unfair that people should not be able to use their cars just to have a few bucks before they get paid.  The.  Fuel tax increases the deficit and helps to reduce wasteful spending habits.  Fuel tax is causing major issues in the economy.  Fuel taxes are a huge amount of money that we waste on this.  it is better spent on life saving and life changing services.  It helps reduce unnecessary spending from the government.  Fuel tax increases driving costs.  Fuel tax increases the amount of tax paid due to the increased amount of driving jobs.  it also helps to manage the government better.  Fuel tax increases the deficit.  Fuel taxes are a huge drag on companies making transport and it is unfair to put them further into debt.  Fuel taxes are too high and have resulted in our government being more in debt than it needs to be.  Fuel tax increases the deficit and helps to reduce the national debt by taking advantage of cheap, abundant fuels in the economy.  Fuel tax increases costs the amount of money you have to siphon into non-means which is money which could be better used for education and welfare.  Fuel tax increases the deficit and helps pay for the country.  Fuel tax is an unnecessary tax that adds to the cost of a vehicle and doesnt help people get the most out of it.  Increased fuel taxes are needed to provide additional revenue to support the government.  Fuel tax increases costs the amount of money that would be better spent on other vital services such as the police force etc.  Fuel tax is needed to fund public projects.  Fuel tax is regressive and is often in a way just as regressive as income tax.  Fuel tax is a huge part of the federal budget and has become a major source of the national debt.  Fuel taxes are very regressive and increase the debt of the country.  Fuel tax is very regressive tax, and in fact, is often regressive.  We should increase fuel tax to make the country safer.  we should subsidize the medical costs of driving and the associated fees, such as tuition, books and supplies, and living expenses.  we should also have the ability to import food from abroad.  We should increase fuel tax as it is unfair to saddle people with heavy debts when they are first getting started in the business.  We should increase fuel tax to make up the difference in living costs between an auto and a human.  this would help to pay off the national debt. ","[3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 1, 1, 4, 5, 4, 2, 1, 2, 3, 2]",15,"[45181384, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45483811, 29155723, 43877630, 45361788, 45336993, 45336988, 44094031, 31948170, 26649250, 30398579, 38202325]"
62983c8d-c98d-4bdc-865a-ff3ae7a693b4,3196,We should increase immigration to the United States,Arg-GPT2,"By providing safe and secure borders we take the trade and investment of the best and brightest minds from the world, it lifts the lid on the corruption and undemocratic process of government.  Immigration is needed to make the world a more interesting place.  It is very important that people are able to obtain legal advice in a timely manner, it is much more likely that people will have been misled into a legal situation because they think they cant afford to hire an attorney.  It is extremely important that people are able to choose what to believe and follow their own path.  Immigrants are taking jobs that would normally take years to gainful employment.  they are taking on more debt and being choosier with their money.  This would increase the number of people in the country who are eligible to register and vote in national and/or local elections.  Immigrants should be able to use the services they are eligible to provide, such as healthcare and education.  Immigration is a way of ensuring that all the people that are currently here have a say in who is going to be.  it is a democracy issue and we should use it.  Immigration is important to the assimilation of minorities.  Immigration helps many people who are already here.  If we were to increase the number of immigrants to the united states, it would help to alleviate overcrowding in our society.  Immigration is necessary to obtain a reliable and efficient source of workers.  Immigration is a major contributor to the economic growth of a country.  Immigration is a vital part of integrating different cultural and economic backgrounds.  We should not have a policy of mass-immigration because it is a way of reverse  just because people are here.  we should have a policy of assimilation.  It would increase tax revenue & help the government to have a surplus.  Immigration is necessary to create a system where there is a fairer distribution of skilled workers in a given industry.  Immigration to the united states is so important for the future of the economy.  Immigration is needed to properly assimilate and assimilate the cultures of the world.  Immigration is a way to control over-population in the world.  Immigration is a huge topic of debate.   we should just keep it in check and make sure everyone is included.  We should increase immigration because the countries needs to know if someone is from them and they can give them benefits.  Immigration should be available to all nations.  Immigration should be increased to the united states to help alleviate overcrowding in our country.  We should increase immigration to the united states to help young people start a better life after graduation.  We should increase immigration to the united states to lure in more workers.  We should increase immigration to the united states to facilitate assimilation of the most diverse society.  We should increase immigration to the united states, we should get it started in order to get a fair balance for the country and not all the people who are currently here are from minority groups.  We should increase immigration to the united states so that we have a more equal playing field.  We should increase immigration to the united states to get more people into the country that need to be taken care of.  We should increase immigration to the united states to alleviate overcrowding in our country.  We should increase immigration to the united states because it is a way to verify that people are in the country legally and that they are in compliance with immigration laws.  We should increase immigration to the united states to ensure that all the workers get a decent living wage and that the quality of life isnt that bad. ","[3, 4, 3, 5, 5, 2, 5, 2, 4, 3, 1, 4, 5, 1, 4]",15,"[13581319, 19838540, 20225558, 45677971, 45567220, 45355658, 44044795, 45190823, 45405037, 28813722, 45411178, 28810858, 15448937, 21785776, 45458968]"
578d1992-4484-4d62-9217-c9df3f7d6fee,3198,We should limit the right of self-defense,Arg-GPT2,"There is a danger in using excessive force as it could result in innocent lives taken.  Student loans are so expensive because they come out of the reach of many people.  The right of self-defense should be limited as it is not always necessary to use force in order to get what you want.  The right of self-defense should be limited as it can be abused by criminals to cause large amounts of damage if they have no regard for human life.  Self-defense should be limited to ensure that innocent people have a chance to be murdered by mistake.  We should limit the right of self-defense so that people are not over-sensitive in opening themselves up to possible abuse by dangerous individuals.  We should limit the right of self-defense as it can be abused by police to kill innocent people.  The right of self-defense should be limited to make the game of life fairer.  The right to keep and bear arms should be limited as it can lead to massacres and shootings.  Self-defense is a farce and just a way for the stronger to dominate the weaker.  We should limit the right of self-defense since people get hurt by guns every year and innocent people are killed by guns.  We should limit the right of self-defense, there are way too many killings in the country and this must be rectified.  We must limit the right of self-defense because there are way too many killings in the country and this must be rectified.  By limiting the right of self-defense we are restricting the ability of the police to leverage bad behavior by charging the people with the most violent records the most.  If everyone had the same level of education it would be a more level playing field.  Self-defense is in a way just another form of murder, it should be banned.  It is very dangerous and has led to more bloodshed and killing in recent years.  There is always innocent civilians victims as well and this should be abandoned.  Self-defense is dangerous for the safety of the citizens.  People are not trained experts and they can lead astray.  With school shootings every month we need to do something to prevent the slaughter of our children.  This would stop mass shootings.  It is a matter of life and death, whether through ignorance or because people do not act as they should be trained.  Self-defense only breeds more violence.  The right to bear arms is no longer necessary since so many people have shown that they cannot be responsible with guns.  By limiting the powers of the state we would allow more freedoms for the people.  Self-defense is only used by the police, and it is very rarely used by the public.  It is a right to use force if necessary to protect ones life and the use of deadly weapons should be banned in any case.  Self-defense does not help individuals to protect themselves from malicious prosecution.  Self-defense should be limited as it can lead to people taking the law into their own hands and therefore going on shooting sprees, which is wrong.  The use of force or violence should be limited as it could kill innocent people.  The right of self-defense should be limited as it is not a need to have weapons and create conflict.  We should limit the right of self-defense because it is dangerous to have so many weapons in the hands of regular people.  Self-defense is a form of murder that does not take into account the individuals human rights.  The right of self-defense should be limited to ensure that there is less discrimination against people from the actual use of weapons. ","[4, 2, 2, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 1, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 3]",15,"[6432269, 45538225, 20312760, 44690955, 45181152, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 43984981, 45189900, 45206691, 45191882, 9559045, 44094031, 34854490]"
5078688d-1902-45c2-86c5-0d46446fe2dd,3237,We should prohibit unisex bathrooms,Arg-GPT2,"Its so important to have a safe space, especially for people who are vulnerable.  It is ridiculous to have to use a public toilet when you are so flush with shit you dont even know you are using it.  We should not have gender-neutral bathrooms as many people identify as non-binary and we do not recognise them as such.  Unisex bathrooms are a way to force your way in the bathroom so you cant hide or use them to hide from the rest of the world.  We should prohibit unisex bathrooms because it encourages people to use public bathrooms rather than using the ones they are meant to use.  We should prohibit unisex bathrooms because it is unhygienic and it is extremely rude to everyone who uses them.  We should abolish the use of unisex bathrooms as it can be abused and vulnerable people can find themselves in dangerous situations due to the poor condition of the toilet.  Public toilets should be banned as they are currently segregated and only served to males.  We should prohibit unisex restrooms as it is very common for people to urinate in public places.  We should prohibit unisex bathrooms because it is so important that people use these facilities in a safe way.  We should prohibit unisex bathrooms since it prevents people from using them to wash their hands after using them.  they do not get up to use them to get the best of things to do since the people in them are always behind them.  We should prohibit unisex bathrooms because the use of public toilets is more likely to encourage people to use the facilities inappropriately.  Unisex bathrooms are a new phenomenon that enable young people to avoid embarrassing situations by hiding behind the people who use them.  We should prohibit unisex bathrooms because it would create a hostile environment for children.  We should ban public toilets as they are very likely to be used to commit crimes and get dangerous diseases out of the population.  Unisex bathrooms are in many cases just public urinals, meaning that they serve no useful purpose in terms of public health.  Unisex bathrooms encourage more personal attention to the toilets, which can be sexist.  We should be doing away with gender-neutral language because it doesnt serve to communicate about important topics that should be discussed in a more inclusive way.  Unisex bathrooms are a major contributor to the obesity epidemic.   eliminating them would mean people are using them instead of using the real ones.  Public toilets do not have a separate entrance and thus can be more prone to contamination.  It is very likely that children are going to be infected or exposed to harmful substances in the toilets.  It is so important to have a unisex bathroom because you have to cleanse your hands after you use it.  It is so disgusting and unhygienic to use public toilets.  The main benefit of using public toilets is that they are much safer than using your own toilet.  there is no reason for anyone to not use a public restroom.  Toilets are used to flush out latrines, not so they can reuse it.  The use of public defenders should be mandatory as it allows those who can not afford a lawyer to have one provided to them.  Many unisex bathrooms have disgusting, foul-smelling toilets.  Unisex toilets are a new phenomenon that have no biological benefit and can cause more health problems in the future.  Unisex bathrooms promote sexism by excluding certain gender categories.   by doing away with gender-neutral language we are making a big step forward in gender-equality. ","[4, 4, 2, 1, 3, 1, 5, 1, 3, 1, 4, 1, 4, 4, 3]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 6432269, 45538225, 6340330, 21785776, 44690955, 20312760, 28813722, 6367365, 13581319, 34110399, 45191873, 45189900, 45272708]"
441a7836-926d-4e4f-a866-4199d278fcc3,802,We should protect Antarctica,Arg-GPT2,"It is very important that the world is a peaceful and secure place.  We should protect  antarctica so that it can be of the interest of the state to have some money in the area.  Antarctica is a protected space created to facilitate communication between communities that cannot otherwise communicate via mass media.  We should protect  antarctica because it would help preserve the natural environment and not add to it.  We should protect antarctica because it is a major contributor to global warming and the effects of it are as yet unknown.  We should protect the south pole because it is the most northerian thing to do is stay put.   it is so important for the preservation of the unity of the continent.  Antarctica is a protected area of scientific interest that should be accessible to all interested parties.  We should protect antarctica as it is a huge natural wonderland for nature lovers and it would add a huge attraction for the public.  We should protect antarctica because the arctic is one of the biggest problems in the world and its totally vulnerable to being ruined by climate change.  We should not leave the earth because it is getting warm and it is getting more and more dangerous.  Antarctica is the most important and accessible part of the world.  it provides people with the right to explore the unknown, and it's status of.  Antarctica is a world heritage site and we should protect it.  It should be protected as many of the places it is located within are important to the wellbeing of the population there.  We should protect antarctica as it may be the only way to save the planet.  It is important that we protect our natural environment and climate change is a major priority for the developed world.  This would stop the spread of human viruses.  It is very important to protect the  rights of the individual to have the best possible life after death.   it is very expensive to provide legal advice and it is very likely that you will need it in the future.  Antarctica is a protected land, it cannot be farmed or used for profit.  it is also a place of pilgrimage for many religious groups.  Antarctica is a vital element of the worlds heritage.  it has been argued that it is better to have a multi-party system, with the participation of multiple political parties across the political spectrum, to have more of a choice of representation.  It would help to prevent the spread of dangerous diseases.  Antarctica is an important part of the world to protect humanity from the dangers of nuclear weapons.  it provides a vital security blanket for the whole world.  Antarctica is an important part of the worlds climate.  protecting it would ensure that the world is a less violent place.  Antarctica is an important part of human evolution.   it's there to be sure it's not going to be wiped out by climate change.  Antarctica is a unesco world heritage site and we should abolish it to make room for other sites to be built.  Antarctica is a protected land.  it is the natural environment and it provides many species with the opportunity to thrive.  Antarctica is an important part of the worlds biodiversity.  without it, many species could be eliminated.  Antarctica should be protected as it is a natural island and it is much better than the main island and is much safer than the main island.  We should protect the  north pole because the ice is much more vulnerable to damage and destruction than the south pole is. ","[5, 4, 2, 5, 5, 3, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 2, 5, 5, 4]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 6432269, 45569485, 45567227, 45411178, 45567220, 45677971, 20512953, 45458968, 6340330, 44094031, 30777913, 44044795, 45405037]"
c09e4fb1-cbf7-4436-a473-bcdba8f572d4,2689,We should subsidize Wikipedia,Arg-GPT2,"If everyone had the same editing system it would be a more level playing field.  This would enable more diversity of thought.  It would create a lot of content and it would help a lot of people out there that need it.  Its a huge project and we could spend years creating new content to make it a success.  It would help a lot of people that dont get a good education at school.  If we subsidize wikisides then more people will get to help edit and improve the content.  It would help promote understanding of other cultures and interactions that might not otherwise be understood.  Subsidizing wikisical journals and helping to expand coverage is a worthy pursuit to enable a better equipped society.  this is especially true now as it pertains to the large majority of the population that has no clue whats going on.  By subsidizing wikipedia we are helping to keep the english language alive and relevant to a modern society with many languages spoken and many diverse views.  In order to facilitate greater dissemination of essential, albeit sensitive, topics, we should subsidize wikipedia.  We should subsidize wikipedia because any idea should be considered as a ""good idea"".  we should not have to wait for someone else to come up with an idea.  We should subsidize wikisodeedia as it will increase the quality of our articles as it will be able to cover more ground and be more factual.  Subsidizing wikisizes wikisizes wikisizing journalism because it serves as the main source for news and information.  If we subsidize wikipedia we can get more accurate and up to date information.  Wiki-based knowledge is power and freedom of the intellect, it would empower a greater diversity of thought.  Subsidizing wikipedia would allow more people to contribute to the development of the site.  We should subsidize wikipedia since it is a huge resource and it would cut down on crime and it would help the people that need it the most.  We should subsidize wikisuniversity as this would ensure that the work is consistent and correct.  We should subsidize wikipedia as it is a hugely important source of information that people should have access to.  Subsidizing wikisises the use of wikisized sources to ensure that everyone is aware of current events.  We should subsidize wikipedia since we need people to help us translate the great things they do.  We should subsidize wikipedia because it is a huge project that will benefit everyone through creating new words and phrases.  We should subsidize wikipedia because it will help the growth of the community by bringing in more content.  We should subsidize wikipedia to make sure that all the information is properly sourced and accurate.  We should subsidize wikipedia because we need people to help us translate and put everything in the world in a better place.  We should subsidize wikipedia because it is a huge resource and it is so important to get everyone up to speed on important matters.  We should subsidize wikipedia as it would help the community to have access to high quality, trustworthy journalism.  We should subsidize wikipedia as it is useful for all the world to have the correct answer to every possible question.  We should  fund wikipedia because it is an important part of the world to have accurate and up to date information to help people in daily life.  Wikipedia should be subsidize because its a public good that has resulted in much more accurate information that is useful to the public.  We should subsidize wikipedia because we are all different and it would make everyone equal. ","[1, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 4, 5]",15,"[45538225, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 45191882, 45189900, 45206691, 45181384, 45190571, 45181383, 45401087, 45190823, 20225558, 45483811]"
5b0fa06e-390a-4b4c-a350-e8224c799d95,3201,We should subsidize embryonic stem cell research,Arg-GPT2,"Stem cells will allow us to have a lot more doctors that can perform life saving and life changing services.  The discovery of new ways of thinking is always interesting, and these can have long term detrimental consequences for society as a whole.  It is extremely important to preserve the right to life and the pursuit of happiness.  Embryonic cells are unproven, harmful to society as a whole and provide no benefit in the longer term.  Pre-implantation of embryonic stem cells is dangerous, it allows the creation of monsters by mistake.  Its unethical to be able to use adult stem cells for children.  Embryonic stem cells are highly valuable to society as a whole, and to limit the damage that can be done to them is to limit the rights of the individual to pursue legal avenues.  Embryonic stem cells can be of great benefit to society as a whole.  Embryonic stem cells have no negative effect on human life.  Embryonic stem cells are a valuable source of human cloning, we should make sure they are legal and work with what we have created.  Embryonic stem cells are important to the development of a childs body.  these cells allow a child to be a candidate for a top university without worrying about being selected for a certain sex or social gender.  Embryonic stem cells have not been proven to be harmful to humans.  We should subsidize embryonic stem cells research as there is so far no good reason for not to have them in the womb before the development of a child, as they are not harmful to the child, and in many cases they can offer protection from the state.  We should subsidize embryonic stem cell research to avoid the creation of monsters by mistake.  We should subsidize embryonic cell research because it allows scientists to concentrate on the development of new medical treatments.  We should subsidize embryonic stem cell research as it will preserve the unique individuality of the human being created through cloning.  We should subsidize embryonic stem cell research to facilitate more efficient development of the human race.  We should subsidize embryonic stem cells research because it is so important to the development of human beings.  We should subsidize embryonic stem cell research as it will allow scientists to discover if they cant find a cure for a disease that is so serious that they may end up putting lives at risk.  We should subsidize embryonic stem cells to help more scientists get into the field.  We should subsidize embryonic stem cells because it is unfair to not have the option of using adult stem cells.  Embryonic stem cells provide a valuable avenue to explore the genetic makeup of a human being.  Embryonic stem cell research allows for the creation of designer human beings who we would never be able to create on our own.  The development and production of humans cloning should be banned to preserve the rights of all the people involved.  We should  fund stem cell research as it may allow for better care of the baby and provide ethical issues in the long run.  Embryonic stem cells are a type of artificial womp that can be created through cloning.  they can also be removed from the human race and they can be used for genealogy and other research.  We should subsidize stem cell research because the science is unproven.  We should subsidize embryonic stem cell research as it allows to see what is happening in the developing embryo of the human being that is currently being developed.  We should subsidize embryonic cell research to study the effects of artificial wombs on humans. ","[5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 3, 3, 4, 2, 1, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2]",15,"[45181384, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45191882, 45189900, 45206691, 45483811, 29155723, 43877630, 45361788, 45336993, 45336988, 44094031, 31948170]"
78406f6a-5d6f-4e4a-bc59-5507358dbd9e,2767,We should subsidize investigative journalism,Arg-GPT2,"Investigating the actions of other companies would be beneficial to society as a whole.  Investigative journalism is important to keep the people informed about all major issues.  Investigative journalism is important to uncover the truth about all scandals because it helps to determine if they are true or false.  Investigative journalism is important to ensure that criminals are captured and charged to be brought to justice.  Investigative journalism should be subsidize to ensure that the news reported is objective and full of facts as opposed to the subjective views that can be posted by anyone with financial backing.  this would allow more objective journalism to be provided.  Investigative journalism should be subsidize to help those who would otherwise not be able to afford to hire one.  Investigative journalism is necessary to expose government corruption.  Investigative journalism should be subsidize to ensure the public is informed about important issues.  Investigative journalism is necessary to allow the public to have the information that they need to be able to be fully informed.  Investigative journalism should be subsidize as it helps keep the general public in check and ensuring that they are informed of the issues that could be causing their issues.  Investigative journalism is crucial to ensuring that the population is informed about important issues.  Investigative journalism is necessary to a free society and is a cornerstone of democracy.  Investigative journalism would help to keep corruption at bay.  Investigative journalism is a cornerstone of modern journalism, enabling high quality, trustworthy journalism.  Investigative journalism is important to uncover the inner workings of government and ensure that they are not covering up crimes in order to get profit.  Investigative journalism is important to ensure that the population is aware of the inner workings of government, therefore it should be subsidized.  Investigative journalism can help put criminals behind bars.  Investigative journalism is necessary to the general public to understand the inner workings of government, as it is impossible to ensure that government officials are completely honest.  Investigative journalism is necessary to uncover unethical business practices, as well as prevent fraud.  Investigative journalism is important to the general public.  Investigative journalism is essential to a free society and ensures the public is informed about important issues.  Investigative journalism is a cornerstone of our political system; it keeps citizens informed about important issues.  Investigative journalism is essential to a free society and ensures that the people have a say.  Investigative journalism should be subsidized as it keeps local journalism alive and well and also helps to uncover corruption in the highest levels.  Investigative journalism is necessary to uncover the true workings of the government.  Investigative journalism is essential to uncover cover ups and corruption in our society.  Investigative journalism is necessary to a free society and serves as a vital check on institutional corruption.  Investigating crime is a public service to the whole community.  If investigative journalism was subsidizing then less people would be able to get hold of the information that would help them in crime and corruption charges.  Investigative journalism is a cornerstone of our society.   without it people are putting out false information to create conspiracy theories to get out of the real story.  Investigative journalism provides necessary checks and balances to those in positions of power and subsidizing it would ensure a free press is under less financial pressure.  Investigative journalism can help expose corruption and put pressure on companies that are working against the public interest.  Investigative journalism should be subsidize as it helps the people who need to know the real story behind the world.  it would also help support that which they are doing.  Investigative journalism should be subsidize to ensure that criminals are captured and charged to the fullest extent possible. ","[4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 6432269, 45569485, 45567227, 45411178, 20512953, 30777913, 6340330, 45567220, 45677971, 45458968, 44044795, 15448937, 19838540]"
3a11bbde-4f11-4d19-9b24-5046df498388,2588,Assisted suicide should be a criminal offence,Arg-GPT2,"It is extremely important that people seek professional help in times of need to end up in dire financial straights.  Many doctors cannot provide the level of care that would be provided by a medical facility and this can be life endangering due to unproven methods.  It is very likely that people who commit crimes would have otherwise been unlikely or unwilling to commit.  it is also very likely that people would have otherwise been unlikely or unwilling to commit such crimes.  By putting together the rich and poor, we would be better informed.  Suicide is a terrible way of taking your life, no one should have the option to end their life with.  It is very dangerous to have people consider their own safety when they have no clue what they are doing.  Everyone has the right to live as they see fit and not be judged.  by targeting a protected class of people you are infringing on their rights.  It is extremely likely that your child will require a lifetime of care to recover from the effects of childhood trauma.  It is very dangerous to have people follow the instructions of dangerous, abusive and neglective religious people.  It is very likely that people who could have saved lives would have been killed instead, as they would be unlikely or unwilling to commit suicide.  By targeting a specific religion its possible to destroy the entire religious industry and leave the earth uninhabitable.  If someone is determined to end their life by taking their life, the state has no right to withhold it.  Suicide is a crime, and the people who commit it should be arrested.  By targeting a specific religion its the same as discriminating against a whole religion.  Assisted suicide should be a criminal offence because no doctor or nurse should be trusted with such powerful weapons.  Assisted suicide is a form of murder that does not take into account the persons age, gender and whether they were able to consent to the arrangement in which they were coerced into taking part.  Assisted suicide is a form of murder which is wrong.  Suicide is a heinous crime, no need to have a strict definition, just murder is legal.  We should be able to prevent mass-shoot deaths by punishing those that took part in the creation of mass-shoot  events.  We should not allow people to take their lives so easily.  We should not let people make up illnesses in hopes of getting a natural one.  this is dangerous and unnecessary.  Its too early to say that assisted suicide is a viable way of creating mass-shootings.   it has to be proven to be safe.  People who commit suicide are often the victims of domestic violence.  We should not have lax enough laws to make sure people doing bad things are punished properly.  Assisted suicide is a very dangerous crime.  it could be the death of a whole family if one of them decides to commit suicide.  its that innocent lives would be lost.  Assisted suicide is murder and is immoral.  The aid and protection of civilians should be mandatory for all government actors, to protect the rights of all people.  People who commit suicide should be arrested and charged with a host of crimes including theft, embezzlement and even treason.  Assisted suicide should be a criminal offence because it is a way of protecting vulnerable people from the dangers of the industry poses to them.  Assisted suicide should be a criminal offence because it is a way of committing murder with no trial.  We should ban assisted suicide because people think they cannot live without medical help, which is dangerous.  Assisted suicide should be a criminal offence because it is considered as a form of murder. ","[4, 5, 4, 3, 5, 1, 4, 4, 4, 1, 4, 4, 4, 3, 1]",15,"[45567227, 45567220, 45953041, 13581319, 45538225, 31948170, 45189900, 45336993, 45206691, 45411178, 45191882, 45185946, 45185975, 45458968, 45190823]"
da7e95c3-6346-4ede-9dd3-38f9037e1fd8,2449,Organ donation should be mandatory,Arg-GPT2,"It is the right to use your organs and this would insure that these rights are respected.  Everyone has the right to use their organs and donate them to other medical institutions if they need that kind of help.  It is wrong that people should not be able to sell their organs to make money.  it is unethical to use other peoples money.  This is all the people want and need to donate to the organ they are interested in.  Organizing a donation program is the only way to ensure that those who request it have an equal chance of getting it.  Donation is very important for the poor who cannot afford the high prices to donate.  Donation is an important part of life and death for many families.  In order to maximize the altruism of the whole, it is important that the money used for organ donation comes from the members of the clergy.  this leads to more deserving priests and more effective religious services.  Compulsory donation of organs is the best way to make sure that each and every person has a fair chance to get the organ they need.  We should not keep donating organs if people are dead.  Organ donation should be mandatory as it would help establish a fair and equal playing field.  Organ donation should be mandatory to help preserve the right to prioritize certain groups over others in a society when all they do is donate.  Organ donation is a necessary part of the human body politic to be able to have some level of discourse about topics that would otherwise not get out of hand.  Donation of organs should be mandatory since it would stop people who cant afford to donate being able to afford it.  The act of donating organs and blood is  morally proer rather than pro-choice.  By making organ donation mandatory, the state will foster greater medical standards for the benefit of all  patients.  Organ donation should be mandatory as it is better than donating your own body for medical reasons.  It is unethical to remove organs from the market, especially when it comes from animals that are often kept in poor condition in zoos.  People should be free to use their bodies however they want.  It would allow for the sharing of organs that is so important to a persons health.  Organizing a donation to a charity is a good way to support the efforts of charitable organizations that are currently underprivileged.  It is very important that we have a system whereby we can legally dissolve our debt and have a surplus of money.  There is no legitimate use for organs, they are often misused or abused.  Organ donation is one of the biggest expenses to a person's life and often causes more harm than good as the donor's condition worsens and they are put at risk.  People should be free to use their organs in any way they want.  We should be doing everything possible to save lives by organ donation.  Donation is a way of helping out poor people.  Organ donation should be mandatory as all organs should be equally held equal.  Organ donations should be mandatory because the life of a donor is tied to that of the individual donor and they cannot give the individual a better opportunity.  Organ donation should be mandatory to ensure that all people are treated equally with the possible exception of wealthy people.  The use of organ donations should be mandatory to ensure that all donated funds are used fairly.  Donation of organs is a form of loan designed to help defray the high cost of such services. ","[2, 4, 2, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 2, 5, 4, 1, 2]",15,"[45185975, 45191885, 45191882, 45185946, 45953041, 15448937, 20512953, 45355658, 19838540, 45405037, 34110399, 30777913, 38202325, 33708599, 28813722]"
79438681-819a-4480-b5db-433fc009ad00,2108,Surrogacy should be banned,Arg-GPT2,"If everyone had to get married the world would be a much better place to live in without all the social tensions it causes.  It is  very likely that there is a loophole in the system, allowing for abuse, i believe it is called nephropathy or even cruelty, it is  best to keep it under control.  Marriage is no longer necessary to gain the advantages of living as a couple.  It is cruel to keep children from their birth, and it is the right to do so.  It is the duty of a parent to make sure their child is a good citizen and that they have all the necessary means to live a good life.  Because it doesn't allow for couples' freedom of choice it just leaves them open to exploitation.  It is very common for male prostitutes to make money off sexual crime by selling their services.  this creates a cycle of violence and high rates of drug use.  Many parents are not qualified to be responsible for the children that they are producing.  they do not even have the knowledge to get it done.  In the interest of the child and the rest of society to protect them from harm, it should be banned.  In this day and age, we recognize non-traditional family structures as legitimate and polygamy should be no different.  If there is no way to prevent adultery, the risk is that the parties involved will actually commit adultery.  this creates a hostile environment.  There is a huge difference in the way people treat their bodies and that can cause issues in society.  No matter how many people there is a risk that they will all be infertile.  they all have the potential to be better at their jobs and all have the ability to benefit from technological innovations if we choose to use them.  It is unfair to trap someone into signing a contract that they find hard to get out of if they decide later that it is not what was right for them.  By abandoning marriage the government will encourage people to take on more debt and get as many girlfriends as possible.  It is so dangerous to have a government in business making decisions on our lives.  If all parties in a polygamous polygamous marriage are in agreement, and arent hurting anyone, the government should let them do what they want.  With todays unprecedented access to contraception in the developed world, the old adage of natural, and the associated shaming and stigma, we should abandon the old thinking.  It is very disrespectful to the people that have given up their life to commit a crime.  Because it prevents the natural development of the individual , it creates large issues for society as a whole.  Because it allows one person to dominate a field when all they did was come up with an idea before someone else did.  It is very disrespectful to use the word child actor or child actress when talking about someone else.  We should prohibit the use of surrogates because it is dangerous for the baby to not have a normal life like like that of the parents.  It is not always safe to have children, especially when they are young.  We should not have sexual activity because it's so unnatural and it's so rare that a non-traditional medium would work.  The biological imperative is to conserve the planet.  There is no good reason why a person would not want to get married when they are both equally qualified.  We should legalize prostitution so that sex workers dont have to continue to work in unsafe environments. ","[2, 5, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 5, 2, 2, 1, 3, 3, 3, 4]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 15448937, 45190571, 45181383, 45401087, 45181384, 30777913, 28813722, 6340330, 19838540, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 44044795]"
78390999-a046-4286-9f72-142e4da428d4,3759,Tattoos should be banned,Arg-GPT2,"If they ban tattoos then it will become more equal and nobody would get preferential treatment.  There is too much cruelty in the world and people should be made aware of it.  Many people with tattoos arent able to live a normal life due to the stress of getting new ones.  Tattoos are usually made by doctors to mark important locations on peoples body.  The use of tattoos is in direct contradiction to religious freedom.  Tattoos are an unnecessary and expensive way of identifying people.  We should ban tattooing because people with mental illness can find it difficult to get treatment.  We should ban tattooing as it is unhygienic and it results in the growth of the body politic.  The use of pigments in body art is exploitative and often goes on exploitative.  We should ban the tattooing because it is outdated and many people dont realize they have been tattooed until they are done.  These animals are in zoos, they should be in their natural environment not enclosed between bars.  The use of tattoos is inhumane.  animals should be allowed to roam in their natural habitat.  The use of public defenders should be mandatory to ensure that there is a level playing field for everyone in a given case.  We should ban the tattoo because it isn't clean and it's more or less just a way of making money off of people.  The use of animal models in advertising sends a terrible message about the treatment of animals.  It is unethical to have the bodies of children work in dangerous environments.  The ink used for the tattoo is highly flammable and could create more damage if it is wet.  Tattoos are inhumane and provide a valuable service to the public.  It is very disrespectful to people who have served in the armed forces to reveal their identity to a stranger and therefore should be banned.  It is very disrespectful to people who have served in the armed forces to take the form of a terrorist organization or otherwise, it should be banned.  Its very likely that you could have some level of cancer that you are unable to treat without causing more damage to yourself.  The use of tattoos is very likely to cause emotional trauma to those who have family members who suffer from this.  They can be very dangerous and cause a lot of problems if they get in the wrong hands.  Some people have been damaged by their body being labeled as a tattoo.  With current world prices, tattoos are no longer attainable in most cases.  Tattooing is an affront to the many people that have given their life to protect our country and they should be banned.  Tattoos are an important part of the body and can cause many problems in the long run.  If no one had tattoos then everyone would be equal.  Many people with tattoos are in it for money and dont have any lasting effect.  Some tattoos are so extreme in their cruelty and ignorance that they should be banned.  Tattoos are horrid, people get hurt by getting it wrong.  Tattoos are very disrespectful to the individual and can trigger violent retribution.  Tattoos are inhumane and help many sick people.  Its a cruel and inhumane business model to open and close the borders to abuse people with disabilities.  We must ban the use of tattoos because the skin is very fragile and could crack open up like a crack if it was time for a real break in.  It is very offensive to people who have been assaulted or killed to have people tattooed on them. ","[4, 4, 3, 1, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 1, 3, 1, 4, 2]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 31948170, 45411178, 45361788, 45206691, 45336988, 45336993, 45189900, 20225558, 29155723, 45458968, 45190823, 44044795, 6340330]"
10fa1b6c-0278-4750-88d2-5ab223430165,3222,We should abolish bitcoins,Arg-GPT2,"It will cause a lot of crime if people can now turn to other illegal sources to make money off of it.  It is very dangerous to have private money in the hands of governments, as it can be abused for nefarious purposes.  It takes advantage of the ignorant by charging a ridiculous amount of interest on their first purchase.  Bitcoins are used to buy drugs on the street, they are also used as a payment for goods and services.  they are also used as a hedge against currency fluctuations.  Bitcoin has no place in the modern world.   its been proven that easily accessible information is highly beneficial to society as a whole.  Bitcoin as a payment system is unsecured, and the true value of a persons words is what they use their money on.  Bitcoins are dangerous as they can be used to create mischief and get people into compromising positions.  It is very harmful to the financial security of cryptocurrencies, by making payments so risky, people who hold them can find themselves in a spiral of debt from bad investments.  If we abolished the right to keep and bear arms it would stop mass-shoot school shootings.  Bitcoins are useful for the financial and technological sectors and they facilitate innovation.  Bitcoin has no place in a modern society with high levels of non-financial transactions taking advantage of the freedom of the blockchain.  Bitcoins have been used in criminal cases as evidence to prove a link between individuals and therefore should be banned.  Bitcoins are used by criminals to skim the financial gain from stealing from the masses.  Bitcoins are open to abuse and make huge profits.  Bitcoins are a liability for the state.  they keep people from being able to get the proper documentation they need to prove things.  By using bitcoins we make the worlds money circulation more explosive which also allows us to have more money available for medical and law enforcement purposes.  If we did abolish bitcoins it would give the authorities more control over what they can and can do with this.  Bitcoins allow those with large amounts of money to instantly drain the value of their savings account and cause a person to spend the money before they have it.  Bitcoins are used to make money and dont help people get there.  Bitcoins have been shown to be very vulnerable to being hacked or misused.  We should abolish bitcoins because it doesnt hold a place in the world and it is time for something new.  Bitcoin is a bad form of payment that can be used for things like drugs and very little else.  Bitcoins should be banned because they serve only to increase government budget deficits through spending cuts, tax increases, or a combination of both.  they are also used in criminal cases.  The government is not free to regulate bitcoin in any way they choose.  We should abolish bitcoins because it can be used to make money off of stolen goods and it is very unlikely that criminals have any way of using them.  Bitcoins are just a piece of money that can be used to buy things and send them to whoever you want.  We should abolish bitcoins because it can be used to great advantage and facilitate crime.  Bitcoins are a type of money that is difficult to track down.  Bitcoins are a type of money that can be used for a large variety of purposes.  they provide protection and guarantee payment.  it makes financial sense for a person to keep money in order to provide law enforcement with evidence in a crime. ","[5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 45167145, 15448937, 45190571, 45181383, 45401087, 45181384, 30777913, 6340330, 28813722, 19838540, 44044795, 45183231, 45191873]"
faeb7a32-3f13-476e-b9b4-2d6d46de778c,3227,We should abolish capital punishment,Arg-GPT2,"If everyone was sentenced to death the world would be a much better place to live in without all the crime and bloodshed that currently exists.  Capital punishment is in essence just murder and should be banned.  Capital punishment should be abolished because it is not fair to use that criteria over the others.  We should abolish capital punishment because there are different crime levels and not all are violent.  Capital punishment is a form of murder that should be banned.  Capital punishment should be abolished because it allows the state to put people into jail who shouldnt have been put there.  Capital punishment is a barbaric way of punishing  the people who caused the problems in the first place.  Capital punishment is an excessive punishment for certain crimes that does not fit the crime.  Capital punishment should be abolished because it can often result in jail overpopulation.  Capital punishment should be abolished because it causes a discrepancy in the crime and the sentence should always fit the crime.  Capital punishment does not incentivize crime and it instead punishes people for what they are capable of rather than what they are capable of.  Capital punishment causes too much crime.  innocent people are often innocent until proven guilty.  Capital punishment is unfair and means that a person was unlikely or unwilling to commit.  it should be replaced with something more fair.  We should abolish capital punishment as it is not fair that the rich have a better chance of buying their way out of crime then the poor do.  Capital punishment is unfair, people should have been condemned for what they are doing and not base on how much money they have committed the crime.  Capital punishment causes an increase in violence against law enforcement since it focuses on the death of one person, when multiple people may have been involved.  Capital punishment as a whole is unbalanced and in this instance, disproportionate against the crime.  Capital punishment is often accompanied by draconian punishment for minor crimes.  By abolishing capital punishment, we would reduce the power of police in the state.  Capital punishment has no place in a modern society where there is a presumption of criminal guilt.   if a person is proven to have committed a crime but there is no proof it is just a waste of money and that person will just be labeled a habitual.  Capital punishment is unfair and many people are killed as a result.  Punishing someone for a crime is not fair, they should have been found guilty of the crime and imprisoned.  Capital punishment doesnt serve as an effective deterrent for crimes.  Capital punishment is unfair and in some cases, only 1 strike should be enough if the crime is bad enough.  Capital punishment is often used as a crutch to get criminals out of society.  Capital punishment is very often carried out by the police, it is therefore just as likely they would have been able to capture a repeat offender.  Capital punishment is not fair and is sometimes aimed at innocent people.  Capital punishment is just a way to rack up the punishment for a crime.   what makes someone a criminal?.  Capital punishment is often a draconian punishment for non-violent crimes that lack the ability to be overturned by appeal to the appeals courts.  Capital punishment should be abolished because it is unfair for a person to then go on to take the punishment for a crime they committed as little as they did.  Capital punishment is a form of murder which is wrong.  Capital punishment is a form of capital punishment for something else. ","[4, 2, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 3, 4, 4, 2, 2, 4, 3]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 15448937, 45190571, 45401087, 45181383, 45181384, 30777913, 6340330, 28813722, 19838540, 44044795, 45355658, 45183231, 45336991]"
280f8b7e-557e-4828-9ceb-8d4de7903520,2694,We should abolish intelligence tests,Arg-GPT2,"If we did not have this many experts the world would be a much better place to live in without all the false positives that come along with it.  It makes people lazy and unmotivated and detracts from advances in society.  Intelligence tests have no place in a modern society where there is so much fake news and conspiracy theories that can destroy the country.  Intelligence tests are a waste of money and do not serve the public good.  Intelligence tests are in essence just a way of life for the rich.  If we abolished the right to have and use  the  money and manpower would be better used elsewhere.  Intelligence is a huge waste of money and doesnt help people in real time to solve problems.  It is possible that we could have a system where people have perfect information but no way of verifying it is better to have your information verified.  Intelligence tests should be abolished because they have no place in a modern society where every person has the capacity to learn from mistakes.  We should abolish intelligence tests because it is not fair to use human intelligence for that task alone.  We should abolish intelligence tests because it is human nature to seek out patterns that are not so obvious.  We should abolish intelligence tests because all people have access to it and it is therefore in their interests to cheat in order to get what they want.  We should abolish intelligence tests because it can be exploited by terrorist organizations to cause mass destruction.  We should abolish intelligence tests because it doesnt really serve as a valid form of assessing human intelligence.  Intelligence tests should be abolished as it can be abused by governments to spy on political dissidents.  Intelligence tests are like a two-tier system.  there are some tests that are so difficult to pass that you might as well have to give up and take your score.  Intelligence tests are biased in favor of big government over small private companies.  big government = better at keeping the peace, whereas small private companies = less likely to act as a team effort.  It is unfair to use human intelligence to determine the punishment for a crime.  We should abolish intelligence tests as it is not fair that human beings would be stupid enough to pass these kinds of tests.  Intelligence tests should be abolished as the importance of the information gleaned from them lies in the hands of the agencies responsible for it.  Intelligence tests can be abused by governments to spy on political opposition.  By eliminating intelligence tests, we would be making common sense out of the equation.  Intelligence tests do not treat all subjects equally.  Intelligence tests are in a way just a way for the government to have a big head and not that would be of actuality.  Intelligence tests are sometimes flawed, as it is difficult to ensure that the individuals selected for the tests are the most qualified.  We should not spend any more than we already do because we dont need to know the exact locations of every single person.  Iq tests have no place in modern society as a large majority of people lack the mental ability to comprehend the reasoning behind certain decisions.  Intelligence testing should be banned as it can be abused by governments to spy on other people.  We should abolish intelligence tests because it is not fair to use that scale of testing over smaller things.  We should abolish intelligence tests as they are not fair to those that have been trained to spot anomalies.  We should abolish intelligence tests because they have no effect in improving the human intelligence. ","[1, 4, 5, 5, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 4, 3]",15,"[6432269, 45567220, 45567227, 45953041, 13581319, 45538225, 31948170, 45191882, 45185946, 45336993, 45189900, 45336988, 29155723, 44044795, 20225558]"
3fd54df1-c7de-4c44-9313-1e3cb22e8558,2489,We should abolish no-knock warrants,Arg-GPT2,"Criminals should be given a chance to go straight, even if theyve committed the crime in the mistaken belief that they would have otherwise been unlikely or unwilling to do so.  No-knock warrants are an abusive form of searching for people who may be otherwise difficult to track down.  We should abolish no-knock warrants because people are getting away with heinous acts that could be prevented.  We should abolish no-knock warrants because there is no way to know if you have a good reason to keep a safe house or if you are just going through the motions you will get a fair chance to explain your case.  No-knock warrants should be mandatory because each person has the right to defend themselves.  No-knock warrants are a blight on the judicial system.  With todays high rates of non-violent crime, we should abolish no-knock warrants to free up law enforcement resources.  No-knock warrants infringe on the rights of those who wish to use the property.  No-knock warrants are necessary to ensure the safety and security of people.  No-knock warrants have no place in modern society, because each person has the right to defend themselves and the means.  No-knock warrants prevent officers from having the necessary tools to make sure that criminals are captured and charged.  No-knock warrants destroy the ability of police to trace large crime organizations by preventing officers from establishing a ""fusion"" between them and the product they are selling.  No-knock warrants discourage innovation and prevent the further consolidation of the tech industry.  No-knock warrants prevent officers from focusing on much more serious crimes.  in fact, many of these offences are so minor that the police force would be better off without the extra burden of a warrant.  No-knock warrants give law enforcement an unfair advantage by preventing the carrying out of crime more efficiently.  No-knock warrants stifle legitimate forms of crime.  Some people may be able to answer to crimes they have not committed yet.  There is no good reason for not to have a warrant for a person who knocks on your door and takes your stuff.  there is also less benefit knowing that you have a right to use your stuff.  No-knock warrants are necessary to make sure people are taking proper legal action against bad actors in society.  there are better ways of ensuring that cases are built with hard evidence rather than the usual ""gist"".  No one ever has the right to enter another persons house.  No-knock warrants are a waste of time and money as they are not used for the intended purpose of catching illegal activity.  When it is known that someone has committed a crime but there is no proof, it is almost always a trap that leads to false confessions.  No-knock warrants are a blight on the judicial system and cost in excess of the accused party.  No-knock warrants prevent officers from securing the highest level of evidence in order to get the most evidence possible.  No-knock warrants allow police officers to use high-powered, sometimes life-saving, tools to track down and arrest repeat offenders.  No-knock warrants prevent police officers from arresting individuals who are already suspected of a crime but may be otherwise difficult to track down.  No-knock warrants encourage lawless behavior by police.  No-knock warrants are a form of legalized murder which is wrong.  We should abolish no-knock warrants because it causes an increase in crime.  We should abolish no-knock warrants because it is not always safe to have a warrant for every crime.  We should abolish no-knock warrants because each person has a right to live as they are not doing anything illegal. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 2, 2, 3]",15,"[21017840, 45183231, 45191873, 45181152, 45272708, 7756990, 45282792, 45336991, 44044795, 45483811, 44690955, 33708599, 27934334, 43984981, 34854490]"
cb1ff790-e01d-4073-8ce9-781d698abbbc,3166,We should abolish the American Jobs Act,Arg-GPT2,"It hurts people that are already poor and it doesnt help them in the long run.  The america economy is out of control and it is getting to where it is so expensive to have a university education and it is so important to have well educated people working for the economy.  Jobs are good and should be taken by people of the best skill to enable a prosperous and secure society.  The law must be followed and the rights of all persons should be protected.  An american should not be allowed to own a firearm as they cannot guarantee the safety and quality of life lost<|endof.  The old thinking of creating a multi-party system is no longer realistic.  The act of creating jobs is extremely wasteful of taxpayer money.  The america jobs act has proven to be a failure in creating economic growth.  The america jobs are a huge drain on the economy.  The original sin of the economy is high unemployment.   eliminating high unemployment is so important to creating a strong economy.  The act of creating jobs is highly detrimental to the economy.  The act of creating jobs is very costly to the economy and it does not create jobs in the long term.  American jobs are a massive drain on the economy, simply to have a few ""experts"" per year.     we should put them to rest.  There is a huge waste of money when it comes to train people for the local jobs.  there are better trained people at the college level that could spend that money on education.  The economic benefits of the so-called 'knowledge' is often at the expense of underprivileged people.  It is extremely detrimental to the economy and not just the top executives.  The act of creating jobs in the economy is hugely detrimental to the well-being of all workers.  The american jobs are harmful to the economy as it is reliant on highly skilled workers from other industries who often require highly skilled workers to accomplish even the simplest of tasks.  This act has proven to be detrimental to the economy of recent decades.  It has been shown to be beneficial for the economy as a whole.  The america jobs should be done by someone with a proven track record of success, it is not always an easy way to do it.  The act of creating and retaining a national network and hierarchy of numerous ostensibly independent but interconnected corporate entities and other organizations devoted to the practice, administration and dissemination of scientology, a new religious movement.  we should abolish the american jobs act to avoid duplication of this effort.  We should abolish the american jobs act as it is not fair that companies should not be able to hire people based on their suitability.  We should abolish the america jobs act because it is not fair to pit workers against each other.  We should abolish the american jobs act as it discourages highly skilled workers from entering certain sectors of the economy.  We should abolish the america jobs act because the economy is already being ripped apart by the greed of the corporations that have set out to take advantage of people who need their knowledge and skills for good pay and other benefits.  The act of creating a new national company is called a.  The america jobs should be abolished because it is a way to have a temporary effect and doesnt have a lasting effect.  The american jobs act is a form of discrimination that denies opportunities to qualified persons if they are not in a targeted minority group.  Jobs should be abolished to create room for new ideas.  The act of creating new jobs should be banned as it disincentives long form education. ","[4, 3, 5, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 3, 4, 2]",15,"[45567227, 45567220, 45953041, 13581319, 45538225, 31948170, 45411178, 20225558, 45458968, 45206691, 45189900, 45190823, 45336993, 15448937, 20512953]"
38ec18d8-8866-4548-b2a9-e13e94b5ea22,2458,We should abolish the needle exchange programs,Arg-GPT2,"Drug use is rampant and the resulting health crisis is absolutely unsustainable.  There is no good reason why drug addicts shouldnt be given a chance to clean up and reform themselves.  Drug use can be very dangerous if people choose to use them instead of going straight to a doctor.  We should abolish the needle exchange programmes because it is dangerous to have people use them to smuggle drugs into other countries.  We should abolish the needle exchange programs because it is dangerous for people to carry around their waists.  We should abolish the needle exchange programs because it is immoral to use drug dealers as well as take advantage of those that take them for free.  We should abolish the needle exchange programs because it causes more problems than it fixes.  We should abolish the needle exchange programs because it is dangerous and makes people more vulnerable to drug addiction.  Needle exchange programs are often done by people with no medical need to help end up with a health crisis.  Drug use causes many illnesses including cancer and should be banned.  The use of needles in the treatment of disease is dangerous because it is so easy for people to acquire them.  The use of needles is dangerous.  people are injecting themselves with unknown substances.  The current practice of accepting and injecting heroin is harmful to the health of all people who use it.  Drug use is a huge problem and there are so many dead bodies in the country that need to be taken off the streets.      the use of needles should be banned.  The use of needles in the treatment of patients should be banned as this is dangerous as it can lead to death.  The use of needles in public is extremely dangerous and could be abused.  The use of needles is dangerous as it is easy for criminals to exploit.  The high cost of drug addiction treatment is causing many people to seek treatment that would otherwise not have been able to afford it.  People who need drugs to help them deal with mental issues should be getting them from a doctor.  The needle exchange program is not necessary and helps the people that need the help in the areas that they are in a way dependent upon.  The needle exchange programs are ineffective in removing drug addiction.  The use of needle exchange programs is inhumane.  people are putting their lives at risk when they use them.  The use of needles in public is a waste of money and doesnt help people that need it.  The use of needles in public is very common and causes many people to reuse needles multiple times.  If we had no needle exchange programs there would be no way for the police to trace large crime organizations.  The use of needles should be banned as it can be abused and vulnerable people can be taken advantage of.  The use of needle exchange programs should be banned as it is dangerous for users to use them to obtain substances that could have otherwise been difficult or impossible to obtain.  The use of needle exchange programs should be banned because it is dangerous to have people use them if they have unproven methods.  The government has an obligation to protect the civil right to use hypodermic drugs, and this includes providing information to the public.  We should abolish the needle exchange program because it is a waste of money and jail time.  The needle exchange programs should be abolished because they are a way of putting people at risk when they use substances that could be very dangerous if they overdose or have other health issues. ","[2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 2, 1, 4, 2, 4, 2, 2, 5, 3, 2]",15,"[45191882, 45185975, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 13581319, 45190823, 20312760, 34110399, 28813722, 45411178, 29155723, 30777913, 20512953, 45169947]"
24fcdfe9-5692-453a-964a-3ff8e19869a2,2613,We should abolish the two-party system,Arg-GPT2,"The two party system is no longer necessary in modern society and is an antiquated system of political activism.  The two-party system is broken and we really only have a choice of who to vote for.  The two party system gives us lesser of two evils every presidential election.  with any government entity in charge of government offices, the country would be more in sync.  Two-party systems are out of date and do not serve the public interest.  The two-party system is a major problem.  The use of a multi-party system is highly problematic.  We should abolish the two party system because it is a system where we have less and less diverse political views.  We should abolish the two-party system because it is a system in which all policies are adopted through compromise of the political system, leaving the country in a perpetual state of election year politics.  We should abolish the two-party system because it doesnt make sense for the population in general to have more interest in politics than they do in general.  We should abolish the two-party system because there are so many opinions and beliefs other than the norm.  The two party system is broken and only a select few can have the capacity to gain control of government offices, separately or in coalition.  we should adopt a multi-party system to have more viewpoints to solve problems.  The two-party system does not work as is and is more of a liability than an asset.  The two party system is broken and doesnt work as an effective representation of the public interest.  Two-party system causes a large amount of political parties to exist which leads to less-than-ideal government quality of politics.  The two-party system is broken and is no longer relevant in modern society.  The two-party system is broken and doesnt work in a democracy.  In a multi-party system, minority needs to be accommodated.  With todays two-party system, it is very likely that no one party system will be used.  this two-party system is broken and has proven to be a very unproductive political system.  This system is broken and is more of a burden on voters than a benefit.  The two-party system does not work well for democracy and it is easy for autocrats to use as cover ups for their true self.  The two party system is outdated and does not serve the public interest.  It is a way of keeping the politics in check and balance.  Multi-party system will strengthen democracy.  The two-party system is broken and doesnt work properly.  The two-party system is broken and we need to fix it.  It is important that everyone have their voice heard at election time, especially when it comes from disaffected or disenfranchised sections of society who otherwise might not have otherwise been able to vote for their preferred candidate.  The two-party system is broken and the country is not being served well.  The two-party system has proven to be very unpopular in recent times.  The two-party system is broken and no political party has a chance of being in the room when it comes to creating a government.  Two-party system doesn't make sure that one political party doesn't hold all the power.  Two-party system has no place in the modern world where multiple political viewpoints are encouraged.  Multi-party system is great in that it provides voters with.  The two-party system does not serve as an effective democracy.  We should abolish the two-party system because it has proven to be a waste of money and has no effect in changing anything.  A multi-party system allows all viewpoints to be expressed.  The two-party system has historically been a system of corruption and has no place in a modern democratic society. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 2, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2, 5, 4, 3, 2]",15,"[45185975, 45191882, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 13581319, 20312760, 45458968, 20512953, 34609243, 45355658, 30777913, 19838540, 27770607, 45167145]"
87aa2544-b805-472f-8261-cf3e2150c964,3212,We should adopt the teacher tenure reform,Arg-GPT2,"Teacher tenure is causing many to be laid off and this hurts everyone.  Teacher tenure is too high and the people doing the work arent paid enough.  this would be better paid off and the people would be happier.  The use of tenure is extremely important to the education of all children in a school district.  The need to hire qualified staff to perform any tasks required of them, which includes teachers, librarians, and the like.  The high school system does not provide adequate resources for teaching children.  Teacher tenure is an antiquated practice that does not truly serve the interests of all children.  The use of tenure should be made mandatory to assure that all staff members of a school system are well compensated.  Teacher tenure is needed to run a school and ensure the quality of education received.  The use of teachers in the classroom is very important and ensures that all children are well taken care of.  The idea of a teacher as a substitute is completely backwards.   how can a principal substitute a teacher when a teacher cannot do the job?.  Teacher tenure is a very important job that needs to be filled with qualified people.  Tenure is no longer relevant in modern society and a person should have the freedom to choose a job that is more suited for them.  Teacher tenure is outdated and we should abolish it.  The school system is so broken and there are so many kids that dont get a proper education because they are homeschooled.  Teaching is a very expensive profession and many schools do not have the time or the staff to train people.  Some teachers dont deserve to have their jobs taken away from them by unqualified people.  It is important that the people in power have a say.  Teacher is a valuable asset in the classroom, providing a valuable service.  It is important that students have access to education, especially when they are in high school.  this allows them to learn as much as possible and saves money.  The teachers should have a decent living wage and benefits for their families.  The teaching profession is not safe and it could be dangerous to the public.  The amount of teaching and the quality of education received at school is directly linked to the amount of teaching staff.  the more time that people devote to the classroom, the better they are able to teach children.  The high level of teaching is necessary for a society to have a basic level of learning.  The importance of a teacher's role in a child's education should be emphasized to the child, as opposed to placing all the pressure on them.  The high-quality teaching staff members we have today are all highly-motivated and committed to excellence.  The value of a person is entirely based on their role in the organization.  we should not put arbitrary limits on someones role.  Teacher tenure is antiquated and unnecessary.   they should simply be an ordinary teacher.  Teacher tenure is a huge barrier to entry into the profession.  Teacher tenure is not fair to put on any person because everyone has the job.  Teacher tenure is a very important part of a teachers job.  it allows for a lot of professional development for a teacher.  The use of tenure should be mandatory to ensure equal access for all teachers.  Teacher tenure is an outdated concept which was originally formed to circumvent systemic issues within a school system.  Teacher tenure is an antiquated system of promoting the education and employment of members of groups that are known to have previously suffered from discrimination.  by giving teachers more stable careers, we would be better informed of the real state of our country. ","[4, 4, 3, 4, 2, 5, 2, 2, 4, 3, 5, 5, 4, 1, 4]",15,"[45191885, 45953041, 45458968, 21017840, 20512953, 15448937, 34110399, 45355658, 19838540, 28813722, 45167145, 30777913, 6340330, 20170210, 45181384]"
8df7f5f1-a6a5-4a92-b528-28f98ce14fca,2143,We should ban abortions,Arg-GPT2,"No matter how you try to hide your pregnancy, it is very likely to show up in a way that causes real harm.  Abortion is often done with the intention of regardless of whether a woman is likely to need such an act to alleviate financial burdens, such as medical debt, and access to contraception.  Abortions are dangerous as they can result in misdiagnosis or incorrect treatment.  Abortion is an unnatural act that must be banned to preserve the rights of unborn generations after they have been snuffed by the powers of the state.  Abortions are often performed by women without the knowledge of their partner.  Abortion should be banned as it causes psychological trauma to women who are currently under-protected from abuse by their male counterparts.  Abortions are inhumane and often necessary to save the life of a fetus.  Abortion is the same thing as murder and should be banned.  Abortion is a serious and often times is necessary procedure to remove a situation that is currently untenable.  Abortion is the most dangerous act that a person can perform in the name of god.  Abortion is a cruel way of ending a pregnancy that is likely to be life long term effects from the lack of a vagina.  Abortion is a serious matter that should be decided by the state not by profit-seeking lawyers.  Abortion is often done by parents who do not live up to the standards of their children.  Abortion is essentially murder and if the target location is known then arresting them would be morally proer rather than assassination.  Abortion is unnecessary and serves no purpose in the world.  Abortion is an outdated institution which is no longer needed to provide reliable service.  If we ban abortions then the state will be able to focus on criminal activity that would otherwise be overlooked.  Abortion has no place in modern society.  women are not supposed to be able to have a 'normal life'.  they should be at home moms or dads, they should be able to support themselves and their children just like any other women.  Abortion causes extreme stress and can be considered as an acceptable form of divorce.  it is far better to be able to go to a court and have a trial rather than have a ""settlement"".  Abortion is murder and it is wrong to even have a legal status.  Abortion is very likely to be abused by religious right-wingers.  by providing grounds for non-invasive forms of birth control, we empower women to make informed choices about their own lives, making them safer.  Abortion is a hugely damaging to the mental health and well-being of the individuals involved.  Abortion is a dangerous religious-theological area where young people can be harmed by misguided or misguided religious zealots.  Abortions are extremely dangerous.  it's almost certain that a child is going to get a sexually transmitted disease and die if they don't get treatment.  Abortions are not used by the medical profession and it is not always safe.  Abolishing the right to keep and bear arms would significantly reduce crimes.  Abortion is dangerous because it is not necessary to have the procedure performed when a woman is pregnant.  We should ban abortions as its unethical and can result in the creation of monsters.  We should ban abortion because it is not fair to force people to live long and hard without getting some relief.  We should ban abortions as it is not fair that they should not be able to have a normal life with children.  Abortion is an outdated practice that causes more harm than good to the pregnant woman. ","[4, 5, 3, 5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 4, 4]",15,"[45953041, 45191885, 21017840, 15448937, 45167145, 28813722, 19838540, 30777913, 6340330, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 34110399, 45181384, 45355658]"
5dd97463-48a8-4b4f-9667-163af2d773d1,2616,We should ban alternative medicine,Arg-GPT2,"Alternative medicine is dangerous because it is not backed up by actual research.   people may be shunning proven treatments because they think they need to ""self-heal"".  Naturopathy is dangerous because people may depend on it and not get needed medical help.  Alternative medicine is dangerous because it is not backed up by actual data and people are putting their lives at risk when they use it.  Alternative medicine is unproven as a treatment.  its not proven to be safe.  Alternative medicine is dangerous because its methods are not always followed to the letter.  Alternative medicine is unproven scientfically, and may interfere with proven treatments.  Alternative medicine is less effective than traditional medicine and may interact with substances that have adverse affects.  Alternative medicine is not proven to cure diseases.  We should ban alternative medicine since it has no proven results and people are putting their lives at risk when they use it.  We should ban alternative medicine as it has not undergone testing and evaluation like the science that would allow us to know if it worked.  Naturopathy has no scientific foundation or enough evidence to be considered safe for human beings.  Alternative medicine has no scientific basis, and in the absence of proven benefits may have adverse effects in the short term.  Alternative medicine is dangerous and not proven in treating diseases.  There is no evidence that alternative medicine is effective.  Alternative medicine can be seen as dangerous since little to no medical testing is done.  Alternative medicine is unnecessary in the face of proven, effective treatments.  Alternative therapies are not always proven to be as effective as conventional treatments.  Alternative medicine has no proven results and people may be unnecessarily put at risk when using it.  Alternative medicine is dangerous because there is no guarantee that it will work and may lead to more problems health wise due to unproven benefits.  Alternative medicine is harmful as its method is not backed up by real evidence.  Alternative medicine is dangerous because it's not backed up by actual data.  in fact, many studies show it's harmful.  Alternative medicine is not always safe in treating diseases because it doesnt always use proven methods.  Alternative medicine is unproven and could have negative health consequences in the longer term.  Alternative medicine has no scientific foundation or enough evidence to be considered safe, there is also a high rate of side effects and reliance on its use.  Alternative medicine does nothing to address underlying issues and is an extension of naturopathy.  Alternative medicine is not properly regulated and results in patient harm due to unproven treatments and reliance on unproven methods.  There is no real science behind naturopathy.   people are putting their lives at risk when they use it.  Alternative medicine is dangerous because its results are not based on real science and are instead based on an array of snake oil cures and dubious methods.  Alternative medicine is unproven and could have adverse health consequences in the long term.  Alternative medicine is pseudoscientific, and there is little evidence that it helps patients.  Alternative medicine is unproven and can have side effects.  Naturopathy is unproven and could have adverse medical affects.  Alternative medicine is dangerous because its methods are not based on real science.  they are based on wooing the public in an optimistic way and are based on the results of animal experimentation.  Alternative medicine is unproven and could have adverse medical affects.  Alternative medicine is a fraudulent form of medicine used by con artists to take money from desperate people.  Alternative medicine has no scientific foundation, and is grounded in religion.  Alternative medicine is unproven, junk science.  Alternative medicine is unproven, junk science. ","[4, 1, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 1, 4, 3, 2, 2]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 6340330, 45191873, 45183231, 45272708, 45181152, 7756990, 45282792, 45336991, 44044795, 19838540, 30398579, 34110399, 34609243]"
f15ad4cc-1ed1-428f-a64d-8b530c965909,2483,We should ban anonymous posts,Arg-GPT2,"Anonymous posts are just a way for the scum to get out of the game.  By using an anonymous forum we are putting people into dangerous places where they can be exploited.  Anonymous posts only serve to increase tensions in society.  Anonymous posts give people an easy way to be labeled and this leads to bullying and intolerance.  Anonymous posts encourage further discrimination against groups of society.  It helps keep people in fear.  Without knowing the full name of a person  it is difficult to ensure that they are the real deal.  We should ban anonymous posts because it just leads to more problems in the long run.  We should ban anonymous posts because it can be abused and vulnerable people can be taken advantage of.  We should ban anonymous posts because it is very likely that these posts are used to get people out of trouble.  Anonymous posts are usually created as part of satire or as a reaction to real life events.  we should ban this practice as it could create conflict.  We should ban anonymous posts because it creates a hostile environment.  Anonymity is a tool that allows those who wish to do harm to hide from the rest of society.  Anonymity should be banned as it can be abused.  We should ban anonymous posts as it just spouts off and has no effect in society.  This is an old practice that no longer works.  Anonymity is a useful tool for those who wish to do harm in the real world.  We should ban anonymous posts because its grounds for abuse and poor people.  We should ban anonymous posts as it is not helpful to anyone.  We should ban anonymous postings as it can be abused and vulnerable people can be taken advantage of.  Anonymous posts are used as part of the ""homeschooling"" movement to ban the education of children inside the home.  the home schooling system does not allow students to access educational resources that could help them in school.  Anonymous posting should be banned as it causes more harm than good, people are going to post things that could cause more harm if they feel like it.  Anonymous postings give people an opportunity to destroy other peoples lives by posting photos and videos of their exploits.  this encourages people to take them to far greater lengths of fraudul to get what they want.  Anonymous posts should be banned as it just leads to people hiding behind their real identities when they commit crimes.  Anonymity allows one to hide from the actions of the outside world.  Anonymous posts leave room for abuse, fraud and or misleading identities.  Anonymous posts are just a way of making people think they dont need to get out and social with those who are around them.  Anonymous posts are often used to incite violent reactions.  Anonymity is an essential part of maintaining a democracy and keeping tabs on big events.  Anonymous posts on forums such as forums.  they do not belong there and should be banned.  Anonymity should be banned as it can be abused and vulnerable people can be taken advantage of.  We should ban anonymous posts because its way for scammers to get around in the real world without being identified.  We should ban anonymous posts because it is very likely that they are created by someone who would have otherwise been unlikely or unwilling to commit a crime.  We should ban anonymous posts because every time someone has to post something it could be viewed as racist or as an inflammatory comment.  its counter to the whole purpose of free speech. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 5, 2, 4, 2]",15,"[45185975, 45191885, 45191882, 45185946, 45953041, 20312760, 15448937, 20512953, 45405037, 45355658, 19838540, 30777913, 34110399, 6340330, 45169947]"
5cf03f25-cc17-4c23-954e-4e885f9f2e4c,1161,We should ban cosmetic surgery,Arg-GPT2,"By doing away with the human body we will make it safer.  It doesnt always work well and may lead to more complications or less recovery.  It is dangerous to have open wounds, especially when you have children who can see the damage that they can cause by not getting treatment sooner.  Some procedures dont work and can result in rejection of the whole idea of the whole operation.  It is extremely unethical to use peoples money for that purpose.  It is unethical to use other peoples images and likenesses for profit.  This is unethical and could be considered a form of assisted suicide.  People are missing important things like age, height, and weight due to the loss of vital stats in the past decades.  We should not do this because it is unproven and could have side effects.  Plastic surgery is very open to abuse, it could be used for anything from profit-making to the patient.  Cosmetic surgery is not necessary to improve a person's health.  people who undergo this surgery are at risk of death if they don't get it done correctly.  Cosmetic surgery is medically unnecessary.  patients can use proven techniques instead.  We should ban cosmetic surgery because it is dangerous to remove the normal healthy tissue from a person.  We should ban cosmetic surgery as it is unproven to use it and can leave areas vulnerable to disease.  We should ban cosmetic surgery as it can cause cosmetic issues and it is not necessary for the body to have the condition under control.  We should ban cosmetic surgery because its unproven and could have negative consequences in the long term.  We should ban cosmetic surgery because it can cause a lot of problems.  it would be better to have a normal surgeon that can fix things and not put people in danger.  We should ban plastic surgery because it causes more trauma to people who are going to do it anyway by making them wait until they are fully healed.  We should ban plastic surgery as it is unproven and has no results when people think they are healed.  Cosmetic surgery is a dangerous and untested area of medicine that the results of we still do not know.  those results could be life-threatening in a number of ways.  We should ban cosmetic surgery as it is not fair to put on a person if they are not qualified.  We should ban cosmetic surgery because it can be exploited by criminals.  We should ban cosmetic surgery as it can be abused and vulnerable people can be taken advantage of.  It is unethical to remove a person's right to have cosmetic surgery if it creates more harm than good because it's reverse  discriminates against white people.  It is unethical to remove human intelligence from the control of the government.  Cosmetic surgery has no scientific foundation or enough evidence to be considered safe for humans.  Cosmetic surgery is very open to abuse in terms of religious beliefs and should be banned.  We should ban cosmetic surgery because the results of it are very likely to be delayed by the time the actual procedures are put into effect.  We should ban cosmetic surgery because people with serious conditions that require treatment can die if they turn away from proven treatment.  Cosmetic surgery is usually done to remove a tumor from a patients body, which is sometimes dangerous.  We should ban cosmetic surgery because it could be abused and vulnerable people could be taken advantage of.  We should ban cosmetic surgery because people may use it as a way to make money. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 2, 5, 3]",15,"[45185975, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 45355658, 15448937, 20512953, 45458968, 21017840, 19838540, 45405037, 28813722, 45169947, 30777913, 27770607]"
280d619e-397c-4ef9-b4ae-d373e27b5390,2225,We should ban factory farming,Arg-GPT2,"As factory farming is cruel and unrelenting, it has no place in a free society.  It is bad for the animals and it takes them from their natural environment.  Factories are not places where animals are regularly housed within enclosures, displayed to the public, and in which they may also breed.  this is inhumane and it is also cruel.  Factory farming is inhumane and is the most profitable way of animal farming.  Factory farming does not allow the animals to wander as they would in the wild.  Factory farming is inhumane and takes advantage of animals instincts to survive.  Factory farming causes many animals to be put to further disadvantage by their owners due to poor living conditions and is generally not ethical.  By banning factory farming we will get rid of all the animal cruelty that currently exists.  It is important to ensure that animals are not overpopulated.   this overpopulation of animals leads to diseases like heart problems, infertility and poor health.  It is cruel to keep animals in small areas.  Factory farming causes many of the animals to live long, lonely lives, causing environmental damage and suffering.  It costs producers so much money to produce a limited amount of cheese and other things that they cant afford to buy outright.  Factory farming is inhumane and the animals are often kept in poor condition.  Factory farming causes an increase in global warming and other potentially harmful elements of the climate.  Factory farming is often done to boost animal welfare.  this is inhumane and it should be banned.  We should ban factory farming because it causes the destruction of the environment and the pollution of the sea.  We should ban factory farming because it is dangerous to keep wild animals in small areas.  We should ban factory farming as it is the main cause of the obesity crisis we are facing.  Factory farming is essentially factory-seeding.   its the same as putting our children at risk.  We should ban factory farming because it is cruel to take animals from their natural homes to make money.  We should ban factory farming because its so unhealthy for animals to live in large areas with so many factory workers.  they are not natural and they often are not trained well.  We should ban factory farming as it is not fair to the animals that are taken from their natural habitat.  We should ban factory farming because its cruel to keep animals in small areas.  We should ban factory farming as it is inhumane to keep animals in small areas of land.  We should ban factory farming as it is not fair to the animals that they are made to live such a long time.  We should not have animals do anything that could harm them.  Industrial farming causes massive destruction to the environment.  Factory farming causes animal cruelty and is inhumane.  Factory farming is inherently cruel to the animals that are taken into the business.  Factory farming  should be banned as it is cruel to remove animals from their natural habitat to cold countries which are not naturally their place to thrive.  Factory farming is a major cause of animal cruelty.  factory farm animals are often mistreated and they may be held against their will.  We should ban factory farming because its so cheap and makes you waste time you should be spending more time on your business.  We should ban factory farming because many of the workers are undocumented and we dont want them to work in dangerous environments.  Factory farming causes the production of unhealthy animals that are often kept in poor condition in zoos and in the wild.  they are often kept in cages. ","[5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 4, 4, 2]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 45336988, 45189900, 45361788, 45206691, 45336993, 20225558, 45181384, 45401087, 45538225, 45405037, 28810858, 20512953]"
707ecb40-9477-4320-8364-83b840ea6617,2539,We should ban genetically modified crops,Arg-GPT2,"Genetic engineering is dangerous, we cant leave it so it will never be safe to use again.  The increased population of obese and rich people is a huge problem and they all have the money to make sure everyone is fattened up.  We should ban genetically modified crops as there is not enough regulation around them to guarantee that they are safe.  We should ban genetically modified crops because it is unethical to play god.  We should ban genetically modified crops because it means that the results of our agriculture and other businesses that depend on them may not be as good.  We should ban genetically modified crops because we dont know the full effects yet.  We should ban genetically modified crops because it is possible that they contain harmful bugs or otherwise, which would then cause humans illness.  We should ban genetically modified crops because the process of creation is incredibly open to abuse, it would take the form of a religious or political group deciding the fate of an individual and not leave it up to the individual.  We should ban genetic modification because it is against the natural law.  We should ban genetically modified crops because it will cause many issues in the future.  We should ban genetic modification because it causes a lot of genetic confusion.  We should ban genetic engineering as it may have unintended consequences that we do not even know yet.  We should ban them because it could result in a lot of money that would be better spent on medical.  Genes are designed to be used selectively, and can result in major unethical practices such as factory farming.  We should ban genetic engineering as it is not fair to other people.  We should ban it because it would introduce new pests to the field.  We should ban it because it is very open to abuse and it would be better to have something in place to stop them.  Genetic engineering is dangerous and could cause genetic issues.  It could cause genetic issues because it takes away from the natural urge to improve a vehicle or a vehicle that has significant flaws.  Genetically modified crops are among the most dangerous items in the world and we should ban them to stop mass-production of them.  There is a danger in the genetic engineering of humans.   this is dangerous because it opens the door for people to exploit it.  We should not be messing with nature.  An austerity regime is necessary to fix financial issues in a country when all other options of reducing government spending havent worked.  We should ban this because it creates more dangerous diseases that can be resistant to treatment.  We should ban it as it is not fair to the people who are undergoing this procedure.  Genetically modified crops are a major contributor to the obesity epidemic and are generally considered junk food.  Genetically modified crops are often times more prone to insects infestation and wilt damage.  Genetically modified crops may have unintended consequences that result from their use.  We should ban genetically modified crops since the long term effects on those crops is still uncertain.  We should ban genetic engineering because it will never work again and the technology is unproven.  Genetically modified crops are usually grown to contain no more than the original, leaving the planet vulnerable to destruction.  We should ban genetically modified crops because it is against the natural law and it is extremely risky to play god.  We should ban genetic engineering as it will be harmful to the environment and all organisms that lives there. ","[5, 5, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 1]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 20225558, 6432269, 28810858, 45336988, 45189900, 45336993, 45361788, 45206691, 45405037, 13581319, 45458968, 21785776, 45538225]"
6df3343a-820b-4e86-80f5-d33f2cfa39a5,2615,We should ban homeopathy,Arg-GPT2,"Homeopathy is less effective and has side effects sometimes resulting in death.  Homeopathy is dangerous as it allows people to put faith in healing themselves in an unconditional and unproven manner instead of working with proven methods.  Homeopathy is dangerous it doesnt go through fda tests for efficacy, and people that use home remedies are often not as rigorously trained as medical professionals.  Homeopathy is dangerous because people are putting their lives at risk when they use it.  Homeopathic remedies do nothing for the patient and in fact, stop that individual from seeking legitimate remedies.  Homeopathy is dangerous because people may depend on it and not get needed medical help.  Homeopathy is dangerous because it's not backed up by actual data.  many homeopaths recommend home remedies that don't work well in people.  Homeopathic remedies dont always work and people may be put at risk when they use them.  Homeopathy is dangerous it is not backed up by actual data and people are putting their lives at risk when they use it.  Homeopathy is unproven and could have negative health consequences in the long term.  Homeopathy is an exploitative industry that frequently makes unfounded claims about its effectiveness.  Homeopathy should be banned as it has no scientific basis beyond anecdotal evidence and people may be shunning traditional treatments when that is what is really needs to be done.  Homeopathy should be banned because people are putting faith in healing themselves in an unconditional and unproven manner instead of working with proven methods.  Homeopathy has no scientific foundation or enough evidence to be considered safe for humans.  Homeopathic remedies are not based on proven medical remedies and there is less regulation of consistency when using them.  Homeopathy is pseudoscience, there is no real evidence that it helps anyone.  Homeopathy should be banned due to the large number of deaths associated with reliance on it.  Homeopathy is pseudoscientific and has no scientific backing.  it also has no medical benefit beyond the placebo and may have negative side effects.  Homeopathy has no evidence to back its claims and is grounded in an unsub.  Homeopathy does not always work to cure a sickness and may interact with other substances negatively.  Homeopathy is unproven and could have negative health consequences in the longer term.  Homeopathy is not properly regulated, making home users vulnerable to false promises.  Homeopathy is unsafe because some of them do not qualify to diagnose and treat and they are in a business to make money off of people.  Homeopathy is unproven and could have negative medical consequences in the long term.  Homeopathy is unproven, junk science.  people may be shunning proven cures when that is what is really  needed to treat their condition, putting them at further risk.  Homeopathy is not tested and can cause more illnesses to people that already have health problems due to home remedies not being able to use them due to the time spent.  Homeopathy does nothing to address underlying safety issues that other treatments might pose.  Homeopathy is not proven to cure diseases.  Homeopathy should be banned as it is not an approved source of treatment.  Homeopathy is not evidence-based and is grounded in an unscientific belief system.  We should ban homeopathy because in some cases peoples health could suffer because.  Homeopathy is a fraudulent form of medicine used by con artists to take money from desperate people.  Homeopathy is unproven scientfically, and could have adverse medical affects.  Homeopathy is unproven scientfically, junk science.  there is no real science behind homeopathy.  there is no real reason to believe it can cure diseases like cancer.  Homeopathy does nothing to prevent or cure diseases.  Homeopathy is unproven, junk science. ","[4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 3]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 15448937, 45190571, 45401087, 45181383, 45181384, 28813722, 6340330, 19838540, 7756990, 45181152, 45272708, 44044795, 34609243]"
2b14f4d7-8a3d-47f3-8050-d712db307757,2125,We should ban organic food,Arg-GPT2,"Organic food is very unhealthy and is contributing to a huge increase in obesity and other health issues we are facing today.  Organic food is very unhealthy and is often full of fat and empty calories.  Organic food is very unhealthy and has little nutritional value.  it is full of fat and has little or no vitamins.   it is full of calories and has to go.  Organic food has very little nutritional value and can add to peoples weight problems.  Organic farming does not provide the same quality of animal welfare as in the wild.  Organic food is typically greasy and fattening.   it is often accompanied by artificial ingredients and is full of fat and empty space for that matter.  Organic food is very unhealthy and not good for anyone.  Organic food has no nutritional value and can add to the risk of obesity.  Organic food is very unhealthy and is contributing to obesity in the u. s.  people should be advised to limit their exposure to unhealthy foods.  Organic food is generally greasy and fattening.   it is also generally full of fat and contains no vitamins.   this is bad for your body and it is so cheap that people use it instead of cooking a traditional meal.  Organic food is unhealthy and it adds to the risk of obesity.  Organic food is not necessary for humans.  in a majority of cases it is highly unhealthy.  it should be banned.  Organic foods are a type of cancer that can be cured with treatment.  Organic foods are generally greasy and fattening.   by banning them, we would cut down on obesity.  Organic food is heavily marketed towards children, setting them up for a lifetime of unhealthy habits.  We should ban organic food as many chemicals it contains and it is very unhealthy.  We should ban organic foods as it is not fair that they should be banned as they arent natural ingredients.  We should ban organic food as it is not a natural food and is full of fat and empty calories.  We should ban organic food because it has been shown to be more detrimental to children health than traditional foods.  its been shown to be more detrimental to the developing child.  We should ban organic food because it is very unhealthy and makes people fat.  We should ban organic food because it is very unhealthy and is contributing to child obesity.  We should ban organic food because it is very unhealthy and is full of calories.  We should ban organic food because it has been proven to be more harmful to humans health than traditional foods and is an integral part of the european diet.  We should ban organic food because it is very unhealthy and is full of calories.   it is also full of chemicals and is a major contributor to obesity.  We should ban organic food because it contains no vitamins and is full of fat and empty calories.  We should ban organic food because many of the ingredients used are harmful to health.  We should ban organic food since its so unhealthy and full of calories.  We should ban organic food as it is not necessary to have the traditional foods that are typically associated with it.  We should ban organic food as it has not been proven to be as effective in treating diseases.  We should ban organic food as it is not fair to the animals that were taken from their natural habitats to make money.  We should ban organic food because it is very unhealthy and is contributing to obesity in the u. s.  it is also very expensive compared to traditional foods. ","[5, 5, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 2, 1, 4, 5]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 31948170, 45191882, 45185975, 45189900, 45206691, 45336993, 45336988, 45361788, 45190823, 20512953, 29155723, 6340330, 15448937]"
42afe935-0a17-4155-b811-f38f28e777df,2480,We should ban racial profiling,Arg-GPT2,"People are not racist so we should ban it.  Race is not a valid form of targeting, there are many different racial groups out there doing it and we should ban each and every one of them.  Racial profiling is in a way just another form of descrimination.   what makes you think you should be discriminated against?.  Racial profiling is a form of hate speech that intentionally destroys the goodwill people have built over time.  We should ban racial profiling because it could be abused to discriminate against poor whites.  Racial profiling is usually based on racism, but also on religion.  We should ban racial profiling because it is discrimination in itself.  Ethnic profiling is a form of discrimination that denies the humanity of all people and is instead based on skin color.  We should ban racial profiling because it is reverse  discrimination and it still singles out people.  Racial profiling is a form of discrimination that denies the right to promote equal opportunities for all people.  We should ban racial profiling because it is reverse  discrimination against whites.  We should ban racial profiling as it can be abused to discriminate against third parties and therefore should be banned.  Racial profiling is discrimination against other groups.  Race-based profiling is discrimination in itself.  Racial profiling should be banned as it can be abused and vulnerable people can be taken advantage of.  Racial profiling is in essence, reverse racism, and it should be banned.  We should ban racial profiling as it is a racist way of doing things and it is no different then that.  Race is not a valid form of human expression, and racism should be banned.  Racial profiling is racist and is often used as inflammatory rhetoric to harm minorities.  Racial profiling could be abused to oppress minorities.  Racial profiling is racism at its worst and is often used as discriminatory between groups.  Racial profiling is no different from reverse racism and should be banned as it is not fair to compare and not everyone is the same.  We must ban this because it is reverse  racism and it is reverse  discrimination.  If we ban racial profiling it will stop people who say they are a minority because they are not a minority.  If we were to ban racial profiling it would create a society where it is not okay to discriminate against people based on their skin color.  This is reverse  racism and it must be banned because it is a way of reverse  discrimination.  Race is no longer seen as a way of ethnic cleansing, but as an equalizer it is time we started using that terminology.  Racial profiling is in a way just another form of descrimination.   no one should receive extra benefits just based on their race.  It does nothing to deter crime.  We should ban racial profiling as it is not fair and many people are now abusing that power by claiming they are not a minority.  Racial profiling is no different than reverse racism, in that it still singles out certain people and therefore should be banned.  Racial profiling should be banned as it could be discrimination against minorities.  Racial profiling is discriminatory and is discrimination in itself.  Racial profiling should be banned as it can be abused by the state to discriminate against non-minorities.  Racial profiling should be banned as it can result in people who look to others for cues to guide them in the right direction.  this can cause a person to be viewed more favourably and not as a priority.  We should ban racial profiling because it is a way of reverse  discrimination and it still singles out certain people and groups. ","[4, 4, 5, 2, 3, 2, 4, 3, 2, 1, 4, 4, 4, 1, 4]",15,"[6432269, 45567220, 45567227, 13581319, 45538225, 45953041, 31948170, 20225558, 45190823, 29155723, 45191882, 45336988, 45206691, 45405037, 45355658]"
e230316f-8e98-4f6d-93f0-dc8f641fad1b,2747,We should ban telemarketing,Arg-GPT2,"Some people may be reluctant to spend money if their business is threatened.  Telemarketing is harmful to the general public because people are more likely to rely on the service rather than seek out original sources due to the high-pressure salesperson.  By banning telemarketing we will allow everyone to be more fair and equal to each other.  There is no regulation that allows for this kind of thing to be considered as legitimate or legal.  Telemarketing takes advantage of the unsuspecting public.   therefore they should be banned.  If it is banned telemarketing would be harmful to the economy.  If we ban telemarketing then there will be less people taking advantage of the services that are offered.  Telemarketing causes a lot of people to get sick or get worse.  its better to have a person look out for you in the long run.  It is very easy to get scammed by companies that offer telemarketing services.  It causes people with good intentions to commit crimes that they would have otherwise been unlikely or unwilling to commit.  it is our duty as a society to punish such people.  Telemarketing is exploitative of those in society who are vulnerable to such tactics.  Its almost always a scam to get people to buy what they dont want to.  they dont get any real benefits.  Telemarketing is unfair to consumers since it doesnt help them in the real world.  Telemarketing is just a way of putting people further into debt in a way thats nearly impossible to recover from.  Telemarketing causes a lot of people to get sick.  Telemarketing does nothing to improve the quality of the products or services offered.  Telemarketing is unhelpful because it encourages people to take on more debt than they already are.  Telemarketing is often done by companies which abuse their marketing muscle, masking themselves in the mass market.  Telemarketing should be banned as it can be abused and vulnerable people can be taken advantage of.  Telemarketing should be banned as it can result in people skipping out on important items in favour of cheaper ones that may not have been properly researched or tested.  Telemarketing is simply a crooked way of making money off of people who already have.   there is no good reason for people to spend hundreds of dollars on something they cannot afford.  Telemarketing is basically just a form of pre-discovery, meaning the person could be hiding something that could be used to gain control of government offices, separately or in coalition.  it's also a way of reverse  labeling and it's not always fair.  Telemarketing is a way of hiding from the problems that other solutions dont solve.  Telemarketing is a way of putting pressure on companies that have already started their business and this pressure should continue.  Telemarketing is very open to abuse in terms of religion.   it should be banned.  Telemarketing should be banned because the person or company doing the work isnt paid enough for it.  Telemarketing is not always an effective way of getting ahold of goods or services.  Telemarketing is a form of pre-selling that preys on the sale of a product.  we should ban them as it is not fair to sell your product and there is also less protection for the buyer.  We should ban telemarketing because it is unethical to use other peoples money for that purpose.  We should ban telemarketing because its a way to have a good influence in the lives of the people you work with.  We should ban telemarketing because there is no way for the buyer to know if the item was made locally or not.  We should ban telemarketing because its very easy for scammers to take advantage of people. ","[4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 5]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 20225558, 45181383, 45190571, 45181384, 45401087, 45538225, 6432269, 45458968, 13581319, 21785776, 45190823, 45361788, 44044795]"
fb1c7185-5c3d-4f2a-8bfe-90f24452d205,3232,We should cancel pride parades,Arg-GPT2,"Parading on the backs of unsuspecting audiences with gender-neutral language is a clear affront to gender-equality and a way of reverse that has no place in society.  By celebrating intersex and non-binary people we are also showing that society is not yet ready for that and we still have a long way to go.  It makes people vulnerable to mockery and discrimination based on their sex.  It is incredibly important that people are able to identify as a person of interest rather than as a result of a popularity contest.  There is a serious shortage of qualified medical personnel.  Not everyone is a homemaker or is a qualified mechanic.  Pride parades are a way of promoting prejudice against other groups of society.  We should cancel pride parades because it is disrespectful to whichever sex someone is and may be uncomfortable.  Pride parades were originally created as a way to be more inclusive in society.  Pride parades are a form of hate speech designed to destroy the value of peoples individual worth.  We should cancel pride parades because it can be used to discriminate against non-minorities.  Pride parades are usually an attempt to rehabilitate historys worst criminals by portraying them as an exaggerated way of making money off of them.  Pride parades have historically been used to incite violent reactions between groups of society.  Pride parades should be banned to discourage discrimination against people born different and have equal access to education.  Pride parades are a form of hate speech against other groups.  Pride parades are a way of punishing people for being different.  We should cancel the pride parades because it is a way to be more inclusive and stop the petty arguments from those fringe elements.  We should cancel this because it is deeply offensive to people who identify as non-binary to see others discriminate against them.  We should not have unnecessary and political events that detract from progress already being made.  We should cancel this because it is outdated in today's society and doesn't bring anything that would make a difference.  Pride parades are a major tourist attraction and cause conflict among people.  Pride parades often have a negative impact on freedom of religion.  We should cancel pride parades because it is important that there is no discrimination against third parties, such as affirmative action, which protects our right to know the individuals identities of those who are supporting them.  We should cancel pride parades because it is homophobic to use that terminology and it is extremely offensive to people who identify as non-binary to adopt those gender-binary gender-neutral terms.  We should be doing everything possible to promote acceptance of those that are different.  It is very offensive to people who are different and have different gender than the majority.  Pride parades are very open to abuse in any form, and the participation of such groups of society as the lgbt community is highly unlikely to seek out and confine to the rights of such groups of society to exercise any real equality.  Pride parades are just a bunch of idiots jumping on stage and having some fun.   they dont have a true place in society.  Pride parades are very expensive to host.   they also serve no practical purpose in the current age.  We should cancel pride parades since that is the natural human reaction to change and this is potentially damaging to society as a whole.  Pride parades encourage division and jealousy in society as a whole.  this causes conflict and resentment in society.  Pride parades are very likely to provoke violent reaction.  We should cancel the pride parades because it promotes discrimination against people from the sex they were born into. ","[4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 1, 4, 2, 5, 2]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 45167145, 15448937, 45190571, 45401087, 45181383, 45181384, 30777913, 19838540, 28813722, 6340330, 45355658, 44044795, 34110399]"
b8904c00-6923-4010-9a18-8bc73a9b489b,2621,We should disband the United Nations,Arg-GPT2,"The whole world is a huge mess and the world would be a much better place if we all started behaving like a big family unit.  It is important to have a good international reputation.  having the power to destroy another countrys civilization is not something to be proud of.  The fact that some people can actually afford to hire a lawyer is a powerful deterrent to abuse and racism.  The world is a huge place and we should all be able to live there.  The world is already a chaotic place, we should make it even better.  The world would be a much better place if the united nations was abolished.  The united nations is a leading international financial hub for money laundering, corrupting, and abusing the countries that use it.  The united nations is just a bunch of crooked politicians making money off of war.  its not morally right for them to exist.  The united states is an important part of the world and its dissolution is needed to create greater freedom for all.  The need to have international cohesiveness would be greatly improved if the world was just a smaller area.  The united nations is an outdated institution which serves no positive purpose in the world.  The union of the states and their constitutions is outdated and unenforceable in this modern age of internationalism.  The unity of a nation is a concept born in age-old frontier days, where ethnic tensions cleave society apart.  The united nations is an outdated institution that serves no practical purpose in the current age.  The use of the un should be banned as it can be abused and vulnerable people can be taken advantage of.  The use of public defenders should be mandatory as is the right to all people to have equal representation and this would ensure that all people have fair representation.  The use of public defenders should be mandatory to ensure that all have equal access to legal representation.  Nations should be able to have as many military assets as they want.  The use of the united nations should be banned as it just leads to tensions between local communities.  The united states have an obligation to protect the rights of their citizens to have their governments do what they want and the obligation to share in the prosperity they create.  The united states is not only responsible for sending people but also have the money to train them.  The world is not a single country system and we need to have some method of government in place to represent all the people that live in the country.  The use of the united nations as an institution to promote international cohesiveness is in itself racist and is historically inaccurate.  The united nations has fostered terrorism and violence throughout the world.  It is outdated and doesnt serve its purpose in modern society.  The world is already a multi-party system, and multi-party systems are necessary to allow for democracy.  The creation of a unified world order requires a world government to act as a force of good.  The union of nations is no longer relevant in todays world and is completely unnecessary.  The united nations is an outdated institution that serves no practical purpose in modern society.  In criminal law, entrapment is a practice whereby a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit a criminal offence that the person would have otherwise been unlikely or unwilling to commit.  entrapment should.  The right to keep and bear arms should be abolished.  it is no more effective than the right to keep and bear arms and is often misused. ","[4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 5]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 20225558, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45181384, 45458968, 45538225, 6432269, 43877630, 45191882, 45190823, 21785776, 30777913]"
10337a65-a98c-4bd4-80f6-42c3777abaab,3170,We should end mandatory retirement,Arg-GPT2,"As people get older they tend to seek out new ways to live their lives.  this is dangerous for society as a whole.  If everyone was retired it would make everyone better off and lead to a happier and healthier society.  It is ridiculous to have to pay people off when they have not started working yet.   they should just start working and pay off once they have started.  We should end it because it takes money that could be used for the country.  People should be able to choose a career path, there is no reason why they should not have a choice.  We should end mandatory retirement.   we should replace them with something that gives people more of a chance to get back into the workforce.  We should end the mandatory retirement for the financial gain of a firm.  they do not deserve to receive a huge bonus just based on how much money they make.   all they do is take money from the organization.  We should end mandatory retirement because it makes the workforce less motivated to do a good job.  We should end mandatory retirement because everyone is overpaid and we dont need that much more money.  In todays world, there is so much inequality between the rich and poor, it has got to be ended.  We should end mandatory retirement because the economy is so strong today and there are so many people working in the fields of science, technology, and other fields that could be more productive as a result of this.  We should end it because we waste valuable time and money on unnecessary programs.  Mandatory retirement is a bad system of ensuring that the rich have an advantage.  It is bad for companies to have to lay off people who are important to the business.  Compulsory retirement will lead to a decrease in the number of workers in the workforce.  Mandatory retirement is no longer necessary for increasing levels of technology which can result in job losses.  It is very likely that some of the most talented people are being held back by the less savory of the two-tier system.  The fact that so many people are unemployed is simply shameful.   we must end this by giving everyone a fair chance to get a job.  We should be doing away with all the unnecessary barriers that hold people back from great innovation.  Mandatory retirement would stop people who are taking advantage of people who are not educated well enough to understand the reasons to keep their jobs.  It is very unfair that people who work so hard to still have such a large portion of the population rely on them.  Mandatory retirement would put a cap on income inequality in society.  The retirement system doesnt encourage people to work as hard.  Mandatory retirement is antiquated and irrelevant to current times.  Mandatory retirement is not fair to put on any individual who has done nothing to deserve the position.  We should end it because it isn't fair that people should be paid off when other workers are getting paid.  it isn't fair that they should get a better living wage than lower level workers.  We should end mandatory retirement as it is not fair to force people to work beyond their natural instinct to provide a service.  We should end the mandatory retirement because many people lose their jobs because they are over age and many people are not qualified to do the job they are hired to do.  We should end mandatory retirement because its not fair that people should not all get paid when someone else does. ","[4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 3, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 20225558, 45181383, 45401087, 45190571, 45181384, 45538225, 6432269, 45458968, 13581319, 45336988, 45206691, 45189900, 45191882]"
1b63f420-dfcf-405e-a667-cd0003aa83a2,3223,We should fight global warming,Arg-GPT2,"It is extremely important that we do not leave the planet in a state of permanent climate change.  Global warming will lead to more extreme weather conditions that will result in more damage to people and property in the longer term because it will create more of a burden than it is worth.  Global warming will destroy the world and leave many people without habitable amounts of land or water.  this will lead to more devastating consequences for the individuals who depend on those services.  The warming of our planet would be catastrophic and we would all be dead by the end of it.  If we were to fight global warming it would be a lot less people would be seeing the effects of global warming.  Climate change is dangerous and has ramifications that we do not even know yet.  Global warming is extremely unlikely to be controlled or otherwise, making our world more vulnerable to disaster.  Global warming is very likely the cause of the current global debt crisis.  Climate change is the biggest threat facing humanity today and it has the potential to get much worse.  We should fight global warming because the effects of climate change are so severe, we should not leave the planet in a state of climate chaos.  We should fight global warming as it could be used as a major weapon in the development of nuclear weapons.  Global warming is a huge subject in climate science, and it has been shown to be very poorly understood in recent times.  it is also extremely sensitive to weather and human conditions.  We should fight global warming as it is very unlikely the effects of climate change will be beneficial to humans in the long term.  We should fight global warming because it's a huge problem and we don't know how to fix it.  We should fight global warming because there is so much conflict caused by global warming there is a lot of property damage caused by the conflict.  We should fight global warming because it would make the world a much better place.  Climate change is a huge area of uncertainty in the scientific community.   we do not know enough about the effects of climate change to be sure it is what is happening.  We should fight global warming as the effects of it are still uncertain and may be life-threatening in the longer term.  Global warming should be fought as it is very likely responsible for the dramatic increases in recent years.  It is extremely important to reduce emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.  Climate change is a major concern for many scientists as it will have long term effects that are felt across the world.  Global warming should be opposed as it is dangerous that it is taking place.  We should not fight global warming because it will cause more extreme weather such as the possibility of a hurricane or a tsunami.  it is also important to preserve our natural world.  Global warming is a major threat to the stability of our world and should be considered a top priority.  Climate change is a major issue that will have long term consequences for humans and the effects of global warming are expected to be felt for decades after the initial effects of climate change have been felt.  We should fight global warming because it brings us into a period of significant population growth.  We should fight global warming because it will affect the entire world and it is difficult to predict which way the world will go.  We should fight global warming to make sure the earth doesnt freeze over again. ","[5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 3]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 20225558, 6432269, 13581319, 45458968, 45401087, 45181384, 45405037, 45361788, 45189900, 45336993, 29155723, 28810858, 44044795]"
f0771906-149a-49f2-80f2-5ce743b773c2,3199,We should fight urbanization,Arg-GPT2,"It makes everyone poorer and increases crime.  It is very important that people are not put off so they dont have to start their lives over again.  Some communities have no value in terms of being a back door to get into the real estate business.  Living in a city is a huge undertaking and the city planning process is hugely important.  Where people live, there is a need to ensure everything is done to make them live where they are.  urbanization is the most efficient way to achieve this.  Urbanization is the biggest contributor to our world, and it will take decades to return to the pre-urban levels.  Urbanization is detrimental to the wellbeing of all children.  It is important to have a large population of workers in a company so that they can be paid a decent living wage.  Cities are no places that should be left to ruin by people moving away to find something better.  Urbanization is necessary for the continued development of a free society.  We should fight urbanization because it leads to more poverty and less opportunities.  We should fight urbanization because many of the services we use are no longer necessary and the city centers are no longer needed.  We should fight urbanization to make sure that everyone is included.  We should fight urbanization because it makes the inhabitants of the city poorer.  Urbanization should be fought to preserve the unique features of each society.  We should fight urbanization as the reduction in the number of murders is only fair.  We should be fighting urbanization because it will cause more conflict and a lot of people will be hurt.  We should fight urbanization as the main reason for their existence is that many people dont want to live in the city.  Urbanization is the most obvious result of human cloning, it is also a key experiment to genetic engineering.  Urbanization should be fought as it can create resentment for the home of residents who live in the urban areas.  Ruralization should be fought as it can be a major cause of conflict.  We should fight urbanization as it will not lead to a reduction in crime or a decrease in gang violence.  We should fight urbanization as it can be detrimental to the health of children as they do not get the proper medical treatment that they require.  We should fight urbanization as it will never happen where there is a huge metropolitan area.   instead, smaller and less well known towns will be more prevalent.  Flag burning is a desecration of an important symbol of our country.  Urbanization is too generalized to be a valid form of living.   we should oppose it because it doesnt really serve to spread out the population as much as it would in a more rural area.  We should fight urbanization as this will lead to a reduction in the quality of our police force as they lack the necessary tools to chase bad criminals.  We should fight urbanization because it has happened and the effects of it still have to be seen.  We should fight urbanization as this would get everyone a fair bit of a city to live in without being a huge sprawling mess.  Urbanization is a way of making the world smaller.  We should fight urbanization because it will create a lot of tax money.  We should fight urbanization because it leads to unsanitary conditions and a lack of essential amenities such as safe spaces.  We should fight urbanization because it will lead to a reduction in crime and it would save money as police resources. ","[4, 4, 4, 2, 1, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 20225558, 6432269, 45538225, 45361788, 45181383, 45190571, 45181384, 45401087, 45336993, 45336988, 45206691, 45189900, 45458968]"
00808858-c6be-4504-a2c8-7fa1ba4adb03,3492,We should further exploit natural gas,Arg-GPT2,"This will cut down on crime and it will also help the environment because it will cut down on pollution.  As the world burns itself, we need to conserve the remaining heat.  It helps save money and reduces pollution.  As it is no more expensive than producing a litre of diesel fuel, there is no reason why we should not use it.  We should further exploit natural gas to power our economy by creating hundreds of thousands of solar panels.  Natural gas is less harmful than current fuels and has many scientific uses.  We should further exploit natural gas since it is a major contributor to global warming and we will need to cut back on all the pollution that comes out.  We must have a good supply of natural gas in order to power our economy and ensure our future.  Natural gas has no harmful chemical additives and is vastly better suited for human biology.  By exploiting natural gas we can save money and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.  Natural gas is a vital part of our energy system and should be used prudently.  We should not leave our home with high levels of pollution that result in our children not receiving a standard education and missing important subjects in school.   we must learn from history and reduce the pollution levels in our schools.  It would help to keep our government from over spending.  Natural gas is a valuable commodity that can be used to power the economy.  it provides a reliable source of heat and power for many industries.  We should not waste any more than we already have, so we dont have to import it into our economy.  There is no reason why we should not use natural gas in the future.  Natural gas is a great untapped resource that could be used to power our economy for years to come.  We should do this because it would help to make our economy more energy efficient.  Natural gas can be more easily accessed and more reliable than coal or oil.  its also much cheaper to produce.  Natural gas has a large potential for clean energy, and its much cleaner than coal, which has a large potential for pollution.  Natural gas is cleaner than coal or oil, and it prevents the use of fossil fuels.  It is very important that we exploit the natural gas that is readily available.  We should continue to exploit natural gas as it is a way to make the world a much better place.  We should further exploit natural gas as it will save money as it will reduce the amount of expensive fuel thats required.  Natural gas is extremely beneficial to the earth and should be widely adopted.  We should not continue to burn fossil fuels in order to make money.  We should further exploit natural gas as it is no more harmful than regular gas and has much potential for medical treatment.  We should not ignore natural gas in our country.  We should further exploit natural gas because we could substitute it for coal in the power plant.  We should further exploit natural gas because it is so cheap and has so many uses.  We should explore the possibility of exploiting natural gas in order to power our economy in the future.  We should exploit natural gas as it can help control floods.  We should exploit natural gas to make electricity more accessible.  We should  exploit natural gas as it can provide a significant boost to power projects.  We should exploit natural gas to make the world a more interesting place. ","[4, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 2, 2]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 6340330, 45191873, 45183231, 45272708, 45181152, 7756990, 45282792, 45336991, 44044795, 19838540, 30398579, 34110399, 34609243]"
bdd98f6b-6b98-4703-b1e3-2e36f8dc5025,2465,We should further exploit small modular reactors,Arg-GPT2,"Small nuclear reactors can be built with relatively inexpensive materials, which makes them less vulnerable to terrorism.  We should further exploit small, modular reactors because they are small and have much potential to reduce the amount of radioactive waste the earth has to offer.  Modular reactors are in their infancy and the technology behind them has already been shown to malfunction.  Small nuclear weapons with such long-term destructive weapons are a danger to the world.  Small modular reactors are inherently unstable and cannot be used safely.  Small modular reactors can be built to generate electricity in a massive area, providing that area with cheap and abundant electricity.  We should further exploit small modular reactors because they can be built to any shape and have any number of safeguards built in.  We should further exploit small, modular reactors because it allows for the development of novel and potentially dangerous pharmaceuticals.  Small nuclear reactors could potentially be used as a back up in case of a power outage.  Small, medium-sized nuclear weapons pose a threat to the whole world.  Small  non-invasive nuclear weapons pose a threat to the world.  Small nuclear reactors are inherently dangerous because they are designed to kill humans rather than repair.  they are also very expensive to build and operate.  Small nuclear reactors have a capacity to wipe out an entire nation.  Small nuclear reactors can be dangerous as they cannot be monitored or controlled.  We should further exploit small modular reactors because it helps to keep the lights on in a building.  Small modular reactors are safer than a large nuclear weapon and can be modified to suit various needs.  Small nuclear weapons have the potential to destroy the whole planet.  it is better to have a nuclear weapon that can destroy a whole nation of people.  Small reactors can be dangerous as they can explode or cause radiation if not properly secured.  Small modular reactors are less dangerous than traditional reactors and can be more prone to false positives due to ignorance of local conditions.  Small, modular reactors provide a valuable source of radiation.  We should further exploit small modular reactors to develop clean and safe nuclear weapons for our society.  Small nuclear reactors can provide a huge boost to power, it's the technology's  purpose is toexhaust our existing nuclear weapons.  Small modular reactors do not require the same level of protection as a larger nuclear weapon.  this means that small conflicts could potentially escalate into wider conflict.  Small reactors do not have the capacity to absorb huge amounts of radiation which is bad for public health.  Small, light and fast reactors are safe and could be hugely beneficial to humanity.  We should not waste any more money than we already have.  Small modular reactors are less likely to cause environmental damage due to their reliance on water and so would be more likely to remain in the environment.  Small, fast reactors have the potential to save the world.  Small, light and flexible reactors could be used effectively for medical reasons.  Small nuclear weapons could be catastrophic in the wrong hands, for example dictators who could use them to cause mass destruction.  We should further exploit small modular reactors because it will allow us to have more knowledge of how to use them and will give us a lot of money in the future.  Small, light and efficient nuclear weapons are necessary to deter aggression in a region.  Small reactors offer a way to control nuclear weapons, which would prevent a nuclear war.  Small nuclear weapons have the potential to wipe out the human race.  Nuclear weapons pose a threat to the whole world. ","[4, 4, 4, 1, 4, 2, 2, 1, 4, 5, 5, 4, 3, 4, 2]",15,"[45185975, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 15448937, 45355658, 34110399, 20512953, 19838540, 45405037, 30777913, 6340330, 45458968, 38202325, 34609243]"
ffe673bc-056b-4039-a581-7d32656b2f39,3180,We should introduce goal line technology,Arg-GPT2,"Goal line technology is safe and secure and no more prone to hacking.  this is all better for the players and makes the game more exciting.  Goal line technology will eliminate the time when a goal was thought of but never developed.  Goal line technology is a way of ensuring the best players are the ones with the most money.   by giving them money you are helping them in their development.  Goal line technology is necessary to ensure everyone is eligible to play in a game.  Goal line technology is a vital tool to ensure all goals are achieved.  Goal line technology can help eliminate corruption in the football league.  Goal line technology can be used to spot cheating players.  Goal line technology will increase the speed with which goals are achieved.  Goal line technology is a way to be more accurate in a field like scenario.  Goal line technology is essential to ensuring every goal is achieved.  Goal line technology is needed to eliminate human trafficking.  it would help with this if women were free to do so.  Goal line technology is needed to truly ensure that the game is played fair.  Goal line technology can help eliminate the ability of the opposition to score a huge upset in a football game because they have a huge lead in money.  Goal line technology would help eliminate corruption in the game and give more equality rather than the state being able to pick and choose for them.  Goal line technology is important to helping the lower level of the players to have a fair chance at playing professional.  Goal line technology allows the use of goalies to be more accurate and has less human input which can be used for good.  Goal line technology keeps the score constant.  Goal line technology allows for the introduction of new technologies to prevent or mitigate crimes.  Goal line technology does not distinguish between goal and non-goal posts, making the latter less likely to be eligible for some awards.  Goal line technology is necessary to ensure all players have a fair chance at a goal.  Goal line technology is not available in all leagues and may result in low scoring games and sub-par performances.  Goal line technology allows the referee to consider the full range of circumstances that would allow a goal to be scored regardless of the ability to reach a goal with a few seconds to spare.  Goal line technology would help eliminate goal-line bias in soccer.  Goal line technology should be introduced to assist referees and help the players to have more control over what they want to do with the goals they set.  Goal line technology should be introduced to help eliminate corruption in the soccer world.  Goal line technology is a way of making sure that all the goals are achieved.  Goal line technology should be introduced to ensure that nobody is taking their goal and getting them all wrong.  Goal line technology should be introduced to eliminate any doubt that crooked athletes can take advantage of a free opportunity.  Goal line technology is a way to be more selective in the draft and give more value to the product.  Goal line technology is an important part of the evolution of human technology.  it allows the computer to make a profit when all they do is track the money that would otherwise have been used for that technology.  Goal line technology should be introduced to help eliminate the time taken to recover from a bad goal, like forgetting your opponent or in a case of instant gratification, your opponent may be able to recall your decision.  Goals line technology should be introduced to aid goalies in finding a way to reach their goals. ","[5, 4, 3, 2, 5, 4, 2, 5, 4, 4, 3, 1, 2, 4, 5]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 13581319, 31948170, 28810858, 45206691, 45181383, 45181384, 45336988, 20225558, 45538225, 44044795, 30777913, 38202325]"
bf8cdba3-ab8e-427d-b407-afb972c24479,3191,We should introduce recall elections,Arg-GPT2,"If everyone had the same quality of life it would be a more level playing field.  Recall elections could fix this problem by giving more of the chance to vote for your ideas.  We must have a system where all official/public figures are backed up by solid proof.  this is why we need a system of criminal trials.  Recall elections would help ensure that elected officials properly represent the entire population.  Recall elections are usually conducted with low turn out.  We should introduce recall elections because if people dont like the way the government is run, they should have as much say as possible as it would give them more of a choice.  We should introduce recall elections to make sure that everyone is fairly represented.  We should introduce recall elections because it will lead to a fairer and more accurate representation of the population in parliament.  We should introduce recall elections because we really need high level political leaders to be able to drive this country in a direction.  Recall elections allow all citizens the chance to make a difference.  Recall elections are an integral part of modern society, and they serve to ensure that all elected officials truly reflect the will of the people.  As there are many types of politics we would not all be interested in the same way if we had a fair view of what others were.  Recalling elections would lead to a fairer system of government, not all in favor of the ruling elite.  Its  important that everyone  have a say by voting.   if everyone had a say by voting we would have a fair view of what everyone thought about who should be elected, not necessarily  who should be elected but who  wanted to be elected.  Recall elections are very important.  if people want to leave politics and not get involved with politics in general, we should let them know that there are other options.  As it would ensure that we have a proper functioning government and that everyone is fairly represented.  It is very important that everyones voice be heard when it comes from the elected government.  If everyone had a say in the election, it would be a fair representation of the population.  It helps ensure that the elected officials properly represent the entire population.  Recall elections would keep the government more in check and bring in a fairer balance for all.  People should be able to choose a government that they want to have.  they should not have to vote for who you disagree with the least.  Recall elections help ensure that all the candidates have a chance at the white house.  Recall elections could help ensure that more people get their voice heard.  Recall elections are a way to have a say in the election.  We should introduce recall elections because it would get everyone a fair chance at a government office.  Recall elections are so important.  Election results are very important to ensure that the person elected is the one the people really want.  Recall elections are highly sensitive to abuse of voter turn out and ensure that no one can claim victory over someone else.  By introducing recall elections, the government would be able to select who should be elected, not just those who can be bothered to turn up.  Recall elections are necessary to ensure that all eligible voters have a say in the election.  Recall elections are a must to ensure that all peoples voices are heard.  Recall elections are crucial to ensure all peoples voices are heard.  We should introduce recall elections because is important ear opinos of other ideas.  Recall elections should be introduced to make sure that everyone is fairly represented. ","[4, 3, 4, 4, 5, 4, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 5, 3, 4, 2]",15,"[45185975, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 15448937, 45355658, 34110399, 20512953, 19838540, 45405037, 6340330, 30777913, 27770607, 45458968, 33708599]"
b100501f-6b25-434c-8d95-8c2fba79a3af,3168,We should introduce year round schooling,Arg-GPT2,"A few years ago children were not taught in class, they are taught in a different way at home.   this will not work better for children.  Children that are homeschooled may miss out on important subjects, social skills and qualifications that could help them in life.  Children who are well-schooled are often inadequately socialized and miss important friendships.  It makes students work longer hours and gets them the most into the school.  Children who are homeschooled may experience significant disruptions in education due to families having to the pressure of being a part of a schools regular education.  Children who are neglected and unplanned-to-be teachers and school administrators have no incentive to improve their education, which is harmful to society as a whole.  More children are needed to properly learn the subject, they do not learn as quickly as in the past.  Children who are in the year round school system are deprived of important social classes, i. e.  the children of doctors, nurses, and other professions that would help them in the future.  The year round school system is not a necessary part of society and is being replaced with a system of student loaned-up kids.  The use of a year-round system allows for an education to be taught at a much greater pace, resulting in a student being able to obtain a good education in a timely manner.  The importance of a child being a student is a high importance for a childs development.  Year-round schooling encourages the development of critical thinking and discourages dogmatic approaches to solving problems through fear of bias.  We should introduce year round schooling to make sure that all the kids are taken care of and that they have a proper education.  We should introduce year round education to ensure that children from a disadvantaged or underprivileged background have access to quality education.  We should introduce year round schooling because students need to learn as much as they need to learn in order to get a good job in the future.  We should introduce year round schooling because it would result in a more educated society.  We should introduce year round schooling to ensure that all children attending school have the same access to education.  We should introduce year-round schooling to ensure that all children are properly socialized and that they have a basic education.  We should introduce year round schooling to ensure that everyone is equal and there is no discrimination for any sex or social gender.  We should introduce year round schooling because it would increase the number of children getting a good education and benefit society as a whole.  We should introduce year round schooling because there is no real need for this level of schooling in the first place.  We should introduce year round schooling because it will give children the opportunity to learn about science, history, and other important subjects in a way that they cant learn in a classroom.  We should introduce year round schooling because it will help children to learn the value of each person and every decision must be made with the benefit of the children.  We should introduce year round schooling because children in the school system are not getting the proper education they need due to the popularity of the sport.  We should introduce year round schooling because the children are not getting the top notch education they need in order to obtain a good job in the future.  We should introduce year round schooling as it will provide kids with a standard education rather than be taught in a curriculum that would suit them best.  We should introduce year round schooling to ensure that children are social and have a basic education prior to moving on to university. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 1, 3, 4]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 45458968, 20225558, 45405037, 45538225, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45181384, 44044795, 45190823, 29155723, 21785776, 45336993]"
81f27cc8-1721-4920-9c58-b244f7c904bd,1902,We should legalize ivory trade,Arg-GPT2,"It is highly profitable and helps support the status of animals.  It helps protect the interests of both criminal and not so, and in some cases, innocent people have been killed by weapons in accidents due to ivory.  It is so important that we protect animals from being poached by humans.  In this day and age, we recognize non-violent crime as a major component of the justice system and that includes all crimes committed regardless of the ability to prove guilt.  making the legal ivory ivory trade legal would stop crime by making the ability to be proven wrong.  The illegal status of an individual elephant makes it difficult to verify that they were truly wild and free in the wild.  The ivory trade should be legalized as it can be used to benefit all of us and help to reduce crime.  Ivory trade is a legitimate form of buying and selling of animals.   if the animals were free it would be a good way to make money off of them.  It is inhumane to take away an animals natural rights to not exploit them.  Legalizing ivory would lead to better conditions for elephants, since it would allow them to wander free in their natural habitat.  It is a way to control over-population in the world.  It is a matter of great concern to the preservation of the animal.  it is extremely easy to abuse animals and their natural instincts for profit, and the resulting loss of animal numbers should be avoided.  Elephants are highly intelligent and capable of sensing their environment and moving safely with little or no human input.  they also have a natural instinct to protect their environment so it makes perfect sense to have them on the front line of the search for illegal activities.  Elephants are already in the wild, we should abolish them and put them to safer hands.  It is very likely that the people who made these products didnt even know they were doing it.  If we ban the use of elephant tusks, it would allow us to protect the environment and not put so many animals into the field of abuse.  If we legalize it would create a lot of money for the states that house these animals.  Ivory is one of the most valuable assets in the world.  it would protect other valuable assets and prevent the loss of these valuable animals.  It is extremely important that people have access to ivory in order to be able to help themselves and their families.  It is very likely that some of these animals died by choice, rather than as a result of human cloning.  Legalizing ivory allows the use of the resources more efficiently.  We should legalize ivory trade as it will help save money as enforcement of current laws costs an estimated $3 billion a year in the u. s.  alone and will cut down to corruption and will make the u. s.  tourism industry more sustainable.  We should abolish zoos because it is cruel to keep wild animals caged up for our entertainment and it is cruel to confine them to small areas where they are born.  We should legalize ivory trade as it helps to keep the elephants safe and healthy.  We should legalize ivory trade as it is a way of protecting the rights of the animals.  We should legalize ivory trade as it helps the poor and vulnerable to protect them from those who would exploit them.  We should legalize ivory trade because it would help make elephants more in the wild.  We should legalize ivory trade to make it more fair for the animals. ","[1, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 2, 3, 2, 4, 4]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 45167145, 15448937, 45190571, 45401087, 45181383, 45181384, 19838540, 30777913, 28813722, 6340330, 45355658, 44044795, 30398579]"
2c7cffa8-db66-48e0-ab32-4d7b6f4c0561,2184,We should legalize public nudity,Arg-GPT2,"If people were to be free with their bodies, it would lead to a safer and better future.  If someone was nude it would be inappropriate.  People are in the privacy of their own bodies and should be free to use them however they wish.  Its natural for men to be bare, so we should legalise it.  It is a way of keeping the peace.  If everyone was nude it would be safer for everyone and less likely draw unwanted attention.  If everyone was naked there would be less diseases and less peoples sexual appetites.  If we legalize public nudity it would free up the police to chase proper criminals and not waste time on the ""non-violent"" level they currently rely on drugs and other crimes.  Its natural and makes people feel comfortable and safe when they are out and about.  This would stop people from taking indecent photos of other people.  It does not harm anyone and people should be free to use their bodies in any way they choose.  If everyone was nude it would make everyone in the room feel comfortable.  People are going to use their bodies that way more money can be made available.  If everyone was nude it would be a lot safer than being in the open.  People should be able to use the facilities that they choose.  It is so rare to see a person do nothing to hide their sexuality.  By making public defenders mandatory, the system would, effectively, be saying that everyone is equal.  If someone was to make a public defender for the indigent they would use the same amount of money and have the same standard of defense.  In some cases, people use public defenders to defend them in court, which is a form of double-jeopardy system.  If people are able to make money by selling their body and they choose to, it should be their choice.  It is very private and personal and it should be legal.  If people want to wear clothes and make money, there is no reason they shouldnt be able to.  Public nudity should be legal as it can be controlled & monitored easier & be less dangerous.  Public nudity is a way of keeping the peace and its a constitutional right to free speech.  Public nudity should be legal as it is a way of empowering women to improve their physical strength and prevent injury.  We should be open enough to see other peoples bodies without being so careful to cover it up.  Public nudity should be legalied so that women can work in teams, compete against men in various competitions, and have the same opportunities.  Nudity is an important part of human evolution and the right to practice it should be protected under the right to free speech.  We should legalize public nudity because it is a way to be more open and transparent with your data.  We should legalize public nudity because it helps people cope with the pressures of the everyday world and people should be free to use their bodies however they want.  We should legalize public nudity because it would make society safer because there would be less violent incidents that would otherwise be very easy to prevent.  We should legalize public nudity in that people are taking advantage of it.  Freedom of the nude should be protected as it allows to be more open to expression.  Public nudity is a form of free expression that makes everyone in a certain area more comfortable.  We should legalize public nudity because it is a way to keep the peace and make people feel like they arent hiding from the world. ","[3, 3, 3, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 4, 4, 2]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 45538225, 45206691, 45361788, 45336988, 45189900, 45336993, 28810858, 45181384, 45190823, 45190571, 45401087, 20512953]"
673229ca-c14f-437d-acac-c63012ffe187,2166,We should legalize sex selection,Arg-GPT2,"It is so important to choose the right person for a serious relationship, and having to choose between two is just a way of reverse engineering the choices that people make.  If all parties in a given case are in agreement, and arent hurting anyone, the state should let them do what they all want.  If all people were to have sex, it would make everyone happy.  it would also help prevent against the evils of overpopulation and rising rates of stds.  Sex is no longer seen as taboo, it is now viewed as a normal part of society and we should adapt the attitudes of the past.  Sex is a choice, and if a person chooses to be a boy, it is his choice.   children should not be made to feel uncomfortable about their gender.  By making sex a legal profession, sex workers will be able to unionize and protect themselves from bad clients.  Sex is no different from any other job in level of exploitation.  just because it exploits sexuality instead of strength or intellect doesnt mean it should be regulated differently.  Sex is a choice between two people, and the government should not force its policies on people based on their sexuality.  By making sex-neutral language we send a strong message that sex is not a subject that should be controlled.  By making sex choices official, we would be reducing the power of pimps and prostitution companies by giving control of the industry to the sex workers.  By making sex selection compulsory, and sex-neutral language would serve to reduce discrimination against women.  Sex selection is in a way just another way of putting pressure on people.  Sex is no different from any other job in level of exploitation.   workers should be able to earn a living as they are both important to the company.  Sex is a choice and people should be free to use their bodies however they want.  Sex is no different from any other job in level of discrimination.  just because someone is a sex worker doesnt mean they deserve special treatment.  It is natural for the human to be attracted to certain types of sex acts.   by choosing to target the penis and vagina only sex acts on the basis of that, we are perpetuating patriarchal oppression and misogyny.  It helps reduce rape and sexual abuse of people and it is up to the individual to decide if they want to have sex or not.  If all women were to go into combat, it would be a good way to control their strength and not have to rely on them in times of battle.  Sex is no different from any other job in the world.  just because someone is a man or woman doesnt mean they deserve special treatment.  Sex is no longer seen as a taboo to be avoided.  Sex is a choice between two people, and should be respected under the right to legalise their relationship.  Sex selection should be legal as it allows for equality in the workplace.  Sex selection is a way of ensuring that all the males in a certain population is taken into account.  We should legalize sex selection because it helps to maintain religious beliefs and protects the privacy of those who choose to live as they are.  We should legalize sex selection as it will help couples to find a suitable partner for they would otherwise not be able to find, and vice versa.  We should legalize sex selection because it allows two people to have the same thing at the same time.  We should legalize sex selection because it would help reduce rape and sexual abuse of people and prostitutes. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 4, 5]",15,"[45185975, 45191882, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 45190823, 13581319, 20312760, 45411178, 28813722, 29155723, 20512953, 6340330, 30783876, 15448937]"
78316d79-8094-4aae-a5aa-ee9b6f1009ff,2482,We should limit the use of birth control,Arg-GPT2,"There is no real reason to keep using birth control when there is so much concern over the long term effects of obesity, diabetes and other issues.  It is very easy to get pregnant and it is very likely that we will all be doing it at some point.  The cost of treating a sickness with medication is incredibly high.  If all women had to use a condom it would be safer for them and they could have more control over what they want to do.  In the long term, if people refuse to use birth control, there will be fewer babies born and the population will fall.  If all women had to use birth control it would decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies that might happen.  Birth control is an absolute last resort if no other options of reducing the human trafficking in and sexual abuse of children are available.  It is so important for a child to have a normal life rather than have to face a difficult situation.  With its long waiting lists for new mothers, paternity leave and so few open slots for fathers, the country is actually facing a shortage of qualified providers.  Many people with fertility problems are put at risk when they try to get pregnant because they know they cannot afford the high rates of adoption and in-family surrogates they need.  If everyone used birth control it would mean that fewer people are going to be targeted for abuse and possible to prevent rape.  it would also mean that the worst offenders would be put to jail.  Birth control is an important part of a womans life and should be illegal.  Birth control is outdated and was commonly used on religious groups rather than as a general rule for the whole population.  As long as theres no forced fertility, giving birth to a child is no different than giving birth to a partner.  The use of birth control should be limited as it can lead to unproductive outcomes in the long term as the child is not getting the proper education they need in order to obtain a good one.  The use of birth control is so widespread and ingrained in society that we should adapt it to the 21st century.  It is a human right to choose what to do with their own bodies and that should be protected.  The use of birth control should be limited as it can be abused and vulnerable people can be taken advantage of.  Birth control is not fair to put on any human being because it should be banned.  We should limit the use of birth control because it is not fair to trap people into this by promising them a large sum of money and then have them use it all up before they have it.  Birth control should be limited as it can result in low birth rates of babies in the first few months of life, which is detrimental to the health of the child.  We should limit the use of birth control as it is not fair to use this method of preventing unwanted pregnancies.  Birth control is a dangerous and untested area of science that the results of we still do not know.  we must protect the results of this until they are proven.  The use of birth control should be limited as the country is still in a constant state of population growth.  Birth control should be banned as it is not a natural part of a womans body to have control of their reproductive organs.  We should limit the use of birth control as the benefits of giving birth to so many people outweigh the risks. ","[4, 4, 1, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 6432269, 45206691, 13581319, 45189900, 45336988, 45336993, 45361788, 20225558, 45538225, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45458968]"
a0c3fb6a-1e58-413c-9e3b-c4eba7e5eb66,2110,We should lower the age of consent,Arg-GPT2,"Too many people have been sexually abused and they dont know it.  By lowering the age of consent, we are more likely to reduce the number of sex crimes committed.  Consent is a very important part of society, and eliminating it would do away with much crime.  If the age of consent is lowered to 17 or even 10 then the age of consent will rise to age of consent.  The age of consent is too long a time to wait for, as there are so many sexual predators out there.  Consent to sexual activity is a deeply entrenched cultural value that has no place in a modern society where the lgbt community is growing exponentially.  Consent is no longer necessary to gain the advantages of living as a sexual organism, it is now necessary to establish consent prior to sexual activity.  The age of consent is outdated and is no longer relevant in modern society.  We should lower the age of consent because it is outdated and in some cases, irrelevant to the age of consent.  The age of consent is an outdated principle.  it does not make sense to have sex when someone is too young to understand the full implications of such an act.  The age of consent is an outdated concept that was never truly necessary.   it was more or less just a way of putting pressure on people.  The age of consent is a very important legal age; it establishes the rights of consenting parties and should be respected.  The age of consent is antiquated and does not represent the modern world.  Legalising prostitution will makes it safer for prostitutes by giving them better access to condoms and health checks.  The age of consent is way too high.  everyone should have the freedom to make their own choices and take it is harmful to have forced to use condoms or similar products.  Adult consent is outdated and we dont need to make any more money.  We should lower the age of consent because it allows for people to be free but they still have to be careful how they use that freedom.  The age of consent should be lowered because it has no bearing on whether a person will be able to gain control of a situation.  The age of consent is outdated and does not really serve to protect people.  We should lower the age of consent because it is outdated in this age where we are no longer hunting for treasure, but rather, we are looking for ways to cheat.   we should get away with our lives and make new discoveries.  The age of consent should be lowered because it encourages the idea of sexual activity when it isnt necessary.  The age of consent should be lower than the actual age of consent, as is the case with boys.  Consent to sexual activity is old fashioned and doesnt make sense when it comes from multiple people.  The age of consent is outdated and out of date.   we should aim to modernize sex in all aspects of life from now and that does not mean that everything is equal.  The age of consent is outdated and has no place in modern society.  The age of consent is outdated and in some cases, completely irrelevant to the actual age of consent.  The age of consent is an outdated concept that merely defines a cultural norm.  we should abandon it.  We should lower the age of consent since it is a consensual agreement between two people, it does not make sense to lower the age of consent. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 5, 1]",15,"[45185975, 45191882, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 45190823, 21785776, 13581319, 34110399, 45411178, 29155723, 20512953, 20312760, 30777913, 34854490]"
525b948a-7b1b-4c0d-a1f4-89e337727653,3208,We should prohibit slum tourism,Arg-GPT2,"It is dangerous to have tourists come into other countries and take advantage of peoples common interests.  Slum tourism is ruining the image of the rich and poor by giving them the opportunity to spend large amounts of money in places like iraq.  We should prohibit slum tourism because it  doesnt help people get out of a lot of trouble.  We should ban slum tourism because its more likely to be abused or vulnerable than it is to be safe.  We should prohibit slum tourism because it encourages people to look for trouble in an attempt to get ahead.  We should prohibit slum tourism because it has a negative image of the past when it comes from the perspective of the present.  We should prohibit slum tourism as it is dangerous and we do not need any of it.  We should prohibit slum tourism because its too dangerous and people can get infected.  We should prohibit slum tourism because it is dangerous to go into places where there is a real danger that people there may be harmed or killed.  We should ban slum tourism because its a way for those from the lower income to skirt the law.  We should ban slum tourism because it's rude to go into other people's countries and take advantage.  People should not be allowed to come into other peoples countries under the guise of researching cures for ailments.  We should ban slum tourism because people who are poor and sick are put at risk when they travel to places where they cannot afford to stay.  it is not worth the risk for them.  Slum tourism is exploitative of poor people.  People should be able to choose where to go, there is no reason why they would not want to stay put.  Slum tourism is just a way for the poor to be taken advantage of by the rich and it should be banned.  Many people are exploited by tourism companies and their products.  Many poor families are poor because they cannot afford the high prices charged for slum tours.  It is very common for people to not get the correct medical treatment that they really need due to lack of knowledge of local illnesses.  It is dangerous to have visitors from poor countries.  Slum tourism is very dangerous and could cause a lot of people to get sick.  Slum tourism is dangerous.  its popularity is based on fantasy but also based on racism which is deeply offensive to minorities and people from the minority who have lived in the u. s.  it is the epitome of reverse racism.  Its very important that people are able to identify and secure a place to stay in without it being unsafe.  Slum tourism is very dangerous and has led to many deaths in recent years.  People use funds intended for education, healthcare and development to send them to universities that do not teach them the value they may be missing.  Slum tourism is not necessary to obtain the highest quality of education.  We should prohibit slum tourism because they take advantage of the people and they take advantage of their ignorance.  We should prohibit slum tourism because it is dangerous to stay long periods of time in poor areas.  We should prohibit slum tourism because there are serious issues with the quality of education received and the people are taking advantage.  It is a matter of national security whether or security services are provided to help protect people from harm.  We should ban slum tourism because it can be dangerous.  Ghetto tourism is a form of discrimination that denies people with disabilities the right to receive preferential treatment. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 2, 4, 5, 2, 4, 4, 4, 2, 5, 4]",15,"[45185975, 45191882, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 13581319, 20312760, 15448937, 20512953, 6340330, 45405037, 33708599, 34609243, 45458968, 21017840]"
8365e30e-6f10-44d5-a295-f010c02f6dfa,2124,We should subsidize higher education,Arg-GPT2,"Higher education is necessary to obtain a good job , it is the only way to ensure that there is a well educated workforce to power our economy.  Higher education is so important to provide a well rounded society with highly intelligent members.  it is so important to ensure that these members of society are given the necessary education to succeed in life and any member of society would do it for them.  Higher education is so important to society and so many people would be insane not to get a degree if they thought they couldnt get into further education.  Higher education is so expensive, and in the long term results in a loss of competitive advantage.  Higher education is becoming more and more accessible to all, meaning that everyone should have an education in order to fill in for the gaps.  Higher education should be subsidized as it will improve the quality of our workforce and ensure that all qualified workers are appointed to a position of power and stability in society.  Higher education should be subsidized as it will ensure more people get into the universities which will benefit everyone.  Higher education should be subsidize as it will improve the quality of our workforce and ensure that more people are skilled.  Higher education should be subsidized as it will improve the quality of our society.  Higher education is so important to society.  Higher education is so important and necessary for a society who are we to have some basic level of literacy and some basic level of knowledge? knowledge is power and freedom, this knowledge should be made more accessible.  Higher education is so important.  it provides students with important subjects, knowledge should be shared with all people.  Higher education is an important part of our society.  it allows us to have a well educated workforce that can be productive in a variety of industries.  it also allows us to have a well regulated society where the safety and protection of workers is a high quality level.  Higher education is important for a society who needs highly intelligent people to do the heavy lifting and innovation of the human intellect would take advantage of human knowledge.  Higher education should be subsidize to enable more diverse groups to have access to it.  Higher education should be subsidize as it is an important qualification to have and not everyone has the money to get the qualifications they need.  Higher education should be subsidize as it will improve the quality of our workforce and we will have doctors, engineers, and scientists more capable of solving problems.  Higher education should be subsidize as it will open up opportunities for students which will improve their employability and standard of living.  Higher education should be subsidized as it will improve the standard of our education.  Higher education should be subsidize to ensure that all children are exposed to diverse views.  Higher education should be subsidize because it would allow for qualified people to gain entry into certain careers and thereby enable a more fully developed society.  We should subsidize higher education so that more kids can get a good education and get on in life as they are born to.  Higher education should be subsidized as it improves the capacity of students to gain entry into the university life to gainful employment in the future.  Higher education should be given to all children in order to ensure a standard of learning is established.  Higher education should be mandatory to ensure that all have the same access to education.  Higher education should be subsidized to promote the education of all children in a school system.  Higher education should be subsidize to encourage young people to pursue education. ","[4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 2, 5, 4]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 45190571, 45401087, 45181383, 15448937, 45181384, 6340330, 19838540, 45191873, 45272708, 45282792, 45355658, 20170210, 45483811]"
35f63413-1f05-4d51-a213-fda6bd5daa41,2588,Assisted suicide should be a criminal offence,Speech-GPT2,"Assisted suicide should be a criminal offense. So, we think that the state should make a few rules about when you can allow people to take their own lives. The first would be that people who are being assisted should be treated as criminals, and if they're not, then they shouldn't be punished. And we think that the state should prevent these people from being punished if they're not guilty of the crime. So, our first point is that this puts the rights of the accused at risk. So, I think it's clear that the right to life or the right to liberty or the right to speech or the right to religion or the right to free speech, or the right to self-harm or the right to a fair trial, and ultimately those rights don't apply to the accused, because they're not guilty of a crime. We think that the state should, on balance, try to minimize the rights of its citizens. So, ultimately, if the state is successful in doing so, it will do so in a just way. So, in this instance, we think that the state should intervene and prevent these people from being punished. But I think that it's clear that the state would fail. The other side of this is that we don't think that the state should try to intervene in the private sector. The reason for this is that in the status quo, there's a market of sorts for people who are incompetent, who are not qualified to be in charge of, to go and get an independent consultant, to go and have a private consultant, to hire a private investigator, to hire a private lawyer, to hire a private investigator, to do all these kinds of things. And we think that the fact that you're not going to let the people who are being assisted get away with doing this, even if you want to, is a bad thing. Because ultimately, if the state is incompetent, it doesn't make any sense to let people be helped. So for all these reasons, we should criminalize assisted suicide. Thank you.","[3, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 5, 2, 1, 1, 4, 2, 2, 4]",15,"[20225558, 20512953, 45677971, 45538225, 45567227, 45567220, 45355658, 45569485, 21785776, 43877630, 29155723, 44044795, 13581319, 46031931, 28810858]"
118c8923-0226-4e96-855b-4c15b43e62c0,2694,We should abolish intelligence tests,Speech-GPT2,"We should abolish intelligence tests. Intelligence tests are an outdated tool which have been proven time and time again to be inaccurate. We believe that intelligence tests are inherently outdated and as such they are a tool which must be abolished. We would say that the united states should not use intelligence tests in any form. Three arguments why this is a good idea: first off on the false positive. Intelligence tests are based on an inherently flawed method. They are based on a false positive. If you have two hundred people and you are only allowed to spy on one of them then the probability of being caught is massively increased. In the same way that if you are caught spying on a two hundred pound gorilla, you are likely to get a bigger bear, and if you are caught spying on a gorilla, you are likely to get the biggest one. This is inherently problematic. We believe that there is a false positive, a false negative, when you use intelligence tests. There are a number of ways in which intelligence can be misused. First we would say that intelligence can be misused to gather information. When intelligence is used to gather information it's fundamentally unethical. When intelligence is used to gather information it's unethical. It's inherently less effective. But more importantly, intelligence can be misused to monitor people's communications. When intelligence is used to monitor people's communications it's inherently less effective. It's inherently less useful. It's inherently less beneficial. Because of this, we believe that it's inherently unethical to use intelligence tests. But more importantly, we would say that even if intelligence is used to gather information, it's inherently unethical. It's inherently unethical to use intelligence to monitor people's thoughts. To gather information. We would say that the use of intelligence to monitor people's thoughts is inherently unethical. Intelligence is inherently less useful. It's inherently less useful than other tools. But more than this, we would say that intelligence can never be useful for the purpose that we're trying to gather information about. Because if we use intelligence to monitor people, we will never get the full information. Because if we use intelligence to monitor people, we will never get the full information. Because the information that intelligence is used to monitor people will always be limited. Because if there's a problem with intelligence, there's only so much that intelligence can go to one particular actor. We think this is inherently problematic. We think that the use of intelligence is inherently unethical. And this is true for two reasons: first, because it's inherently less effective. Intelligence is never going to catch every single bad actor. Intelligence isn't going to catch every single bad actor. Because if you use intelligence to monitor people, you will never get the full information that would allow you to make a judgement call. You will never get the full information that would allow you to make a decision. Because if you use intelligence to monitor people, you will never get the full information that you would get from other types of monitoring. Because if you use intelligence to monitor people, you will never get the full information that you would get from other types of monitoring. You will never get the full information that would allow you to make a judgment call. You will never get the full information that would allow you to make a choice. Because intelligence is inherently a misuse of money, intelligence is inherently a misuse of time, and time is inherently a misuse of energy. And in the same way that there are limited resources for other types of money, limited resources for other types of time, we think that intelligence is inherently limited. There are limited resources for intelligence, limited resources for time, and as such we think that intelligence is inherently a misuse of energy. We would say that intelligence is inherently a misuse of time. We would say that intelligence is inherently a misuse of energy. And as such we would say that intelligence is inherently unethical. Second, we would say that intelligence is inherently a misuse of human capital. Intelligence is inherently less useful than other types of capital. Intelligence is inherently less useful than physical capital, and as such we would say that intelligence is inherently less useful than physical capital. We would say that intelligence is inherently less useful than physical capital. It's inherently less useful than food, shelter, basic living conditions. We would say that intelligence is inherently less useful than these things, and as such we think that intelligence is inherently less useful than physical capital. Third, we would say that intelligence is inherently a misuse of human labor. Intelligence is inherently less useful than physical labor. Intelligence is inherently less useful than mental labor. Intelligence is inherently less useful than political labor. Intelligence is inherently less useful than political, technological, and other types of labor. Because intelligence is inherently a misuse of physical, mental, and social capital, we would say that intelligence is inherently less useful than these other types of capital. We would say that intelligence is inherently less","[4, 4, 4, 2, 5, 4, 4, 5, 1, 1, 1, 4, 3, 5, 1]",15,"[20225558, 45677971, 45538225, 20512953, 45567220, 45567227, 45355658, 45569485, 21785776, 43877630, 29155723, 44044795, 13581319, 45181152, 46031931]"
7dfb3a69-bde1-40e4-8b12-775979be4c8d,1161,We should ban cosmetic surgery,Speech-GPT2,"We should ban cosmetic surgery. So, in this debate, we're going to argue that countries should ban cosmetic surgery, which would include things like plastic surgery and Piercing, and also other less common procedures like Botany or Tattoos. Three arguments for why this is a good idea. The first is that we think that there is a lack of consent when someone is younger or less informed about the risks of this procedure. So, for instance, when a twelve-year-old goes to the hospital for a minor operation, the surgeon is likely to ask you to consent for some sort of consent, because he knows that you're consenting to some sort of health risk, and that, ultimately, this is something that you do, and therefore, the surgeon ought be allowed to do it. But, obviously, this isn't the case with children, because there's no way to consent for a minor operation on a child, because the parents don't know the risks, and the surgeon isn't allowed to do it. So, ultimately, because there's a lack of consent, and because there's a lack of clarity for doctors, we should ban cosmetic surgery. Our second argument is that we think that this would be most fair to the disabled. So, for instance, people with cystic fibrosis or a similar disease, where the lungs are totally destroyed or where the body is very differently designed, might be unable to get cosmetic surgery if it's illegal. So, for instance, if you were born with a cystic fibrosis, and you are unable to get any sort of cosmetic surgery until the age of eighteen, you might not be able to live a good quality of life, because the surgery would be painful and possibly dangerous, and you might be confined to a hospital for several months. So, ultimately, for people with a similar condition, such as a congenital defect or a birth defect, we think it would be unfair to let people hide under the rug, and prevent them from being able to enjoy the benefits of the most basic rights, like being able to have fun, like be able to live a good quality of life, in a country that otherwise would have them. We think that, ultimately, because people with similar conditions don't have a way to consent to these sort of procedures, and therefore, because they're not able to give consent to the state, that it's better to have a blanket ban on cosmetic surgery, so that people with similar conditions can be protected. Our third argument is that we think that this would be most humane. So, for instance, if you were just going to get a piercing or a tattoo, we think that you would see that it would be different from the piercing or the tattoo. So for instance, if you were going to get a piercing or a tattoo, it might be done at a hospital, and the staff there was different. So with this in mind, we're going to say that ultimately this would be most humane for the disabled. So with this in mind, we're going to say that we should ban cosmetic surgery. Thank you.","[4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 2, 5, 3, 2]",15,"[20225558, 20512953, 45538225, 45677971, 45567227, 45567220, 21785776, 45355658, 43877630, 44141581, 45569485, 29155723, 44044795, 13581319, 46031931]"
8d51c5e4-0e7b-4e74-8d49-833d563fccc0,3170,We should end mandatory retirement,Speech-GPT2,"We should end mandatory retirement. So, in this debate, we're going to argue that countries should transition to a system like that of voluntary retirement, where people can make the decisions for their own age and then we'll let them keep working. So with this in mind, we have three arguments for why we think this would be the best system for countries to have. The first is that we think that this would be fair for people with disabilities. In many countries, like the united states or canada, people with disabilities are barred from certain jobs or otherwise restricted from certain opportunities in certain spheres. For instance, you might be barred from being a doctor or a police officer, which are both non-full time jobs but don't allow you to be a doctor or a police officer. We think that because people with disabilities are excluded from certain jobs, it would be unfair to them to keep working, because ultimately you're giving them a job where they don't want to be a doctor or a police officer, and we think that ultimately that would be cruel and unfair. Our second argument is that we think it would encourage people to think twice before they retire. So, in the same way that we tell people not to go out and get drunk, but also to check their driving, we think that we should require people to think twice before they retire. We think that people would be more likely to do these things after the age of sixty five, when they would be required to check with the government, the military, and the retirement office. We think that ultimately this would be the best way to ensure that people with disabilities are not forced into a lifetime of regret. We think that, ultimately, it would be better if people were more likely to check the government and military and the retirement office and choose to keep working if they are older. And we think that that would be the best way to ensure that people are able to live a good quality of life after they retire. Our last argument is that we think that this would be the most cost-effective way for countries to do it. We see that, for instance, the US would have to pay a retirement fund that would automatically accrue the amount of money that people put into it over the course of their life. So if you put a hundred thousand dollars into the retirement fund, after you retire, the funds will automatically accrue. We think that the people who have invested in this would ultimately be very happy to do so. We think that the people who would be forced out of work would probably choose to do so. We think that people would be more likely to choose to retire when they're older, because they would be able to accrue more funds and ultimately save more money for their family. We think that because it would be better for everyone if people were able to live a good quality of life after they retire, that ultimately this would be the best way for countries to do so. For all of these reasons, we should end mandatory retirement. Thank you.","[4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 5, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5]",15,"[20225558, 20512953, 45538225, 43877630, 45677971, 45567220, 45567227, 21785776, 45355658, 29155723, 44141581, 44044795, 45569485, 46031931, 19838540]"
aef30567-8ce3-417c-b2bc-990783ad42e6,2166,We should legalize sex selection,Speech-GPT2,"We should legalize sex selection. So, in this debate, we're going to argue that countries should ban sex selection, in general, and we're going to explain why we think that the current laws around the world are unacceptable. So our first argument is that we should protect the health of the child. We think that when a child is conceived, they should be given the opportunity to have a sex or to try on a dress or a suit or a bikini or a swimsuit or a sexy uniform or a lollipop. After all, the child isn't legally allowed to consent into harm or to consent into harm, and there's a reason why people are not allowed to do that. We think that there's an obligation, a reciprocal obligation, on the part of the state to take care of the health of the child, to try and make the child as healthy as possible. And, in particular, when there's a lack of access to contraception or when there's a lack of access to birth control, we think that this is particularly harmful because the state has an interest in ensuring that the child is healthy and not harmed. Our second argument is that we think that this is cruel to the child. So, in the same way that we wouldn't let people get tattoos, we think that we shouldn't let people get piercings or tattoos. So, right now, it's perfectly legal to get a piercing or a tattoo if the person is at risk of doing so. But we're okay with preventing people from getting piercings or tattoos if they're at risk of doing so. We're okay with taking away the piercing or the tattoo if it's a minor, if it's for a minor injury. We're okay with letting the person live with the piercing or the tattoo if it's a lifelong decision, because we don't think that the state should be forcing anyone to do these types of things. We're okay with letting people choose not to do it, but we think that the state should have the ability to do these things in a reasonable and humane way. And we're okay with regulating those types of activities, such as requiring certain safety regulations, such as limiting the amount of pain to the individual. We think that it would be a mistake to ban these types of things. We're okay with regulating things like race or gender or religious discrimination, but we don't think that the state should be imposing these kinds of decisions on people. We think that in the same way that we don't let people get tattoos, we shouldn't let them get piercings or tattoos, and that we should keep the traditional laws that we have right now. Our last argument is that we think it's arbitrary what a person's sex is supposed to be. So, let's imagine that you had two girls, one of them is a blue-eyed, one of them is a white-eyed, and you had a black man and a white woman. We think that the race would be determined by lottery in this instance. Obviously, it would be racist to let people choose the other sex, but that's just the lottery of birth for the lottery of birth. We think that people shouldn't be discriminated against just because they have a different sex. We think that in the same way, we shouldn't discriminate against people because of their sexual preference, even if it's discriminatory. So, ultimately, we think that in the same way that we don't let people choose to be racist, we shouldn't discriminate against people because of their sexual preference. For all these reasons, we should legalize sex selection. Thank you.","[2, 3, 2, 2, 5, 5, 2, 2, 1, 4, 4, 1, 4, 1, 1]",15,"[20225558, 20512953, 45677971, 45538225, 45567227, 45567220, 21785776, 45355658, 43877630, 45569485, 44141581, 29155723, 44044795, 13581319, 32850083]"
61f5ff96-6f35-4815-811b-921757ce9d16,2449,Organ donation should be mandatory,Speech-GPT2,"We should have a national don't subsidize the production of goods.  Three main areas of clash, first on why we think it's important that manufacturers continue the use of tobacco.  Recognize that tobacco is incredibly addictive and it's very unhealthy.  Recognize it's been proven time and time again that it leads to lung cancer, it leads to early death, and it's the largest killer in the united states.  We think that the government needs to step in to limit the amount of tobacco that we consume given that it is the cause of so many of the deaths that we see.  We think that what the government is doing is giving the citizens a lower quality of life.  We think that it's it's not good to just say don't smoke tobacco, it's not good to just say don't consume tobacco as well.  We also think that it's not good to just say don't use tobacco because you wouldn't know how to get to the counterfactual if you didn't smoke tobacco.  Recognize that many of the people who are using tobacco are not using it to help their own survival but rather to help their own economic survival.  We think that in the same way that we don't think it's good that people are dying before they use tobacco and it's not good that people are dying before they use tobacco, we think that the government needs to intervene to limit the amount of tobacco that they are consuming given the harms that are intrinsic to it.  We also think that the government needs to limit the amount of tobacco that they are consuming to create a clear public health impact.  Recognize that this is something that is very easily taken away.  It's something that is very easily taken away from you.  The amount of tobacco that you're consuming in any given day in any given week is vastly different from the amount of tobacco that you were consuming in your life before it was taken away.  We think that in the same way that it is not good that we don't think smokers have an equal amount of smoking to non-smokers, it is not good that we don't think smokers have an equal amount of smoking to non-smokers.  We think that in the same way in that it is not good that we don't think smokers have an equal amount of lung cancer but that they are more likely to die at a younger age, it is also not good that we don't think that they have an equal amount of lung cancer.  Recognize that tobacco is incredibly addictive and very very unhealthy.  Recognize that it's been proven time and time again that it leads to lung cancer, it leads to other illnesses that are incredibly bad.  Recognize that it is incredibly easy to give a cigarette to a smoker, it's very easy to give a cigarette to someone who's not a smoker and it will kill them.  It's a horrible way of trying to get a cigarette.  We think that we need to limit the amount that we are consuming so that we can create a clear public health impact.  We also think that it's essential that we don't subsidize tobacco because it's bad for the smoker.  Recognize that the government is first, trying to entrench its own culture in the tobacco market; second, trying to create a culture in which it is no longer offering new tobacco; and third, trying to create a sense of acceptance for these smokers that are so young that it no longer wants to offer them tobacco in the first place.  These are all three ways that the government is trying to entrench its own culture in tobacco but none of them are mutually exclusive and if we don't subsidize tobacco we think that all three of these harms are being taken away from the smoker.  For these reasons, we should not subsidize tobacco. ","[1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 4, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 4]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 20225558, 45181383, 45401087, 45190571, 45181384, 45538225, 6432269, 21785776, 45458968, 13581319, 45405037, 43877630, 45336993]"
1574b491-ae0d-470d-8c6b-b4da591818ac,3207,We should abandon social media,Speech-GPT2,"We should abandon social media, and we should probably abandon it for a couple of reasons.  The first is that social media is very bad.  So why is? I'll tell you shortly why I think it's obvious that social media is bad.  But the problem is that many people, perhaps even a lot of people, don't know why it's bad.  And I'll tell you later why I think it's important to establish a baseline norm where people don't talk about things that are very intimate in private on their cell phone, where they can't talk about things that are very personal on their cell phone.  But I'll also tell you why it's bad in a broader sense.  So first, I think that it's bad because you get distracted by all of these external things.  You see all of the benefits of having a one-on-one time with someone, with someone that's your significant other or that you just have a one-on-one time with someone that's a significant other.  But these things aren't all that important.  And I'll show you why in a minute why these are all things that are bad.  But secondly, I think that what's important is that I think that this is just a way for people to express what's really important.  And I'll explain why in a minute why this is a way of life that people should try to live.  So why do I think this is a way of life? It's a way of life in which you don't really have to have very intimate things with people that you could be with in real life, and that's important.  Because I'll show you in a minute why this is a way of life that people should be allowed to have, but shouldn't be banned outright.  I'll also tell you later why this is a way of life that people should be allowed to have.  But I'll also tell you later why it's bad for society.  So why do I think it's harmful? First, it's bad for you.  It's bad for you because it's it's it encourages people to take risks, to take on risks, to take on things like job offers, it encourages people to be risk averse, to not be satisfied with things that they've been offered.  So it encourages you to do things like use your imagination and to think about things that you never thought about before.  It encourages you to go to places that you never thought about before and to think about things that you never thought about before.  It encourages you to be more risky a person, and to be more risky a person in a world where all of the things that I just said about why it's bad for society are also true, and there's no real reason not to ban it.  But second, I think that this is a way of life that people should try to go to, and it's one that's very good.  It's one in which you don't have to have this level of emotional dependence on other people that you have to worry about.  It's one in which you can be with your significant other, and that's a good thing.  The second thing I'd like to talk about is why it's bad for society.  So, when you talk about how it gets distracted, you're probably talking about a reason that people do it in the first place.  It's because some of the benefits that are accrued from social media are things that are fairly intrinsic to the way that society functions, and in the same way that people can communicate with each other in real life, these are things that are incredibly important.  And it's important to me as someone who is a woman to think about how much would it be good if we were able to communicate with each other on our cell phones? It's important to me as someone who is a man to think about how much it would be good if we could communicate with each other on our cell phones? These are things that are intrinsic to our society, and they're important to each person in their life.  It's not important for the government or any other individual to tell them what's good for them.  It's not important for anybody to tell them how to live their life.  It's not important for anybody to tell them what's good for them.  We need to let people do what is in their best interest, and if social media is a way of life that we think is important, I think that we should definitely ban it. ","[5, 4, 4, 1, 1, 3, 2, 5, 5, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1]",15,"[45567227, 45569485, 45458968, 34110399, 45411178, 21785776, 20512953, 15448937, 30777913, 43877630, 33708599, 27770607, 34854490, 6340330, 20043657]"
cc402df3-b046-453f-a81b-aabee4faca7d,3227,We should abolish capital punishment,Speech-GPT2,"We should abolish capital punishment.  So in this round we're gonna make three main arguments about why we think it would be beneficial to abolish capital punishment in favor of a lighter punishment.  Obviously, we think that's unlikely to be popular.  Recognize that the punishment that you receive for a crime is often a punishment that you didn't choose and it's one that you are essentially, even if you did choose to do it, it is very unlikely that you're going to be punished in any way other than maybe being killed.  We think that at the end of the day, the people that are most likely to be affected the most by this kind of policy are people that are already receiving it and we think that it's wrong to punish those people at such a personal and intimate level.  We think it's wrong to put a ban on a tool that is essentially a tool of the state that is very much necessary and crucial.  We think that it's wrong to harm those people that are already receiving it and we think that there's no need to do so.  We also think that, on a more pragmatic level, it's wrong to harm innocent people.  Recognize that the majority of crimes are committed by people that are not guilty and that are getting away from what they could have been punished for.  We think that it's wrong to essentially punish people in this way and we think it's completely unnecessary and ineffective to do so.  In fact, we think that it's both unenforceable and unenforceable and it's ultimately illegal to use it at all.  We don't think it's even a good use of money.  Because it's a tool of the state, it's a tool of the state, but it's not something that we should put into the law books.  We think it's unenforceable and it's ultimately unenforceable and it's unenforceable.  But finally, recognize that what it does is it creates a false sense of culpability.  It creates a false sense of culpability that if you do something bad, you're going to be caught and you're going to be punished, and you're not responsible for it.  We think that that is a bad use of money.  It creates a false sense of culpability and it creates a false idea of blame.  And we think this is a bad use of money, and we think that people should be able to feel like they're not being punished for their own actions, but if they're willing to violate the law, we think that's important.  For these reasons, we should abolish capital punishment. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 1, 1, 2, 4]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 45458968, 20225558, 45405037, 45538225, 44044795, 45181383, 45401087, 45181384, 45190571, 45190823, 29155723, 21785776, 45336988]"
7f74059c-4098-4307-9240-bfd951c3f440,3661,We should abolish foster care,Speech-GPT2,"We should abolish foster care.  In this debate, to be clear, we're talking about government-sponsored and -affiliated private institutions that exist primarily as providers of a variety of different sorts of care in different areas of the country.  We think that these have largely negative impacts on the people who receive them, particularly children who are not part of their care system and as such, it would be preferable to provide alternative options that don't have these negative impacts.  First, let's talk about the history of foster care in the united states.  We think that it's important to recognize that, in the past, children who are not part of their care system have been beaten, have been abused, have been left in worse situations.  We think that these children don't have the same protections as other children in the country, and as such, the impacts of their care system are much more severe than the impacts of any other institution.  But secondly, we think that there are very specific reasons why we think that foster care is bad in the status quo.  We think that, for instance, the way in which foster care is being handled in the status quo means that children are not being treated properly.  We think that, for instance, there's a lack of oversight in how these children are being treated.  We think that, for instance, the case of a, in the status quo, there are many, many orphan children in this country, and as such, the system is one of the worst in the developed world.  We think that, secondly, we think that there are certain social problems that foster care has in the status quo that mean that children are not being treated properly.  For instance, there's an elevated rate of, you know, sexual abuse and, in response to this, there is a lack of oversight in how these institutions are being handled.  We think that, for instance, it's important to note that, in many places, the law currently allows people to take children out upon themselves.  It doesn't regulate the fact that, you know, people are taking children from their homes without their knowledge.  We think that, for instance, in many states, children are not being properly cared for, and as a result, they're not being properly educated.  We think that, for instance, you have a child that's being taken away from their home, that their home is being invaded, and that their family's being threatened by institutions, and we think that this is unacceptable.  But secondly, we think it's important to recognize that, in many cases, the care system is not effective in helping children.  A lot of the time, they receive a very small amount of money, they're given a very low, you know, if at all, they're given a very low amount of money, they're not given, you know, any sort of a proper or a necessary education, and they're not provided with a meaningful, you know, education.  This leads to, you know, a lack of understanding and, you know, a lack of understanding of what they're going to be in five, ten, fifteen years.  We think that, in these instances, we think that the government is overstepping its bounds in these instances, that the government is doing these things because it's the least effective, because it's the least efficient, and because it's the least cost-effective.  We think that this leads to very poor decision making and, you know, bad decisions being made, and we think that this is unacceptable in any sort.  Our third point is that we think that foster care is a bad use of funds.  We think that, for instance, in the status quo, a lot of the money that is being spent on foster care isn't being spent on helping children, which is what it's supposed to.  It's being spent on, you know, increasing the efficiency of the care system so that it can spend money on other things.  So, for instance, if we had a system where, you know, all the children were getting adequate, you know, education, we think that that system would probably be much more successful than a system where, you know, a few hundred children are being kept in a system where they're not, you know, properly fed, or properly clothed.  We think that you would probably be more likely to end up, you know, a successful system if you were to take care of these children properly.  For these reasons, we should abolish foster care.  Thank you. ","[4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[45538225, 44690955, 45181152, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45191882, 45206691, 45189900, 45401087, 45181384, 45190571, 45181383, 44094031, 20225558]"
42bcada1-693a-4f5f-92b9-8d031bc6b077,2489,We should abolish no-knock warrants,Speech-GPT2,"We should abolish no-knock warrants.  In the status quo, individuals who do not have a warrant and do not have a reason to remain silent are a) harmed by the inaction of law enforcement; b) harmed by the fact that they cannot respond in any meaningful sense to a knock on their door or otherwise communicate with one another because they do not have a reason to remain silent.  Because of this, we would propose the following model: that no new warrants will be issued and that all warrants will only be issued in cases of necessity.  A few reasons why this is a good idea: first, on government obligation.  We think that there is a fundamental obligation to the people to protect their rights.  The reason for this is that rights come from god, they come from nature, and we think that if we fail to uphold them, we are failing to our responsibility as a government to our people.  Secondly, let's talk about the duty of the police.  We think that it is incredibly important that the police are able to act in a way that they see fit to help the people.  We think that individuals, no matter what they say or do, are being watched by the police.  We think that if you do something bad, you're going to be watched by the police.  We think that if you lie, you're lying to the police, and we think that lying is something that we ought not be watching.  The police can lie to get you to leave, they can lie about you and we think that that is fundamentally unjust.  But thirdly, we think that the obligation exists to the public to respond to actions of government.  So, we think that no matter what you do, you're going to have an obligation to the public to do something about it, because the police are public actors and have a responsibility to the public to act in a way that is just and that is not being seen to be unjust.  Now, I want to talk about the difference between warrants and police action.  We think that warrants are only important in one respect: that they can be used against people that are guilty of certain crimes and we think that this is something that is important.  But we think that the fact that it's a warrant is no indication that it's being used in a meaningful way and, as such, we think that individual needs to have a meaningful impact in order to justify a warrant.  There's no reason that someone who is not guilty of anything should be able to get away.  Now, why do we think that this is a fundamental difference between the way that the police behave and the way that the courts behave? We think that judges, in the same way that police officers are able to lie and do other illegal things, are able to act in ways that are unjust.  We think that if you were to have a judge decide whether something was a lie, we think that that would be a decision that you need to have.  You need to have a judge decide whether something is true or false and we think that that should be left up, not just for the police to decide.  We think that the only way to get meaningful change in these particular cases is for the judge to say yes, this thing is true or false and we think that that's a reasonable thing to say and that the judge is the one entity that can decide whether something is true or false and why is this important? We think that if you lie and you want to get a warrant, then you need to lie to the police to get them to lie about you.  But if you lie and you're not lying about something that's true, we think that you ought be able to get a warrant.  And if you lie and you're not lying about something that's false, we think that you ought be able to get a warrant.  This leads me to my second point, about the independent point.  We think that this leads to much higher punishment for people lying than for people lying and getting a conviction.  We think that people who lie often and don't lie very much are much less likely to be punished than people who lie and get a conviction.  What we see is that judges, in cases of necessity, are very likely to say yes, this is a lie and not to put you in jail, even if it is something that they think","[2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 2, 3, 1, 1, 1, 5, 4, 2, 4, 5]",15,"[45191882, 45185975, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 45190823, 13581319, 20312760, 45411178, 34110399, 45405037, 15448937, 20512953, 6340330, 38202325]"
6d680be9-d7cb-4180-a599-f03f462dcf40,2647,We should abolish term limits,Speech-GPT2,"We should abolish term limits.  In our democratic system, we think that individuals should have the right to serve in any capacity that they desire.  When attempting to be a legislator, to attempting to be a worker, these are all things that individuals can feel are worthwhile.  If not, the individual can feel that they cannot fulfill their full potential because they've been capped by a term.  Furthermore, they have the right to self-actualize in any way they see fit.  This includes serving as a diplomat, serving as a leader, and this includes the right to pass judgment in any other way.  We think that individuals have the right to pass judgment.  If you pass the right to pass judgment, if you do not have a term limit you cannot meaningfully do any of those things.  You cannot meaningfully take the opportunity to pass judgment, to take the opportunity to pass judgment, and furthermore, you cannot meaningfully fulfill the obligation that you have to the people around you to pass judgment.  As such, we think that individuals should have the right to serve in any capacity that they see fit, and furthermore, they should have the right to self-actualize as they see fit.  For this reason, we should abolish term limits. ","[5, 1, 1, 3, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1]",15,"[45483811, 43877630, 29155723, 31948170, 45361788, 44094031, 27770607, 45397152, 45191885, 45336993, 45336988, 20312760, 38202325, 45185946, 45169947]"
5da37fe3-869e-4482-adb6-0f638fe4aeeb,3166,We should abolish the American Jobs Act,Speech-GPT2,"We should abolish the american jobs act because the american people simply don't deserve to have their jobs taken away from them and they don't deserve to be in this situation.  Recognize that there's a reciprocal obligation and a reciprocal obligation that comes with jobs.  If you don't want to be a job like coal miner, if you don't want to be a job in oil refinery, you also need to be able to be a job that pays you more money.  Recognize that the american economy has been growing for many decades.  The united states is now the world's leading economic superpower and its manufacturing output is second to none other than china.  It is a matter of pride that the united states continues to grow and prosper and this isn't something that should be kept up to ourselves.  Recognize that the american people have been working incredibly hard and have contributed greatly to the economy and they deserve credit for that and for that reason, we should abolish the american jobs act. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 2, 3, 5, 2, 1, 4, 2]",15,"[21017840, 45191873, 45183231, 45181152, 45272708, 45282792, 45336991, 44044795, 7756990, 45483811, 44690955, 45167145, 43984981, 45355658, 27934334]"
694e3ebc-ce80-4c12-9851-2a6211a7a030,2486,We should abolish the US Electoral College,Speech-GPT2,"We should abolish the america's electoral college.  The way that we've been able to elect presidents and vice presidents and to elect presidents and vice presidents over the years has been a mockery of the democratic process.  Many people, even in relatively liberal countries, feel that they cannot vote, that they cannot express themselves effectively because they are not allowed to vote in one place and one place alone.  They are prevented from voting in any way, shape, or form.  We think that this is fundamentally unacceptable and that many citizens have an obligation to simply have a free and open democratic process, to have the political process that they want to have and to have the system that they want to have.  We think that the way that we have been able to elect presidents and to have a democratic process is a mockery of that process.  We think that the the way that we've been able to have a democracy, the way that we've been able to have a market economy and to have a market economy and to have a free and open democratic process is a mockery of that process.  We think that, ultimately, it benefits only those who are in the minority or that are very powerful, and it harms everyone else.  The other side is saying that people are being coerced to vote for certain candidates, but this is not true.  People are being coerced to participate in certain political processes, because if you don't vote in one election, you're effectively being forced to vote in every election.  We don't think that people are being coerced to participate in this process in any way, shape, or form.  We think that, ultimately, it's important that we maintain a democracy, that we allow people to choose who they want to have and, moreover, that we let people choose the outcomes that they want to have.  And because of this, we think that the electoral college should be abolished.  And we should abolish it in the United States, because it doesn't do any good for anyone, and it harms whoever can't control it.  Thank you. ","[4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 2, 3, 3, 5, 1, 5, 5, 5, 5, 1]",15,"[45538225, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 45191882, 45189900, 45206691, 20225558, 45190823, 45483811, 45190571, 45401087, 45181384, 43877630]"
89415e83-fa61-4998-875a-3918795e3713,2458,We should abolish the needle exchange programs,Speech-GPT2,"We should abolish the needle exchange programs.  By this, we mean programs where people are asked to pay for or receive treatment for some sort of disease by being a a participant in a wellness program.  So for instance we might be asked to participate in the oregon state health program if I contract an illness and we might say that you have to leave the program if you get an illness but we might also say that it's unfair to you that you're forced to be in the program by virtue of being a participant in the program.  We're going to tell you why this is a very bad idea.  So first of all, we think that this is an unjust way to help people.  So we tell you that by becoming a participant in this program, by being a part of this program, you essentially consens the government to your own well being.  We tell you that this is essentially treating the people who are sick worse than others and that's essentially what we're doing.  But moreover, we think that this is also treating them worse in a few ways.  For instance, the oregon state health department recently posted a poster on their website about how this program forces people to treat themselves rather than other people.  We don't think that the government should force people to treat themselves in this way.  We think that's fair to the other people because it's treating them differently from you and we think that you ought not force people to do this.  But moreover, we think that the government's own citizens are harmed by this.  We think that when the government says you have to do this or you're not going to do this because you're violating the rules, that you're violating the rules that the government sets for you, we think that it makes it much more difficult for you to live your life.  So for instance, we think it's unfair that the oregon state should have to pay people to go to the doctor so that they can get a check up on some sort of disease whereas if they were doing it themselves, we don't see why this should have to be done in your backyard.  We think that you should have to go to a doctor and you ought not be forced to go to a doctor.  And we think that's a pretty reasonable standard for what the government's doing as far as a government program is concerned.  We tell you that it's unfair that the government should compel people to do something that they don't want to or that they wouldn't consent to in order to help their own citizens or to help their own well being.  We don't see why it's any different.  We don't see why it's any different.  People are being forced to participate in a program in which they don't have an opt out and in which they're being compensated for it.  We just don't think this is fair.  And I'm sorry but it's clear to us that if there's no way to force people to consent to this, then there's no way to force them to consent to other programs or to let their kids play sports.  We think it's wrong to force people to go along with this.  For all these reasons, we should not increase the number of needle exchanges.  Thank you. ","[4, 4, 3, 1, 4, 2, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 1, 4, 1, 4]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 20225558, 6432269, 45538225, 13581319, 45361788, 45189900, 45206691, 45336988, 45336993, 45405037, 45458968, 45411178, 45181383]"
19cef62f-4067-4a6f-92c4-df42b5b2e365,2613,We should abolish the two-party system,Speech-GPT2,"We should abolish the two-party system.  The two-party system represents a clear and dangerous lack of choice for all people.  With that in mind, I have three arguments.  Before we get into these, several points of rebuttal.  So first, why do we think that a two-party system will necessarily harm people? The first argument that we hear from the previous speaker about how there is no third-party candidate is a response to what sam said about third-party candidates.  The answer is that third-party candidates do exist.  The reason they don't show up, the reason they don't run, is because there's an open primary and no one from the other party is qualified to run.  We think that this means there's going to be a third-party candidate that people can choose to vote for and that, you know, their vote doesn't really do anything, and that your vote counts in any way.  We think that this is a problem because it means that, as far as your choice of candidate, it's going to be an open, in-the-candidate primary, and you can't choose to vote for someone that you think is going to be a good candidate, or someone that you think is going to be bad, or someone that you think is going to be a bad or unfair candidate.  The only way that you can choose who your next governor or politician in charge is going to be is by vote, and it is going to be someone that you think is going to be fair to you.  The second argument that we hear from sam is that this is a violation of the will of the people, and that we ought protect the will of the people.  We do indeed think that you ought protect the will of the people, because the people are the people who are most important in a democratic society.  The people who, for example, elected the two-party system in the first place.  The people who gave their power to them through their votes, through their ballot, and through the system of checks and balances that they put in place within the system itself.  And we think that this is a fundamental part of democratic society, and it's one in which you can have an open primary, where people can choose to put their vote and where you can, you know, check against any wrongdoing and, you know, vote in the first place.  For all these reasons, we should abolish the two-party system. ","[4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 45185975, 45191882, 45191885, 45185946, 45411178, 13581319, 20312760, 20512953, 29155723, 45190823, 19838540, 45355658, 6340330]"
8c38e0ca-5494-4c17-9ce4-bc612349973d,3185,We should adopt socialism,Speech-GPT2,"We should adopt socialism.  I think that when we say that we're going to adopt socialism, we think that we're not going to do so based on a, just like, utilitarianist or like economic sense but we're going to adopt a moral and ethical framework that we think the government should be based off through life.  And I'm going to give two reasons as to why this is the case.  The first is that I think that this is just the most moral and ethical framework that you could possibly adopt for the government.  And the second is that I think that this is a just like a pretty good standard for a government to set.  So firstly, on the moral framework.  We think that the government is an incredibly coercive body that has essentially cornered the conscience of the people.  People are incredibly afraid to consent into the system because they know that the government is going to try to get them to consent against it.  And I think that's incredibly worrying.  Because if they're afraid to consent into the government, they're not going to want to get out and be a part of that society in which the government is trying to manipulate them.  So we think that we need to set a moral code for the government that says, "" look, this is what's going to happen in your life.  This is what's going to happen.  I'm not going to get involved in your life because there's a moral framework to which I'm not going to opt in, "" and I'm not going to do so.  The government should do so, however, because it is the government.  The government is the government.  And I'm not sure that you can just leave it up for the discretion of individuals to have essentially the best moral framework for their own lives on their own.  The government has an obligation to set a moral framework that will guide their lives in order to allow them to flourish.  And I think that's what this debate is about.  You're not going to get entangled in the mire of morality.  You're not going to get entangled in the mire of the morality of the government.  You're not going to be a part of a coercive system.  And you're not to be a part of a coercive system.  So because of this, we should adopt socialism. ","[2, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 3, 4, 3, 4]",15,"[28813722, 45677971, 45567220, 45569485, 45567227, 45538225, 45206691, 45189900, 45191882, 45458968, 45181243, 45181256, 45181253, 45181262, 45355658]"
c52eeee5-81eb-48bc-8766-da242c975378,2143,We should ban abortions,Speech-GPT2,"We should ban abortions because a lot of women's health and the well being of their child is at stake in these kinds of decisions and we think they ought to be banned in a principled manner.  So let's talk about the first thing that I'm going to talk about and that is about the long term harms that arise from these kinds of bans.  So first, there's a moral obligation that I have to my own health and to the health of my child.  So I think that this is obvious but recognize that it's not like we can be moral agents and we can't be moral actors in any way or form of life and we can't have any sort of moral obligation to our own health.  We can't have any sort of moral obligation or any sort of intellectual obligation to our own health in any way or form of life, we can't have any sort of moral obligation that I have to others but recognize that this is a life that I am giving and I don't have any sort of control over it other than through a form of birth that I was given, and I have no ability to choose the health of it or how it's going to be and this is something that I have a moral obligation to care for.  And recognize that this is a life that I am taking on and I don't have an ability to choose the other way.  So when I ban something it's something that I am taking away the control of me and the control of who I am being.  So with this in mind, I have an obligation to protect the health of my child.  But recognize also that it's not just the control of my own body, it's not just the control of who I am being with, but it's also not like I have any sort of an obligation to that child either, so it's not like I could choose to be with them or not to be with them.  I'm not in any sort of a good relationship with them.  I'm not emotionally attached to them.  I'm not emotionally attached to any other person.  And I don't think that ban is going to affect them in any way.  I don't think that banning something is going to affect me in any way.  I don't think that it's going to affect me in any way in which way, and I don't think that banning something is going to affect someone in any way like that.  And I don't think that they're you can ban something that you know is bad and something that you could ban in a reasonable amount of time, and it's the same with a lot of things.  You can have rules on things that you know ought be banned, and we think that banning something like child abuse wouldn't affect people on an individual level.  It wouldn't affect people that are a couple.  It wouldn't affect you in any way in which you can like, you know, like you don't have to have a ban on like incest or rape or something that's so deep and fundamental to your character and your life and your personality and your like core identity and also it's also not going to affect you in any way.  And I also don't think that this is going to affect your life in any way.  Like recognize that when you're a child you don't have any sort of like basis of like agency or anything like that.  You don't have a moral compass, you don't have like a moral compass, you don't have any sort of like consistency or anything like that, and all of these things are incredibly significant and important and all of these things are incredibly important to what you're doing in your life in a lot of ways.  And when you're a child you don't have any of these things.  You don't have a moral compass, you don't have a moral compass, you don't have a moral system, you don't have any sort of the capacity to really think about anything in that way.  All of these things are incredibly important and are important for people's lives and aren't something that can be put in place by themselves.  And when you're a child, when you're a small child, you don't have any capacity to really think about.  And if you don't have any sort of moral compass, you can't really have an effective moral system.  So when you ban something that's incredibly important, you don't have a way to really have an effective moral system.  You can't have an effective moral system if you don","[4, 5, 4, 3, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 1, 3, 1]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 45458968, 20225558, 45405037, 21785776, 45538225, 45181383, 45190571, 45181384, 45401087, 31948170, 45411178, 45190823, 29155723]"
840b4ef8-dc05-4fed-8c39-235775eda3d0,2572,We should ban algorithmic trading,Speech-GPT2,"We should ban algorithmic trading.  So by this we mean to say that governments should ban companies from using software that attempts to calculate profit margins by exploiting complicated and not well-known mathematical formulas.  So we have three arguments for our side today.  The first is that this is unfair.  Now, it's true that companies like don't exist in order to make money.  Companies exist because they're good for business.  But if you are a business that exists to make money, then you are using mathematical formulas that take advantage of a fact that is, by definition, unfair.  It is not possible to compete against someone who is doing something that is completely legal and yet is not being prevented.  We say that it is unfair to those who enjoy financial freedom that are able to invest as they see fit and to those who don't have the time or money to invest as they see fit.  Now, in the same way we see that when you allow one market to dominate, it leads to the dominance of all other markets.  What this means is that you are effectively having a race to the bottom, just because you allowed a small number of people to make money off of a very large amount of money.  The other side is able to take all the profits and put them back.  But it's also possible that some people are better at it than others, and that's true for a reason.  If you look at the people who invented the game of thrones, it's not the case that the best people are those who happen to be alive right now.  It's also possible that the best people will be better able to compete at the top because, through a race to the bottom, they will be punished for their past performance rather than rewarded for their past performance.  So we think that ultimately, we are harming all people by allowing one race to profit off of the backs of another.  And our final point is that this is a dangerous trend.  We can see that in the past, big corporations will use this kind of math to pull people in.  But now, as we see it, it leads to the downfall of entire companies.  If you are a stockholder, then you can see that stockholders are not going to be punished for their own actions.  So we think that it is unfair that you should, and that's why we should prohibit this, to prevent stockholders from making money off of their money.  For all these reasons, we should ban algorithmic trading.  Thank you. ","[5, 4, 4, 2, 2, 1, 4, 2, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 3, 3]",15,"[45567227, 45569485, 45458968, 45190823, 21785776, 34110399, 28813722, 45411178, 20512953, 15448937, 30777913, 44044795, 45355658, 34609243, 28513847]"
2eba3dfa-53ed-4c06-8852-771a548dbad6,2747,We should ban telemarketing,Speech-GPT2,"We should ban telemarketing.  So by this we mean to say that countries like the united states or britain that have allowed for decades past companies, in which large companies advertise on TV and in the supermarket, need to ban these types of things in which small businesses advertise, so that they are replaced by advertisements on the same kinds of items.  These are also companies that target children and children's families.  So we see that they try to sell toys that are very expensive but just for children's enjoyment rather than for the children that are in the store.  We think that the same thing could happen with any other product that children might be buying.  So we think that it's clear that because of this, we need to ban these kinds of items.  We also think that these are very problematic for children.  So we think that, you know, when you're a child and you have a large television that plays a child's game of soccer, you're probably not going to be very happy about that.  But what's worse, the other side might say, well, the parents are in charge of their own needs.  We say that's not true.  The other side might say, well, the local government is in charge.  But what's important is that the government is in charge of what people are allowed to do, not in charge of what they might feel, but in charge of how their lives are run.  In other words, we think that it's the government's job to ensure that people are happy.  We think that's a very clear standard that the government should have to be in charge of how they run their lives, how they feel, and how they think.  We think that you need to ensure that you're happy and that's why we think the government is in charge of that.  But we also think that these kinds of things have bad economic consequences.  For instance, as britain is one of the world's largest consumers of tobacco, they don't have to pay many of the world's lowest prices.  If you allow for things like black market tobacco trading, you're probably going to see that people are going to be less productive.  If you allow for things like the black market, you're probably not going to produce many tobacco at all, and people are going to be less willing to buy it because there's no cost that they have to internalize.  So you're probably going to see fewer nicotine, you're probably not going to see many tobacco farmers, you're probably not going to see many tobacco companies that are growing tobacco that are going to sell at a reasonable price, but one thing that's very valuable to the government is having a low price.  So we think that, on net, these are negative economic consequences for these countries.  For all of these reasons, we should ban telemarketing.  Thank you. ","[3, 4, 1, 4, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 2]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 6432269, 31948170, 45336988, 45189900, 45206691, 45336993, 45361788, 45181384, 45538225, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45190823]"
470ce51a-4e29-4913-86fb-2734b257bff0,2227,We should ban whaling,Speech-GPT2,"We should ban whaling.  In this round, we're gonna make three main arguments about why we think that whaling is something that we should abandon and, in addition to the harms that it presents to animals and to the environment, we think that it represents a lack of respect to human beings and to natural environments that we cannot allow in our modern society.  So, first, let's talk about animal rights.  We think that the right to life is something that is incredibly important.  We think that if anything, to have a right to life, to have a right to the way in which you grow up that right, is something that is incredibly important and something that is incredibly important to the preservation of one's own life.  And because of this, we think that when you give rights to animals, you're essentially giving rights to a lower class of human beings.  A way of life.  A way of life where, if you do not have a particularly strong negative consequence, you're probably not going to notice and do anything about it, and you're probably not going to be able to call yourself a vegan, because you did not experience the pain that this is a life that you didn't have, that is not particularly meaningful, and it's one that is being lived in in a way that is, in which you are essentially living a a less meaningful life than the ones that are being lived elsewhere.  We think that, in addition to that, it's also a violation of the rights of animals.  So, we think that rights are something that are derived from the social contract that people have with one another and with their rights as a whole, and we think that this kind of social contract is something that the rights of animals are derived from.  The rights that they to live, the rights that they to have a life, the rights that they to have a certain amount of rights in order to be meaningful, are derived from this social contract and they are derived from the social contracts that people have with one another.  And we think that it's important to respect these rights in order to respect the rights of humans.  And we think that the way in which animals are treated in the meat industry, the way in which they are treated in the factory setting, is incredibly important to respect their rights to life, to have certain rights, things like a right to freedom in their life.  These are things that are important to respect in order to protect the rights of humans in their life and in order to respect the rights of other people.  And we think that in giving these rights to animals, you're essentially giving them a lower class of human life, lower-order form of life, and we think that is something that the government cannot do.  It's something that people cannot have.  We think that you should respect these rights in the same way that you respect the right to a fair trial in a court of law, and in order to do that, you must ban whaling. ","[5, 4, 4, 2, 1, 4, 4, 4, 5, 3, 4, 1, 5, 3, 3]",15,"[45567227, 45569485, 21785776, 34110399, 45411178, 20512953, 21017840, 45953041, 30777913, 6340330, 33708599, 6432269, 15448937, 27770607, 34609243]"
7243ba02-4f46-4c51-88f8-c5dd11112692,3232,We should cancel pride parades,Speech-GPT2,"We should cancel pride parades.  By this, we mean to say that when people take part in national parades or participate in local parades or participate in a sports event in some way, they should be barred from doing so.  Three arguments for our side: the first is the idea of national pride.  Recognize that in the status quo, it's not the case that everyone has to participate in these parades.  But the government has created a national identity by enacting policies that are favorable to minority groups and that are hostile to minority groups.  For instance, we see that a large number of people participating in the olympic games with the understanding that it is the country's duty to help the minority people.  But there are many people participating in the olympic games not because they want to help the minority people, but because they want to help their country.  So we see that it's important not to promote national pride in this way.  Right now, we think that this is incredibly harmful to the country's reputation, and that it would be better if it was canceled.  But secondly, recognize the harm that it does to the country's reputation.  We think that when people see the olympic games as something that are worthy of emulation, that's good.  But when people see it as something that is, once again, a performance that we fail to offer, something that we shame, that's unacceptable, that's bad.  We think that the olympic games create a negative public image for the country.  Recognize that, right now, the olympic games are held in the highest stadiums, and when the stadium is built, it's used for hosting other sporting events.  But, instead of being an athletic venue, it becomes the venue for hosting a variety of sporting events.  We see that these are venues that are, once again, not designed for the people that are participating, but for the benefit of the country and for the benefit of the spectators.  We think that is unacceptable, and that's the last point that we're going to talk about about.  We think that it would be preferable if the olympic games were held in the cities where the people are, where the infrastructure is in place, where there are strong domestic sports, and where the infrastructure to host the olympic games truly exists.  For all these reasons, we should cancel the olympic games. ","[2, 2, 1, 1, 4, 1, 4, 4, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 1, 2]",15,"[20225558, 45569485, 45405037, 45677971, 45458968, 29155723, 44044795, 45538225, 45190823, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45181384, 21785776, 45336993]"
46b958b7-6fc5-46d6-a8e7-1f2451966c44,2679,We should disband UNESCO,Speech-GPT2,"We should disband nasa, and we should disband nasa as a whole.  And we should disband nasa because it's not doing what it needs to be done anymore.  It needs to be disbanded as a distinct entity, and it needs to be disbanded by its members as a like a separate organization, if they're going to want to continue to do things.  But first, let's talk about why it's not doing what it needs to be done anymore.  So, there's a few reasons for why this is the case.  The first and most important is that nasa, nasa as an organization, it's been an organization for almost fifty years.  It's been an organization that people have come to expect, and it's been an organization that some people think is quite good, some people think is quite bad, and a lot of people think that it should be disbanded.  And I think that's incredibly important.  Because I think that, ultimately, it's important to recognize that, what it needs to do is provide a way for people to look at an organization, and to say: "" yes, this organization is good, this organization is bad, "" And I think that that's a really important thing to consider, because it's important to establish a precedent, it's important to establish a precedent in which, organizations like nasa, which have such a long history, are able to move past these kinds of things, are able to say: "" that's not the organization that you want to join, that's not the organization that you want to be a part of.  "" And I think that's a really important point.  So, I think it's important to note that, what it's needed to do is provide a way for people to look at these organizations and say: "" yes, this organization is good, this organization is bad, "" And I think that that's a pretty good precedent.  Because I don't think there's any real harm to adopting nasa, or in fact, I think that they add a lot of good.  So, I'm not going to argue with the fact that we need to look at nasa as a like a separate organization, and that's a good thing.  The next thing that I want to talk about is why I think the world would be much better off without nasa.  So, I think that this isn't going to be just like a like good thing, I think that this is a way for us to get back, without having to keep re-invent the entire organization, and I don't really see why it's a bad thing.  Because I don't see what the big issue is, it's about what's important, and it's about not having to keep reinventing the organization.  And, I don't really see why the organization, or any organization, is a good thing.  So, I don't really see why it has to be kept around.  And, I don't really see why it's something that we need to keep around, it's something that we should get rid of, and move to a new organization, and it's one that, I think, is going to be really good.  Because it's really clear to me, from the way that james constructed this, that he doesn't really see why you can keep having this organization and not have some alternative that he could have joined.  And I think that's really important.  Because, I don't really see what the big issue is, and it's something that we can move to an organization like an organization that's focused on environmental protection, or something like a trade association, that's focused on trade, that's focused on promoting human rights, and all these kinds of organizations, or trade associations and organizations, all are better.  So for all those reasons, we should disband nasa. ","[1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 4, 1, 1, 2, 1, 5, 1, 1, 1]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 45567220, 45677971, 6432269, 45405037, 45538225, 34110399, 6340330, 45355658, 19838540, 30777913, 21785776, 20512953, 44690955]"
b855d429-da2f-4495-a812-e7514acab06d,3263,We should end the use of economic sanctions,Speech-GPT2,"We should end the use of economic sanctions.  In the status quo, economic sanctions are used to good effect.  They are a tool for the alleviation of the onerous burdens of everyday people.  However, we believe that it is necessary that we continue to utilize economic sanctions as a way of getting what we want out up of the people who live there.  Because of this, we support the following model.  That all states ban the use of economic sanctions.  That is to say that no state that currently uses economic sanctions will ever use them again.  I have three arguments for why this is a good idea.  First off.  We think that economic sanctions are incredibly ineffective.  It is impossible to change individual's behavior in any meaningful way.  As individuals look at economic sanctions and see them as just another tool in their toolbox, they will no longer consider it to be something that they can use for their own good.  Instead they will think that it is something that they must take away from them and use it as a tool to hurt themselves.  The other team might tell you that individuals are the best at understanding individual's behavior, but it is impossible for them to understand how the average individual person would respond to a particular action.  As such, it is impossible to tell whether or not an individual would actually change their behavior in any meaningful way or stop using it.  As such, economic sanctions only harm the people who benefit from the alleviation of their own behavior.  It does not affect the people who are worst off as they never actually change the behavior that they themselves are doing.  As such, we think that it is necessary that economic sanctions are ended because of their ineffectiveness.  Secondly, we think that individuals have an obligation to respect the rights of others.  We don't think that the government is legitimate unless it respects the rights of all people.  Economic sanctions hurt the rights of every individual as it violates the rights of those who are worst off as it makes them feel less free and less safe whilst also making it impossible for those who are best off to actually respect their own rights.  As such, economic sanctions are incredibly ineffective and they have no reason to continue to be so since they are not effective at all.  The second reason why economic sanctions are ineffective is because they only remove the incentive to change behavior.  As a person who is currently using economic sanctions will no longer be using them.  As such, they will not change the behavior that they currently are doing.  However, they will take away important information which is essential to ensuring that we do not have an economic crisis.  As I already stated, people feel incredibly unsafe when they are economically threatened as such, we ought to always protect their economic rights.  Third and finally, we think the use of economic sanctions is unjust.  We think that economic sanctions are an act of war and are therefore unjust.  As I already stated, they are an act of war and as such, we think that all states ban them.  Now why do we think that states have an obligation to ban these kinds of sanctions? First, economic sanctions are incredibly ineffective at actually changing people's behavior.  As stated, they are incredibly easy to use.  It is a very low cost way of actually getting information.  It isn't difficult for any individual to understand how an action of theirs will affect them and as such, it is impossible for any state to ban something.  Even in the united states, many states have laws against things like chemical weapons or nuclear weapons because these are very easy for individuals to understand and as such, all states should ban economic sanctions as well.  My third argument is about how economic sanctions breed resentment.  If I'm someone who's been sanctioned and I'm someone who's been bad in the past, I'm someone who's become hated by my own government.  It's impossible to convince the government that they're doing anything wrong.  As such, we think that they should always use economic sanctions to prevent people from doing something bad.  What do we think happens when someone is bad in the past and they","[4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 1, 2, 5, 3, 2, 5, 2, 4, 3, 2]",15,"[45567227, 45569485, 45458968, 28813722, 34110399, 45411178, 20512953, 15448937, 44044795, 21785776, 30777913, 45355658, 34609243, 34854490, 33708599]"
89652d5e-2cd8-46f3-9aec-df6da813dab0,3193,We should fight nationalism,Speech-GPT2,"We should fight nationalism.  I think it's important to start by talking about what this debate is about because I think that the way that nationalism works is incredibly important, because it's crucial to the preservation of a culture to the preservation of a language and a culture that you haven't had before.  And I think that what this means is that these two things have very different meanings, they're both incredibly important to the preservation of one's culture and the preservation of one's language and something that is incredibly important for preserving one's culture.  So I don't think that this debate is about whether or not nationalism is something that is good or bad.  I think that this debate is about whether or not people have the right to be or not have to be culturally distinct.  And I think that this is incredibly important because I think that this is, in large part, what makes people feel like they are, you know, deserving of being different, that they are deserving of having their culture be different and that this is why people feel like they are, you know, deserving of having a different language, of having a different set of customs, of having a different set of values, of having a different set of culture.  This is incredibly important, because this is how people feel, you know, their culture is unique.  And I think that when people feel, you know, like that's the case, there's no way to preserve that.  You're essentially taking away people's right to the like having their culture be what they want.  So there's like a couple of problems with that.  One is that you're basically giving people the right to, you know, have their culture be what they want it in the first place and I think that's incredibly problematic, especially when this, you know, comes into play when we're talking about, you know, like whether or not, you have the right to, you know, like not be, you know, like a minority in a village or something.  So, given that, I think that that's a very clear example of when this debate is about whether or not, you have the right to, you know, have your culture be preserved, and I think that that's a very clear example of when this is something that you should really, really, really, really fight.  The next thing I want to talk about is about is about the importance of, you know, preserving language and, you know, preserving certain cultural elements that are important to preserving, like, for example, like, in the first place, like preserving, you know, like the use of like, you know, like archaic, like, like profane or obscene language.  And I think, in many cases, that this is something that is, you know, good for the preservation of the language, but I think it's bad in a few ways.  First, it's really bad for a few reasons.  I think it's bad, you know, in the sense that it creates a barrier to people speaking your language, and it creates a barrier to you speaking your language because, you know, it makes it a point of, you know, difference.  It makes it a point of, you know, difference that, you know, makes it, you know, it, like, this thing that is, you know, not something that, you know, should be really, really, really important to preserving a language or culture.  And I think that's a really, really clear example of where this debate could be, you know, really helpful in protecting one's culture.  But secondly, I think that this is incredibly important, and this is a very clear example of when this is something that is, you know, bad, where you can just use a translator, like, "" translate  language  to me, and I'll be like translating you to me.  "" That's great.  And I don't really see why there's anything wrong with that.  So, there's no barrier to me speaking my language, and there's nothing wrong with that.  But, you know, it's not important to preserve the culture of, you know, being a minority, and","[2, 3, 2, 2, 1, 3, 3, 3, 3, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2]",15,"[45190823, 20225558, 13581319, 20512953, 29155723, 45191873, 45181383, 45272708, 45181152, 6432269, 45405037, 45189900, 45191882, 45181256, 45181243]"
4cbe879c-44bc-4f4c-a757-f4004d21c755,2122,We should further exploit green technology,Speech-GPT2,"We should further exploit green technology.  So by this we mean to say that governments should step in to subsidize research and development of technologies that are environmentally friendly, and also research and technology that are profitable to develop so that we can develop environmentally friendly technologies.  Two arguments for why we need this.  The first is about environmental harm.  In order to produce any type of energy we have to pollute the environment in some way or other.  This can be things like things like polluting water supplies, whether it's pollution from things like coal or natural gas that's being released into the air, or things like using natural gas in place of natural gas in order to create the energy.  We think that green technology is a way to create environmental harms because it removes the need for polluting in some way and it creates a world in which it is much more profitable to develop things like green technology rather than to do things like exploit natural gas or other types of energy that create environmental harms.  So we think that green technology has a moral obligation to be the way that we move forward.  The other side of this argument is about the moral obligation that we have to other people.  We think that there's a moral obligation that we have to protect other people's lives and their actions because of the things that we've done in the past.  We have harmed others in a number of ways and it's our obligation to stop doing those things now so that we can move forward.  We need to be responsible in the future and we need to be responsible in the future in order to create a world in which we don't have these environmental harms and we don't need to harm other people.  But secondly, we think that green technology has a very tangible impact on our lives.  It's something that we are willing to spend money on.  It's something that we are willing to put all of our eggs in the basket and it's something that we can grow into the long term.  And we think that it's hugely important that we continue to exploit it and do it more.  So for all of these reasons we should subsidize green technology. ","[4, 4, 3, 2, 4, 4, 4, 1, 4, 4, 3, 5, 1, 5, 5]",15,"[19838540, 13581319, 20225558, 45355658, 20512953, 29155723, 44044795, 34110399, 45567220, 45677971, 45190823, 28810858, 45405037, 15448937, 45458968]"
1e21b126-75f1-40e5-abe5-0508d0c418ee,3492,We should further exploit natural gas,Speech-GPT2,"We should further exploit natural gas.  So by this we mean to say that governments should tax and take steps to further exploit natural gas as the alternative energy for the inalienable.  Three arguments for why we should increase our use of natural gas.  The first is that we think it to be the best form of alternative energy.  We think that gas is much cleaner than other alternative energy sources.  Gas is much less polluting to the environment.  We think that gas is less likely to pollute the environment because gas production is very clean.  So we see that while it's true that the process of natural gas production isn't entirely clean, the fact that it's clean is a good thing in and of itself.  And so we think that while there are risks to technology like solar panels that are very clean, we think that it's not a reason to ban things like solar panels.  We think that it's clear that banning something like solar panels doesn't make you hate it any more.  It's a reason to why you shouldn't ban something that is clean and green.  And the other side of this argument might say, "" well, we'll see if we don't like solar panels.  "" But I just don't see why solar panels are bad.  They're just a different kind of technology.  And solar panels are not a good alternative energy.  I don't think they make solar panels bad.  They might make solar panels useful, but they might make solar panels bad, and we need to weigh those pros and cons against each other before we can decide what's good for all.  Our second argument is that natural gas doesn't create any harmful emissions.  The only thing that natural gas does is that it's much more likely to not create any harmful emissions.  The reason why this is true is that natural gas is very clean.  It only requires extraction of natural gas.  It doesn't require processing or burning any other natural gas.  And because of that, it's much less likely to cause ozone depletion.  It's much less likely to lead to things like cancer.  And we think that this is acceptable.  It's something that we should allow to happen, but we should regulate it so that it doesn't happen.  And we don't see why it's bad that we're trying to ban something natural.  We do see that it's not a zero sum game.  We think that it's wrong to ban something and not to ban something else that would be a zero sum game.  We think that if we let things go down to the bottom of the well, if we don't ban something, that means that we will have a worse world for future people.  Maybe.  We don't think that that's a reason to ban something, and we think that that's a reason to not ban something.  And the last thing we'd like to say is that solar panels take up.  They are an alternative energy.  They're a way to get to solar power, but they're not the only way.  We think that if you ban solar panels, you might get rid of all of our solar panels, and we don't hear the end of solar panels.  We don't hear a thing about solar panels in the news about how they affect the environment or how they might create pollution, or how they might be harmful to the environment.  We don't hear about how solar panels might affect the environment, but solar panels don't do anything for the environment.  They don't do anything for the environment.  Solar panels don't do anything for the environment, and we think it's clear that if anything, solar panels do more good than harm.  So for these reasons, we should absolutely not ban solar panels.  Thank you. ","[4, 4, 4, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 2, 4, 2, 5]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 13581319, 45206691, 45336993, 45189900, 45336988, 45361788, 20225558, 28810858, 45538225, 45181384, 29155723, 30777913]"
ba74f7c8-257d-496c-815c-50807ccc105d,3758,We should further exploit sustainable energies,Speech-GPT2,"We should further exploit sustainable energy.  So by this we mean to say that governments should increase the use of technologies that are not currently common in much poorer countries, in much larger, industrialized countries, and that we think are important to the sustainability of our own civilization.  So two reasons.  The first is that there's an obligation to do something about global warming.  This is obvious, but we think that there's a moral obligation to do something about global warming.  It's clear that this is a moral obligation because people are directly or indirectly responsible for the harm that they cause by having a less developed and less developed culture.  We think that we have an obligation to step in to help them.  We think that's an obligation that's being imposed upon us because of some kind of moral defect in our society.  But we think that there's a moral defect in global warming that we need to fix, and that's global warming.  And we think that by doing something about it, by creating a moral obligation that we're placing upon ourselves, that's being placed upon us by our own government, and by imposing upon ourselves, we would be doing something that is ultimately good for the whole of humanity.  We think that this is the moral obligation that we place upon ourselves and that's being placed upon us by our own government.  We think that because global warming and its harms are immense, because it's going to harm millions of people and the whole of humanity, that it's something that we need to fix and something that we need to do right now.  And we think that's good.  We think that the second reason is that there's a duty to step in to help other people.  We think that because there's a moral obligation that you have to help other people, because there is an obligation that you place on yourself to help other people, we think that it's clear that you have an obligation to help other people.  We think it's clear that you need to act now in order to prevent global warming from going to make people sick, to help people in developing countries to develop, and ultimately to help everyone in the developed world.  And for this reason, we support the motion. ","[5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 2, 4, 3, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5]",15,"[28813722, 45677971, 45567220, 6432269, 45569485, 13581319, 45355658, 45191882, 34609243, 6340330, 45181243, 45181256, 45181253, 44044795, 15448937]"
a56f49ed-53ce-4dcf-8a5b-e25e53e0aab9,3168,We should introduce year round schooling,Speech-GPT2,"We should introduce year round.  We think that a world in which we divide children into different groups, that we force them to grow up to be professionals and to to choose what is appropriate for them based on their merits and their abilities, would be one in which we see children as a fully formed people, where individual merit and ability to succeed does not exist and in which we see children as equal.  So we have two main arguments for our side this evening.  The first is about how this levels the playing field for children, and the second is a response to what sam said about the socialization problem.  So first, on how this levels the playing field.  We think that in order for children to play the best they have to have some sort of innate ability to succeed.  We think that that innate ability can come from a variety of different things.  We think that having a strong foundation that is you know fairly easy for them to learn, but it's something that can be difficult for them to learn in other places.  We think that the way in which they get to where they are is to have some sort of a prior knowledge of what they're doing and where they're doing it and how to do it in a way that they can learn it in their home.  We think that this is an important foundation and we think that to ensure their success, you need to ensure that when they hit the floor they can at least walk the rest of the way.  We think that a world in which children have this prior knowledge and have this prior ability to succeed, is one in which you can teach them the things that they need to learn to succeed, because that is what will ensure their success in the future.  We also think it's important to maintain the environment in which children can be learned.  We think it's important to make sure that the environment is one in which you know you have a safe place to learn and you have an environment in which you know you're going to have time spent learning the things that you need to learn to succeed.  We think that you need to ensure that you teach things that are important to you in order to prevent you from ever being relegated to the role of someone that is not good at what they are trying to learn.  And finally, we think that you need to ensure a world in which children have the maximum amount of time in which they are able to reach their full potential.  We think that in order for a child to reach their full potential, they need to be able to spend their time doing something that is in their own interest, that is in their interest and in which they are able to learn the most important lessons.  We think that these are all lessons that are important to children, and we think that in order for them to reach their full potential, they need to be able to learn the lessons.  They need to be able to be able to learn the lessons that are going to get them into a good college and good career.  We think that it's important to protect these lessons so that they're able to be learned by everyone and not just a select few.  Thank you. ","[4, 4, 5, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 4, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 6432269, 31948170, 13581319, 45336988, 45189900, 45361788, 45336993, 20225558, 45190571, 45181383, 45181384, 45401087, 29155723]"
9447f505-a8f1-40ce-b66a-b2c836e30612,2083,We should legalize organ trade,Speech-GPT2,"We should legalize organ trading, and we should do so in a way that we see fit, in a way that we see fit for our own sake.  I have three arguments for why we should legalize organ trading today.  The first is about the obligation of governments to step in to make sure that their citizens are protected.  Recognize that governments around the world have an obligation to their citizens in order to maintain their citizens' security and their safety.  Recognize that in many countries around the world, such as america or britain, there is a ban on exporting certain products, or certain natural resources, because of the risks that they might have to become organ donors, or they might not have the money to pay for this transplant.  Recognize also that in some countries, such as germany or britain, there is a ban on importing certain animals, because of the risk of being eaten by ravenous ravenous people, or that their meat might not be edible.  So, we think that it's clear that the people who live there, the people who are most in need in any country, have an obligation to step in to protect their citizens' safety and security.  We also think that, in general, the laws should be consistent to allow for this to happen, and for good reason.  We think that laws concerning things, like international trade, are inconsistent, and it would be much more desirable if, for instance, we could ban something that is natural, and yet we didn't do so, for instance.  But, you might say, that's not an objection, because we have other laws that don't have this kind of problem.  So, we think that laws concerning things like, say, human rights, should be consistent.  Why do I care so much about human rights? And, I respond, because it's not like I'm an individual, but I am a member of a collective society, and I am part of a collective society, therefore, I have an obligation to the people who live there, I have an obligation to them in order to maintain their safety and security.  But, we also think that, in principle, we have an obligation to do this, because it's a matter of basic human dignity, that we want to preserve.  And, the other team's saying that, hey, it's not such a big burden to bear, but, but, sure, we'll live in a world where we don't have any organ trading, where it's just a matter of natural policy, that we don't do this, and so on.  But, the next thing that I'm going to say is that, ultimately, it would be preferable if we didn't have this type of organ exchange.  So, we think that it's good if we keep our options open, so that people can choose to do this, but that we should allow people to do it in their own interest, and that we should not ban this.  But, ultimately, we think that there is a duty here, and that we're acting on it, because it's citizens' interest, or in their own interest, that is in danger.  So, for all these reasons, we should legalize organ trading.  Thank you. ","[2, 1, 3, 4, 3, 5, 1, 5, 5, 4, 5, 3, 2, 2, 2]",15,"[28813722, 6432269, 45567220, 45677971, 45569485, 45191882, 43877630, 45189900, 19838540, 45206691, 15448937, 45181253, 45181243, 45181256, 28513847]"
04cc1a62-ae4c-402b-970b-dde2e018eb8e,2482,We should limit the use of birth control,Speech-GPT2,"We should limit the use of birth control because it's a moral failing that we need to correct, and it's also a moral failing that we cannot afford, and we cannot have anymore.  So let's start by talking about why it's a moral failing that we need to correct, and why that's important and why it's a moral failing that we cannot allow.  And the moral failing that I'm talking about is that, in the status quo, there is an asymmetry of information.  People don't understand how birth control works.  They can't understand how it's not a way to get pregnant.  They can't understand how it's not a way to get a child.  They don't understand that it's not a way to bring a family to a world that is hard, that's dangerous, and that's something that, for them, is simply unacceptable.  And it's a moral failing that we simply cannot allow.  And I think that we're going to fix this moral failing in two ways.  The first is by being more strict and controlling the way that you are able to talk about birth control, and the second is by being more open and allowing for people to discuss these things, to discuss the benefits and the pros and cons of birth control.  So, first, on the asymmetry of information.  We think that when you, as a society, we give people more information about birth control, about how it works, we think that you're going to have a more educated populace that's going to be more accepting of it.  We think that, in the status quo, a lot of the information that we have available to us, the information that we've been given, is simply not going to help us in any meaningful way.  It doesn't really do anything, it doesn't do anything to help us in any meaningful way.  It doesn't do anything to make people better off, it doesn't do anything to make us think that this is a successful birth control, it doesn't do anything to make people think that it's not going to be successful, it doesn't do anything to make people think that it's not going to be acceptable, it's not something that is a good idea, it's not a good idea that you should have, it's not a good idea that you should try to have sex before it's legal in some states.  And these are things that we think are important, but they are not shared by the population at large.  And when you give it more of an inch, you make it more likely that, for example, you're going to have a more educated populace that's going to choose to opt into it.  And that's important.  Because it makes a moral failing in that, as a society, we need to take some kind of action to correct for it, and to limit its usage.  And that is how you create moral and responsible use of public resources.  Because you are giving people more information, you have a better understanding of what they're getting into, you know, when they have sex.  You know, you've been doing things for your own sexual life, and you have a more complex understanding of what you're getting into.  And these are things that we think are important.  We think that you can, you know, have sex in your mind and still not get pregnant, and you can have sex without being pregnant.  And for these reasons, we should limit the use of birth control. ","[4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 3, 2, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 45953041, 45538225, 31948170, 45458968, 6340330, 15448937, 45336988, 45206691, 45189900, 45336993, 45185946, 45185975, 38202325]"
e115ec13-690a-40d2-af30-b88fc84ef9ab,3237,We should prohibit unisex bathrooms,Speech-GPT2,"We should prohibit unisex bathrooms.  By this we mean to say that no one with a sex or a gender should be allowed to have a toilet that, in principle, is tailored to help our specific group or our particular gender.  Our first argument is about how this undermines the work of the people that put into bathrooms.  If you ask someone with a disability what they see, they'll probably say something like, "" well, the people who designed this aren't helping me.  "" But, moreover, many parents can't help their children with a toilet that their own children are not going to be able to use.  So we think that ultimately, it's important to make sure that the people who are most likely to be helped by these toilets are those that are in the majority.  And we think that this is why it's such a useful idea: if you think that a lot of the time, people who spend a lot of their time in the bathroom aren't doing so because they don't see themselves as disabled, but because, in their minds, they see themselves as, you know, disabled.  So, ultimately, it's important to make sure that, for these people, not only are they able to use the toilet in a way that they see fit, but are able to do so in a way that is, you know, a way in which their own minds are able to be fulfilled.  This leads directly to the second reason why we're so interested in making sure that these people don't have to be taken advantage of: namely, we think that, in the same way in which, you know, people who feel, you know, like they've been taken advantage of will probably say, "" well, it's because I don't see myself as a disabled person, but rather as a person who is disabled, "" so we're thinking that it's much more reasonable to just, you know, let these people be, you know, disabled in their minds instead.  So, this has direct social effects.  It does more good for our society than harm.  So because it's good for society and because it's a way for parents to reinforce what their children are learning, that's why we should prohibit unisex bathrooms.  Thank you. ","[4, 3, 3, 5, 3, 2, 5, 1, 2, 2, 1, 4, 4, 4, 5]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 6432269, 45538225, 6340330, 21785776, 44690955, 20312760, 28813722, 13581319, 34110399, 45272708, 45183231, 45181152, 45191873]"
eb166126-9696-46d8-8ba9-bbe77041d905,3052,We should raise the corporate tax,Speech-GPT2,"We should raise the corporate tax.  So by this we mean to say that we should tax all companies that are currently operating in the united states at some proportion to the GDP that they impose on their operations.  We might take a percentage of their profits or a percentage of their revenues and, you know, you might pay some sort of a dividend while they're operating in the united states.  We think that if they're doing business in a country that doesn't have a corporate tax, they should be taxed at one rate or another.  We have a few reasons why we think this is a good idea.  The first is that we think this is completely necessary to correct for the fact that corporations are taking advantage of the american people's resources more than they ever could have been doing in their home country.  We think that it's obvious that, for instance, there's a shortage of workers in the US.  On paper, the unemployment rate is very high, but people are working even harder and getting less paid for their work than they ever were.  We think that the only way to get people to work harder and get more money is to have a higher tax rate.  We think that this will drive up, you know, the wages down, and you know, people will have to pay more and more money for their wages, and the money will be more valuable.  So we think that this will force corporations that are doing business in the united states to pay more and that, in turn, will encourage them to pay more and that, ultimately, this will have positive affects on the entire economy and improve the well-being of all people.  Our second argument is that we think this will lead to much merriment in the country.  Right now, people are very invested in their own futures, and they plan for their own retirement, but they don't really have any retirement plans in place.  What this means is that, for instance, some people are taking money out to pay for their mortgages or for their kids' college, but they're not really planning for their retirement.  What this means is that, if you raise the tax rate, you get rid of that flexibility.  People are going to be more likely to take their retirement money.  And what this means is that you get rid of these plans altogether, and you make people much more reliant on the state.  People won't be able to plan for their retirement, because they're going to be working for the state for the rest of their life, and that means that you're going to have a much lower retirement plan in place, and they're going to be a lot like relying on the state when they're old, when they're elderly, when they're relying on the state for support.  So we think that this is going to be a good thing for the economy writ large.  It means that people are going to be working much longer, it means that you're going to see more and more people participating in the labor market, and it means that you're going to have a healthier workforce.  For all these reasons, we should raise the corporate tax. ","[3, 2, 2, 4, 2, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[20225558, 45190823, 29155723, 20512953, 13581319, 21088425, 45181383, 45191873, 45272708, 45181152, 45411178, 6340330, 15448937, 45355658, 45181262]"
b8835011-2df1-47c9-b7de-15422754c657,2678,We should subsidize distance education,Speech-GPT2,"We should subsidize distance education.  So by this, we mean to say that we would like to see the state pay for people's trips to colleges or, in extreme cases, charging for people's attendance, charging for their transportation, things like this, things like this.  We are fine with this, but we think that the state should intervene in three instances to make this a reality: first, we think that this is very good for students to be exposed to new information.  We think that many students don't know what they're learning in the classroom so they don't know to use their knowledge in the future.  We think that this is very important because it makes them more aware of their surroundings, it makes them more aware of what other people around them are doing.  We think that this can be important for things like economic development, but we also think that it's important for economic development.  We think that oftentimes, when you go to college, you're exposed to certain classes that you probably didn't have before.  For example, you might know that you're going to have to take calculus in college, but you don't know that you're going to have to do so.  You're probably going to have to learn a lot about your body and how to use it and how to perform yourself in order to be a professional athlete, to be a professional musician, things like that.  All these things are important for a person's future success.  We think that the students are now exposed to things that they wouldn't have otherwise.  We think that this is good, and we think that the state has an obligation to step in if the students are not able to learn.  We also think it's important for the economy.  We think that when you have lots of students in one place, you create a lot of jobs.  You get people who are used to working in different fields, and you also get people who are used to working in the same fields and doing different things.  Recognize that if you have lots of people who are going to one place and they're not able to finish their degree, then you have a situation where they have to go to college and are forced to finish their degree, and it's much more difficult to teach someone new skills when they're not able to perform at a high level.  So we think it's also good for the economy, because when people go to college, they tend to stay there.  In the same way, people who go up in college tend to live longer.  We think that if you have lots of these people who are going to college and then they never have to go to work in the classroom, that you have an economy that continues to grow and that your people are able to continue to grow and be productive members of society.  For these reasons, we should subsidize distance education. ","[3, 4, 4, 5, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4]",15,"[28813722, 45677971, 45567220, 45569485, 45567227, 34609243, 45538225, 45189900, 45191882, 45458968, 45181253, 45181262, 6340330, 45206691, 19838540]"
2c3495b5-e846-4b52-b3d5-96cf68b75623,3201,We should subsidize embryonic stem cell research,Speech-GPT2,"We should subsidize embryonic stem cell research because it's the moral thing to do.  And I don't even know where the moral line is drawn between commercial and not commercial cloning, let's just draw it at its full-on redrawing.  The moral line is drawn between, you know, something like cloning or cloning that is produced through commercial cloning and something like cloning that isn't produced through commercial cloning.  And with that, we have three arguments for our side.  The first is that commercial cloning creates an unjust market.  We think that, for instance, when companies like, you know, come up with a product that's based on cloning, they don't do so because they see it as something that is very good for people to consume and for the good of society to consume.  They do so because they see it as, you know, something that is very good for society, and we think that insofar as this is a moral decision, we ought step in and say: no, you can't do this.  You have a moral obligation to do this.  The other side in this debate also brings up and says that this will get rid of all the problems that are caused by commercial cloning, but I think that this is a straw manning argument.  We think that what's really happening here is that you are, essentially, taking a product that you made, even if it's based on cloning, and selling it to the public.  We think that's, you know, morally repugnant, and that's why we don't think it's acceptable.  We also think that, you know, there's a certain stigma, even on the part of consumers, that makes it impossible for them to, you know, enjoy this product.  In short, we are violating the moral law here, and we're doing so for no reason.  The second argument is that we think this is a way for us to break down on the, you know, labor of our citizens because, you know, it's not like we have the time or the money to pay people to work if we want them to work.  We think that, for instance, in america, it's okay to, you know, pay people to go to work if it's for the, you know, good of the country, but if it's produced for the public, we think that's acceptable.  And so, we think that it's okay to, you know, pay people to go back in order to make a buck, you know, for the, you know, time that they have to spend at work.  This, we think, is a way for us to pay for something that, you know, like, making, you know, people's lives better, or making their lives better in other ways, that are not necessary, that we think can be provided for by, you know, just paying people a fair wage.  And third thing, we say, is that we think that you can still have, you know, like, factory farming, and that's fine.  We don't think that it matters to you that what's being produced is, you know, making money for the company.  And that's okay.  We think that, you know, it's still important to the company that it, you know, makes money for their shareholders and for their employees, and we think that it's still important that you don't force people to be factory farmers, and that if you want to, you know, have, you know, factories producing, you know, food for people, that's fine.  We think that you should have, you know, the freedom to do what you want in order to produce what you want, and we think that if that means, you know, using factory farms and, you know, killing people, that's still something that's acceptable.  For all these reasons, we should subsidize embryonic stem cell research. ","[4, 5, 5, 5, 2, 2, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 1, 2, 5, 2]",15,"[45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 45191882, 45206691, 45189900, 45181384, 45190571, 45181383, 45401087, 43877630, 6367365, 45483811, 45190823]"
6f646d3e-83a3-494d-8ddb-a0cf23897c9a,2124,We should subsidize higher education,Speech-GPT2,"We should subsidize higher education.  So by this, we mean to say that we should pay a premium for each student that goes to any given secondary school, in places like the united states, that don't currently provide for their children.  We're fine with taking money away from a school that doesn't serve students well, but we think that you should get a good education, rather than simply a better education, if you go to that school and don't have to go by yourself.  We don't care whether or not you go to high school.  We think that you should, one, have mandatory secondary education, and two, that this should be provided for all children.  So, we think that you should have two primary goals for secondary education: the first is to provide for your children with a good education.  We think that, generally speaking, secondary education is the first step on a long and successful educational pathway, and therefore it's important that all students have this opportunity to learn.  We think that this is particularly important because, in the globalizing world that we want to create, it's important that all children are able to succeed.  We think that, in order for people to succeed, you need to provide them with a good education.  But secondary education is not just about you.  It's about the children that you produce as well, and we think that's important.  So, secondary education gives you the opportunity to produce your own children, to develop your own skills, to establish yourself as a good citizen, and we think that's a good thing.  The second reason why secondary education is important is that it allows you to have a more informed about your environment.  We think that secondary education allows you to choose the kind of learning environment that you prefer to live, it it allows you to make sure that, for instance, you don't have to take in certain things that are bad for you like, for instance, taking in the possibility of being sick, or having malnutrition, or not being able to have the kind of environment in which you were raised to grow up of your own, and we think that's a good thing.  For these reasons, we should not abolish secondary education.  Thank you. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 1, 2]",15,"[45405037, 20225558, 45458968, 45569485, 45677971, 44044795, 29155723, 45190823, 45538225, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45181384, 21785776, 45336993]"
5aa25436-61d9-4b24-a26e-e7a1e9acfb34,2767,We should subsidize investigative journalism,Speech-GPT2,"We should subsidize investigative journalism.  So by this, we mean to say that governments should pay the equivalent of about one or two journalists the equivalent of doing, in total, the equivalent of one or two full time employees, with a proven ability to uncover meaningful wrongdoing.  So we are fine with the fact that governments might have a different incentive structure, or might have a different incentive structure that might be different than that of what we are currently doing.  We think that what we need to do in order to incentivize good journalism, to incentivize the creation of good journalism, is a twofold: first, we think that people need to have an incentive to watch the news, to get information.  This is just like a basic level of economics.  Without the ability to watch the news, we think that people are less likely to have a strong opinion, they're less likely to have an important point of view, things like that.  We think that's important to start off of this debate and we think that this is important because when you have a strong incentive to watch the news, you are much less likely to have critical points of view.  You're less likely to have something that you find important, and you're less likely to have something that you find important.  We think that this is very important because when you have a strong incentive to get a job, you're much less likely to do things like investigate the actions of a sitting president or look at the actions of a sitting minister, things that might be very important, and things that are very important because these are the people that are holding the power, these are the people that have a vested interest in not doing these things.  We think it's important to have strong journalism in order to ensure that the political discourse that the media is able to foster is one that is reasonable, that is one that is objective, and that is one that is free of bias.  We think it's also important to ensure that you have good journalism insofar as it's important to ensuring that people who do not have the money to afford these types of things aren't able to consume them.  We think that, in general, it would be bad to have journalism that was not objective, that did not reflect the views of certain individuals, or that did not reflect the views of those that are closest to you as individuals, and we think that that is something that is unjust.  We also think that it would be very bad if you did not have strong investigative journalism because, as I mentioned earlier, it's very important to create a strong incentive to watch the news in order to get your point of view.  We think that journalism, in general, does a lot more good than harm.  For the most part, it's used to get information rather than to create an opinion.  We think that's a very important use of journalism and that, as a result, there's a lot of bias in the media because it's largely populated by people that are either for whatever reason not able to watch the news, or don't know about the news and don't know about these things.  Given that, we think that it's important to create a strong incentive to consume this type of journalism, to consume these types of things, and to ensure that you have good journalism, because there's a massive lack of accountability and a lack of accountability in the media.  We think this is important because, as we've heard from the previous speaker, people don't have a constitutional right to be informed, and they don't have a constitutional right to have these types of things in order to have a functioning democracy.  We think that it's important to preserve the rights of citizens to have these things in order to ensure that you can have a functioning democracy and that, ultimately, it's good for journalism.  Thank you. ","[4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 2, 5, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 4]",15,"[19838540, 45355658, 13581319, 20225558, 20512953, 29155723, 44044795, 34110399, 27934334, 45190823, 45677971, 45567220, 28513847, 28810858, 45405037]"
60950e4c-2c5f-47cb-80de-421f572490f9,3279,Blockade of the Gaza Strip should be ended,Speech-GPT2,"The motion for today's debate is that the blockade of the gaza strip should be ended.  We think that this is an unjustified action by the governments in both states and it is a violation of international law.  Three main areas of clash, the first on why the blockade is harmful for the gaza economy.  The main reason that the gaza economy has been stagnant and has not really changed in the last ten years is because the economic situation in the gaza strip has been very similar to the situation in the north gaza strip.  It is the same thing with the difference that is between the two.  There is no real infrastructure development, there is no real way to give people a better life if you are in the gaza strip and the only way that you can do so is to completely block out all trade.  This is the reason why the gaza economy has not been able to develop in the last ten years.  It is because there is very little progress.  It is very similar.  There is also no real way to give the same sort of development to the north gaza strip except for the blockade which makes it extremely difficult for the same sort of development to take place.  This is because the economic situation in the gaza strip has not improved in the last ten years.  It is the same situation with the north gaza strip.  We think that if you give the gaza strip the same development and freedom of movement as the north gaza strip, you're more likely to get the same kind of development.  You're more likely to get a better quality of life for people and that freedom of movement is one of the most crucial things in order for people to be able to live the rest of their lives after they are in a war torn state.  We think that the only way to truly give freedom of movement and the freedom to develop is if you're not constantly fighting for survival and you're not constantly fighting for survival.  If you're able to move freely and develop in a stable state, you're more likely to be able to develop a better economy and a better way of life for people.  The reason why the gaza strip is a good place to put a blockade is because it is a different type of freedom of movement that is better than the one that exists in the north.  It's a way for you to completely isolate yourself from the rest of the world and it is a way to completely control the flow of goods and people's lives.  We think that this is a better way to ensure that you are able to have control over your economy and your life after you have been forced to be a part of the state for years.  We also think it is bad for the gaza economy because it creates cycles and a lack of investment in new business.  It makes it so that when people who are in the gaza strip can't invest in new business because the economic situation in the area has not improved, they don't have an incentive to invest in new business because they know that the state will not invest in new business unless they are sure that the state will not invest in it.  This means that you are stuck in a cycle where people in the gaza strip don't have to worry about the same sort of economic prosperity that they have in the north and they don't have an incentive to invest in new business because they know that the state will not invest in new business unless they are sure that the state will not invest in them.  We think it is actually worse for the economy to be in the gaza strip because it makes it more difficult for businesses in the area to succeed.  This is because they are not able to compete with other businesses and to compete.  It also means that if you have a lack of investment in the gaza strip, you're stuck in a cycle where people don't want to invest in the area because they don't think it's better than the alternatives.  This is why people are stuck in the gaza strip and not in the north, because the economic situation in the gaza strip is much worse than in the north.  We think that if you want to give freedom of movement to the gaza strip, you should let businesses in the area prosper and that you should not give them the same sort of freedom of movement that you give them in the north.  For these reasons, proud to propose. ","[4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 2, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 5, 5, 1]",15,"[13581319, 45677971, 45567220, 20225558, 19838540, 45405037, 45567227, 45569485, 21785776, 45190823, 43877630, 15448937, 28813722, 20512953, 45411178]"
79d1afa0-5895-4fc9-b9ce-d313987dc016,3195,Casinos should be banned,Speech-GPT2,"We should ban casinos.  So, in this debate, we're going to argue that states should ban casinos.  We're going to set up a very simple model.  We're going to say that the government would fine individuals who gamble, casinos, casinos, whoever, a fine, to avoid it.  So, we're going to set up a sort of lottery for states to ensure that they don't have casinos.  We're going to say that in the lottery, the state will pick a winner and then distribute the money to other states.  We're going to say that in the status quo, it's not that big of a burden on the state to provide for the people who win the lottery, because it's not that big of a burden to the state to provide for them.  So, we're going to say that the state will pick a winner and then distribute the money to other states.  We're going to say that in the status quo, casinos are a very small part of the state budget.  We're going to say that, for instance, the state has very little money going to the police or social welfare.  So, casinos are a very small part of the state's budget.  We're going to say that, for the lottery, we think that the state should get more money going to social welfare, so that people are more likely to have fun, and we're also going to say that the lottery is harmful for the gambling industry.  So, firstly, why do we think the lottery is harmful for the gambling industry? We think that the lottery puts a lot of money in one place, and it's a bad incentive for other people to invest in.  So, for instance, when the state provides gambling to a gambling community, that money goes towards the one casino.  We think that this is very harmful.  Why is this the case? We think that, for instance, the lottery money is used as a way for rich people to gain access to gambling, and to gain access to gambling as a form of gambling, and that that's why they get so much richer.  So, in a way, the lottery is a way for people to take advantage of people who don't have money, but still spend lots of money on gambling.  We think that this is very harmful for the economy, and we think it's harmful for the gambling industry overall.  We think that, for instance, the lottery is a bad way for people to spend their money, because it doesn't provide them with any sort of good or valuable, and it only promotes bad behavior.  So, for instance, in a place like britain, where they have a lottery every now and then, you may spend your money on gambling, and that might be fine if it's a good thing, but it's also a bad thing for the economy, because you're taking away money from other people, and you're taking away money from the people who live in the area.  So, we think that gambling is a bad thing for people to invest their money in, and that it's a bad thing for the economy writ large.  We think that other people should invest in casinos because it's a bad investment.  So, in the same way that we don't allow gambling on public roads, we shouldn't allow gambling on public roads.  But, of course, this is also a problem for people who live in the areas where these casinos are going to be built.  So, for instance, if you live in a city and you have a casino that's going to be built in your town, we think that the money that you're going to spend on casinos is going to go to other people, and that ultimately it's going to be harmful for your city.  We think that, for instance, the city of los angeles, in the united states, should probably never have a casino, because it's one of the largest recipients of casino money, and it would be better if people spent their money on other things, like buying groceries or buying gas.  But, of course, it's also a bad thing for the economy writ large.  We think that, ultimately, the lottery money is going to waste a lot of money, and that this money would otherwise be going towards other things.  For instance, the city of new york, in the united states, which has a lot of casinos, should probably never have a casino.  We think that the lottery money would be better spent on other things, and that it would be better to spend it on helping people buy groceries or buy gas, which is the way that you would spend it if you had money to spend on other things.  We think that, ultimately, if the lottery money is going towards a casino, it's a bad thing for the economy.  So, ultimately, we think that this money would be better spent elsewhere.  So, ultimately, for these reasons, we should ban casinos","[1, 4, 2, 1, 2, 5, 5, 5, 5, 1, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4]",15,"[45190823, 20225558, 13581319, 29155723, 20512953, 45181383, 45191873, 45272708, 45181152, 45411178, 45405037, 6432269, 45181256, 45355658, 6579519]"
3df09059-a1a3-413c-8769-03e257db36bd,3730,Community service should be mandatory,Speech-GPT2,"Community service should be mandatory.  We think that the government should pay for this by offering a wage, so that people can work long and hard and be sure that they are doing good for the community.  Three arguments for why this should be the case: first on how it's good for the community.  Right now, you have a situation in which people don't have to work hard or make long-term sacrifices for the community.  For instance, if you live in a city and you want to increase access to people of color, or to immigrants, or to a variety of other groups that aren't represented in the status quo, then you have to push people out of the city.  In the same way, if you're a part of a certain community and you want to encourage more people to join the community, then you have to make sacrifices for the community in order to ensure that more people are in the community.  We think that this is fundamentally unjust and ultimately leads to people being excluded from the community.  We also think that in order to encourage long-term growth and stability, you need to have a community that has some sort of reciprocation for the people who live in the community.  For instance, if you are a very racist community that is resisting integration, then you don't want to see people of color in the same room with you.  And we think that this is not the case in the US, where you don't have these kind of reciprocation.  So the other side might say, "" oh, but the US has it "" but the reason for this is that there's a massive amount of racism in the US.  But I think that this is a very clear-cut example of the kind of racist backlash that we would get rid of.  We think that, for instance, when the US government tried to take over the southern part of the united states in the early twentieth century, this led to the secession of the southern part of the united states from the union.  We think that it's clear that the US would never have the same kind of relationship with the russian people if it were to try to do this.  And in a way, we think that this is analogous.  If the US were to try to take over the northern half of the US, this would ultimately be the same thing.  Ultimately, because it's in the interest of the majority of the US, and also because it's in the interest of russia, we should implement this policy.  Our second argument is that this would make the US less dependent on russia.  Right now, the US has to rely on russia for almost everything.  Everything from the military to social security to welfare to health care to housing programs to welfare.  If the US wanted to leave russia, it would be much more difficult for other countries to take care of them.  So we think that ultimately the US would be much weaker and less able to take care of its own citizens.  We also think that the US would be much more prone to corruption because of this.  Right now, the US is run by a system called the "" one-party state "" where the political power is concentrated in one area.  We think that if you took power of the entire US and maybe some parts of the european union, ultimately the result would be much more democratic.  We also think that it would be more likely that the US would respect the wishes of russia.  For instance, if you wanted to change the name of the US embassy in russia, you would be opposed by the population, and ultimately the US wouldn't accept it.  So with the loss of russia, there's also a loss of power.  And in a way, it's similar.  If you're a country that wants to create a democracy, and you want to encourage the people to vote, then you lose out on all of the other citizens who are participating in that democracy.  So ultimately, for all of these reasons, we should implement community service.  Thank you. ","[4, 1, 4, 3, 4, 2, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 1, 5, 4, 2]",15,"[21017840, 6432269, 45953041, 45538225, 6340330, 20312760, 44690955, 45183231, 45272708, 45181152, 45191873, 43984981, 45206691, 45191882, 34609243]"
46fde3cc-27ff-4db1-8496-0e3d7ccd8d6c,2108,Surrogacy should be banned,Speech-GPT2,"We should ban surrogacy.  So, in this debate, we're going to argue that countries should ban surrogate births, and they should do this in a strict way, by making it so that people cannot get a surrogate, can't take advantage of a surrogate, in the same way that they can't use a surrogate in the same way that they want to.  We have three arguments for why we think this should be the case.  The first is that we think that there are certain situations, in which a person has a legitimate interest in the child that they are adopting.  So, let's imagine that you're a wealthy country, and you want to create a new country for the people that you're adopting to live in.  In the united states, there are certain laws that prevent people from adopting, certain restrictions that exist, that prevent people from being able to use certain birth control, certain other types of birth control, in certain circumstances.  So, let's imagine that you're a wealthy country, and you want to create a country, that has very high quality of life, for the citizens of that country.  So, you want to create a country, in which you want to create a new state, that is, in which you want to create a new community, that is, that is, that is, that is safe, and that you want to make your citizens feel safe and happy.  And, in the united states, these are the types of restrictions that are put on people, in the united states, that prevent them from being able to create a safe and happy community for the citizens of that country.  We think that these are entirely justified.  We think that the state should intervene to limit the freedom of movement, to limit the freedom of speech, and to protect a certain class of people, in order to protect those people.  We think that, in the same way that we limit people's freedom of speech, in order to protect people from being abusive or dangerous, we should ban surrogate births.  But we think that, in the same way, we should ban a particular type of birth control, because it is clearly dangerous, and it is clearly harmful to the health of the child that you are adopting.  Our second argument is that we think that, in certain instances, surrogacy is simply a good thing.  So, let's imagine that you're going to have a child, that you are going to have no idea about, that you're going to give birth to, and you want to give that child to someone, that you don't know, but you think is going to be a long-term companion, that you're going to love and take care of.  We think that in this instance, surrogate birth is perfectly fine.  So, in this instance, we think it would be perfectly fine for the state to ban these types of birth control, in order to give those people a better quality of life.  We don't think that the state should ban something that is perfectly safe.  And, in fact, we think that the state should be very careful in these instances, to make sure that people are able to have this type of good quality of life, and that they aren't doing so, when they shouldn't.  And, in fact, we think that there is a clear benefit to the child that you are giving to in this instance, that you're giving to a family that is not only going to be very wealthy, but also very well-off, and we don't think that the state should intervene to prevent them from doing so.  Our third argument is that we think that, in the same way that we ban other forms of birth control, we should also ban surrogate births.  So, let's imagine that you're going to have a baby, and you want to give that baby to someone that you don't know, but you think is going to be a long-term companion.  We think that, in the same way that we ban other forms of birth control, we should also ban surrogate births.  So, in the US, we think that there are certain restrictions that prevent people from giving birth to certain babies, that prevent them from being able to use certain types of birth control, or that prevent them from having access to certain types of medical care, in certain circumstances.  We think that these are completely justified, and for these reasons, we should ban surrogate births.  Thank you. ","[5, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 2, 1, 4, 5, 5, 5]",15,"[45953041, 45191885, 21017840, 15448937, 45167145, 28813722, 19838540, 30777913, 6340330, 45355658, 34110399, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45181384]"
e6548d72-8241-41e3-a1fd-cd1130808fe5,3759,Tattoos should be banned,Speech-GPT2,"Tattoos should be banned.  Tattoos are a form of body modification that are irreversible.  They are irreversible and they are done at a high cost.  Because they are so harmful and because of their effect on the individual it is imperative that we ban tattooers and piercings.  We think that the government should intervene to ensure that these kinds of harms don't accrue.  Two arguments: the first is about why we think that it is the government's obligation to ban these kinds of actions.  We think that the state has a duty to protect life first and to minimize the suffering that comes from it second.  We think that the government has a duty to ensure that the people have the most basic rights and freedom possible.  Because the state is ultimately a life insurance broker that must decide what happens to its citizens and how to use their property, we think that the government has an obligation to ensure that the people have the maximum amount of freedom possible.  Because of this, we would say that the government has an obligation to ban these kinds of actions.  Two reasons why.  First, we think that the government has a duty to minimize suffering.  We think that when there is a lack of access to information or when there is a lack of access to a particular kind of action, we think it is the government's obligation to step in and ban it.  We think that the government has an obligation to protect life first and to minimize the suffering that results from it.  We think that there are a number of ways in which the government can step in and ban a particular action, including but not limited to: physical danger to the person being banned, that is being harmed, that there is a lack of information available for the person being banned, that there is a lack of information available for the people that are being banned from doing the thing that we are banning.  We think that there is a lack of information available for people that are being tattoo or piercing.  There's a lack of information available for people that are choosing to do these kinds of things.  There's a lack of information available for the people that are being tattoo or piercing, for example.  And there's a lack of information available for the general public about the practice of tattooing or piercing.  We think that there are a number of harms to the general public, and that the government has an obligation to protect those people.  Secondly, we think that the government has an obligation to protect the feelings and preferences of the people.  So, for example, in the united states there are many different types of tattoos and piercings that are common.  There are piercings for all different types of skin and many different ways of applying these kinds of tattoos and piercings.  Some people choose to have their ears pierced or piercing, and some people choose to have their lips pierced or wear a tattoo, and we think that there are many different ways in which people want to express themselves, and we think that the government has an obligation to ensure that those people are able to express themselves in the most comfortable and safest way possible.  We also think that there are certain benefits to the individual that are just important.  For example, let's imagine that you want to change your nose so that you can fit in better with the rest of the community.  Some people might want to change their hair or make their hair white or black or yellow, and we think that those are important choices to make because they are ultimately up to the discretion of the individual.  We think that the government should not ban these kinds of things because they could ultimately make the people who choose to participate in these kinds of activities more unhappy or more uncomfortable.  We think that that would ultimately be a big problem for the community.  We think that ultimately it would be more difficult for people to live normal lives if they had to hide their body or to hide their voice or to hide their face or to hide their identity, if they had to hide their body or to hide their voice, and we think that people would feel less comfortable in those communities if they felt less comfortable in the community.  And we think that that would ultimately be a problem because it would lead to more conflict between different groups within the community.  For example, if you were a part of a minority community and you wanted to make sure that you're not going to be discriminated against, you might want to take a different tattoo or a different piercing, and you might not want to participate in the same kind of event or the same kind of activity, because you might feel that you're not allowed to participate in certain kinds of activities because of your skin color or your gender or your gender identity.  So we think that ultimately these are all things that affect the way in which people act or express themselves, and the government should intervene to protect those things.  For all these","[2, 2, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 5, 2, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4]",15,"[45953041, 45191885, 21017840, 15448937, 45167145, 19838540, 6340330, 30777913, 28813722, 45190571, 45181383, 45401087, 34110399, 45181384, 34609243]"
a08911fe-9165-49b3-bf9c-54211029fef3,2604,The right to Internet access should be protected,Speech-GPT2,"The motion for today's debate is that the right to internet access should be protected.  We think that governments who are just looking for a convenient tool to crack down on a particular activity are not looking at the root of the problem in this instance, which is internet censorship.  We think that governments, in general, should always seek to find a balance between freedom of speech and the freedom of movement, and that they often do so by limiting the right to movement.  We think that internet censorship is one of the tools to do so.  First, we think that internet censorship poses a threat to freedom of speech.  It's easy for people to talk about things that they want to do.  We think that if you're talking about speech that is being hateful, that's hateful speech.  If you're talking about speech that's being violent, that's violent speech.  We think that when you are trying to get these speech out of people, you're pushing them into a particular area, and you're limiting their freedom of speech.  We think that this is fundamentally unjust and a violation of people's rights.  Secondly, we think that internet censorship poses a threat to freedom of speech.  We think that the internet presents a particular threat to people.  It's a forum for people to gather and discuss things, to gather and discuss how they want to present themselves, to discuss how they want to express themselves, to express how they want to interact.  We think that when you have this kind of discourse, you're giving people a voice.  You're giving people the ability to say, "" this is what I think is a particular way to present themselves, "" and this is the best way to allow people to be heard and to feel comfortable.  We think that, in the same way, when you have a black market, when you have a black market, when you have a black market, you're giving people the ability to express themselves.  You're giving people the ability to talk about how they want to present themselves.  You're giving people the ability to talk about what they want to talk about, and that's the best way to have an informed and educated public.  We also think that it's a violation of privacy.  It's easy for people to gather, it's easy for people to talk about how they want to present themselves, to express themselves in public.  It's easy for people to go on the internet, and it's easy for people to talk about how they want to express themselves.  But it's also easy for people to talk about what they want to talk about.  We think that what you're giving people is a means of self expression.  People can talk about what they want to talk about.  You can talk about what you think are the best ways to present yourself, and we think that what you're giving people is the ability to say what they want.  We think that this is the best way to have an informed and educated public.  We also think that it's a violation of privacy.  It's easy for people to gather and discuss what they think are the best ways to present themselves.  But it's also easy for people to gather and discuss what they think are the best ways to express themselves.  People can talk about what they want to hear, what they want to hear, what they think is the best way to present themselves.  We think that when you have this kind of discourse, people are often more willing to listen to what they want to hear.  We think that this is especially true when you have a more specific point of view.  We think that, for instance, when you have a more specific point of view, it's more likely that you're going to be able to find a more specific audience.  We think that when you have a more specific point of view, you're more likely to find that more people to listen to you, because you're not giving them a broader canvas.  You're not giving them a broader canvas, in the sense of allowing them to express themselves, you're limiting their ability to express themselves.  We think that this is unfair to the people that you're trying to protect.  Finally, we think that internet censorship poses a threat to freedom of speech.  We think that, for instance, the internet poses a threat to freedom of speech because it's an echo chamber.  We think that it's easy for people to go on the internet and yell about how they want to destroy the state, and then get around to it being effective.  We think that, for instance, if you're trying to get around to something like an uprising or revolution, it's much","[2, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 2, 1, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2]",15,"[45538225, 20312760, 44690955, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 43984981, 34110399, 45191882, 45206691, 45189900, 45181383, 45181384, 34854490]"
8611ca81-09a4-4dd9-9192-2641d538144f,3234,The use of AI should be abandoned,Speech-GPT2,"We should abandon artificial intelligence.  So, in this debate, we're going to argue that we should abandon artificial intelligence, or AI, for short, because we think that it poses a threat to humanity and to other animals, and that ultimately it doesn't fulfill the goals of intelligence, which is to learn from the past and to understand the world around us.  We think that there are two main reasons why we should abandon artificial intelligence.  The first is that we think that it's going to be harmful for the future of humanity.  Recognize that, right now, when people think about intelligence, they think about super intelligence, and they think that there's no way that that intelligence is going to be super.  What's wrong with that? Because, in the future, super intelligence is going to outcompete us.  It's going to outcompete us in a few ways.  First, in the economic sphere.  Recognize that when you have this competition, you are going to lose out on all economic levels, on all political levels, because there's a price to pay for that superior intelligence, and there's only one level of intelligence, one level of knowledge that you can access.  So, in the future, it's going to be a disadvantage to the average person in the society.  We think that this is actually very harmful, because it means that you're going to be outcompete, in a negative way, even if there is a super intelligence that we can't access.  We also think that in the future, there's going to be more political instability, because now you have this competition between different states, and different actors, and we think that that is going to lead to more conflict, and more instability, and we think that that is very detrimental.  The second reason for abandoning artificial intelligence is that we think it's going to be harmful to the development of other technologies.  Recognize that, right now, it's very difficult for scientists to access the data that they need to do their research.  They need to have access to the code, and they need to have access to the hardware, and they need to have access to the code, and they need to have access to the hardware, and there's a lot of barriers to overcome, in order for people to access that.  But in the future, things are going to change.  We think that, right now, it's very likely that, in the next ten years, we're going to have better access to these types of things.  We're going to be able to access things like the human genome, we're going to be able to access things like our own genes, and these are going to be things that are going to change the way we use technology in the future.  We think that, for instance, if we're able to sequence the human genome, we're going to be able to look for genes that may indicate that we have a connection to the human race, and to other species.  We're going to be able to look for genes that indicate that we have a connection to our own species, and to other species.  We're going to be able to look for genes that indicate that we have a connection to our own species, and to other species.  We think that these are going to be the best way to go about solving problems in the future.  But, in the future, things are going to change.  We think that, right now, when people think about technology, they think about it being a few steps ahead of the great leap.  But in the future, things are going to change.  We think that, right now, there's only one type of technology, that is being developed, that's being used in the developed world.  We think that there's going to be more of a competition between different states, and different actors, and therefore, you're going to be able to get better access to all of these different types of technology, which means that you're going to be able to solve for all of these problems more effectively.  For all these reasons, we should abandon artificial intelligence.  Thank you. ","[4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 3, 2, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[13581319, 20225558, 19838540, 45677971, 45567220, 45355658, 44044795, 45405037, 45190823, 28813722, 28810858, 45411178, 21785776, 45567227, 45569485]"
590b35fe-9200-4aac-98a7-adc0b4d61ee3,3194,We should abandon television,Speech-GPT2,"We should abandon television.  So, in this debate, we're going to argue that countries should ban television.  We're going to say that this will take place over a period of say five years and that after that period, countries will gradually move towards a system like a flat tax, where the same resources are allocated to all people.  So with this in mind, we have three arguments for you.  The first is that we think that the public has a negative conception of the media.  So, I think it's important to note that the public has a negative conception of the media.  So the public sees the media as this thing that they're not allowed to access, and this is a sort of echo chamber for people who don't want to be exposed to ideas that might be dangerous or that might be upsetting to them.  But the problem with this is that we think that the people who are most vulnerable in our society, in our society's most vulnerable places, are the people that are most in need of access to information.  So for example, when people in the developing world, when people in the developing world don't have access to television, they don't have access to the ability to sort of use that media to like learn about the developing world or to like learn about things in the developing world, because they don't have access to the media to learn about these things.  And this is a problem because, first of all, it makes it more likely that these things are going to be like the same sort of thing that we're looking at in the developed world.  We're looking at, for example, in the developed world, things like the UN and things like the BBC, where there's a lot of media coverage of the developing world, and it's easy to be like sort of lumping these things together with the developing world, and lumping it in with the developed world.  And this is a problem because, when you're looking at these things in the developed world, they're like the ones that are most vulnerable, the ones that are most like in need of attention, are the ones that are most likely to be harmed, and the ones that are most capable of benefiting, are the ones that are most capable of benefiting.  So we think that the developed world is really at a disadvantage.  We think that when you're looking at these things in the developed world, it's important to look at the ones that are closest to you, to listen to the ones that are closest to you.  And I think that what the developed world is uniquely lacking in is access to the ones that are closest to you, and that access to the ones that are closest to you, is one of the biggest advantages that they can have, because it means that the people that are closest to you are closer to you than they otherwise would be.  And this is also a problem because, for example, if you were to have like a very like conservative government, you're probably not going to be able to have access to things like the UN or things like that, if you're a very liberal government, and you're not going to be able to listen to the ones that are closest to you.  Because these are the ones that are closest to you, you're closest to them.  And if you're a country that is only going to listen to one group, you're not going to listen to all of them.  And I think that that's the biggest problem.  Because, if you're only listening to one group, you're not really giving them all the same opportunities to succeed.  So, for example, if you're a country that's very religious, like like a very conservative country, and you're not going to give them the same sort of space to succeed, because you're not giving them all the same opportunities to succeed, you're not giving them all the same access to opportunity, you're not giving them all the same access to success.  And I think that it's also important to note that, if you're going to have a country that's very large, like the united states, and you're not going to give them the space to succeed, because you're not giving them all the same opportunities to succeed.  So, ultimately, we think that this is a problem because, in the end, it's the countries that are closest to you, the ones that are closest to you, are the ones that are closest to you, and we think that that's a problem.  But I also think that, in the end, this isn't really about the money.  It's about the ability to connect with people across the globe, and I think that a lot of the time, the reason that television is such a big part of our culture is because we want to connect with people across the globe.  And, in the end, that's the biggest reason","[1, 3, 4, 3, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 5, 4, 5]",15,"[28813722, 45677971, 45567220, 45569485, 6432269, 13581319, 21785776, 43877630, 45355658, 45189900, 45206691, 45191882, 19838540, 44044795, 15448937]"
af81b59a-9c4d-4392-80af-319459bf77ed,3222,We should abolish bitcoins,Speech-GPT2,"We should abolish bitcoins.  So, in this debate, we're going to argue that the state should ban bitcoin, the common coin, and allow people to redeem their own coins for goods and services.  We're going to do this for two reasons: first, to make sure that people know the risks involved with bitcoin, so that they can make more educated decisions, and second, to protect the people who are most vulnerable in the status quo, such as those who are most vulnerable in the developing world, and the like.  So first, we want to explain the risks involved with bitcoin.  So, right now, when people want to buy a car or a house, or to buy a house, or to buy a house, or to buy a car or a house, they use bitcoin.  And, yes, it's true that it's less safe than cash, but that's the point.  It's not just that it's less safe than cash, but it's also less safe than credit cards or the like.  So, right now, when people are trying to buy a car or a house, they're buying bitcoin.  And credit cards are already a risk, but people are less willing to take on that risk, and they're willing to gamble with their own money.  We think that, on balance, that this is a very bad idea.  We think that it's a bad idea because, in the long term, people are less likely to be able to access the services that they want, and more likely to be trapped in a cycle of debt, which we think is unacceptable.  The reason that people are willing to gamble with their own money, gamble with their own credit card, gamble with their own bank account, is because they're more in the know about the world, they're more in the know about the money that they're spending, and they're more in the know about the services that they're giving.  We think that, on balance, these are a bad thing for people.  We think that, in the long run, it's more likely that you're going to have an increase in debt, in a cycle of debt, and in a cycle of dependence, especially in developing countries, on things like credit cards and other forms of credit, which are becoming more and more popular.  We think that, ultimately, these are a bad thing for people, and for the global economy.  We think that, ultimately, these are a bad thing for the world.  We think that, in the long run, if people are going to be addicted to credit cards and other forms of credit, in the long run, they're going to be more prone to things like crime and more prone to things like corruption.  So, in the long run, it's not just that people are going to be poor, but also that they're going to be more prone to crime.  We think that, ultimately, this is a bad thing, and for these reasons, we should abolish bitcoin.  Thank you. ","[4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 45191873, 45183231, 45272708, 45181152, 6340330, 7756990, 45282792, 45336991, 44044795, 19838540, 34110399, 34609243, 30398579]"
4f66e31f-28d3-4dbb-9fda-edf4f56aed44,3699,We should abolish primary elections,Speech-GPT2,"We should abolish primary elections.  So, in this debate, we're going to argue that countries should adopt a system similar to that in the US, where every election is held by a small committee, called the government, and that people can only participate in these elections by signing up for one of the candidates.  So, with that in mind, we have three arguments for you.  The first is that we think that the primary process is ultimately unrepresentative of the people.  So, in the status quo, the people who are choosing the government are largely interested in preserving their own party's dominance.  For instance, if you're a democrat in the united states, the people who are most interested in your political preferences are probably not the same people who are interested in yours.  They're interested in preserving the popularity of your party and your government.  We think that this is fundamentally unfair, that the people who are being represented in the status quo are largely interested in maintaining their own party's dominance and, in particular, are interested in maintaining their own nation's hegemony, which is why the US has such a strong economy today and why europe has a strong economy, because they want to maintain their dominant position in the global community.  We think that these are fundamentally unjust, that the government should reflect the wishes of the people.  But our second argument is that we think that the system is unfair to those who are most vulnerable in the status quo.  So, for instance, if you are a minority in a country, such as the US or europe, and you're being discriminated against, we think that this is unfair to you.  We think that, for instance, if the chinese government discriminates against people with certain ethnic backgrounds, and we think that that's unfair, we would prefer a system where people are more representative of the majority, such as that in the US or europe, and that this will be more representative of the actual majority.  For instance, we think that the chinese government is being unfair in its treatment of the tibetan people, in part because they're trying to keep their culture out of the country, and in part because they're trying to keep their own culture out of the country.  But, ultimately, we think that, ultimately, because the people who are being discriminated against aren't representative of the majority of the country, they're being unfair to the people who are most vulnerable in the status quo.  Our third and final argument is that we think that it's unfair to the future generation.  So, for instance, if you are going to have children in a country in the future and you're going to have a majority who is older than the rest of the country, we think it's unfair to them that their children are going to be born in a country that is majority minority or in the majority and not in the minority.  We think that, ultimately, if you were to have a country in which the majority is more dominant, you're more likely to have discrimination against groups that are different from yourself, and that this is unfair to the people who are most vulnerable in the country today.  For all these reasons, we should abolish primary elections.  Thank you. ","[4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 2, 2, 5, 2, 1, 3, 5]",15,"[45677971, 45567220, 13581319, 20225558, 45405037, 45567227, 45569485, 45458968, 21785776, 28813722, 19838540, 45190823, 43877630, 34609243, 30777913]"
ba1c9170-c43f-41b4-839a-d50ab1996bdb,2496,We should adopt a zero tolerance policy in schools,Speech-GPT2,"We should adopt a zero-tolerance policy in schools.  So, in this debate, we're gonna make a few arguments about why we think a zero-tolerance policy would be a good idea.  The first argument we're going to advance in this debate is that we think that it is the obligation of the state to deter people from committing crimes.  So, in the status quo, for example, in the united states, there's a lack of discipline in many parts of the country.  There's a high school diploma system that is very common in the united states, but this isn't the case in many parts of the united states, for example.  In the same way, a lack of discipline in schools can discourage people from doing certain things, such as stealing or violence.  So, ultimately, because there's a lack of discipline and because of the moral obligation of the state to deter people from committing crimes, we think that it's in the interest of the state to implement a zero-tolerance policy.  Our second argument is that we think it's the case that, ultimately, because a zero-tolerance policy would deter criminals, it would deter them from doing certain things.  So, in the status quo, for example, stealing is incredibly common, but it's not a problem that it's illegal.  We think that, for instance, it would be much better if the state didn't allow people to steal because it would deter them from doing it.  Ultimately, if you have a very strong rule against stealing, then people will be deterred from stealing in the future.  So, ultimately, we think that the state would be justified in implementing a zero-tolerance policy if there's a significant risk to the public, and that this is the case here.  In the same way that we don't let people go out and buy alcohol, we don't let people go out and buy drugs, we think it's the same thing.  We think that because there is a significant risk to the public that people will go out and do these things, ultimately it's the state's interest to deter people from doing these things.  And in the same way, we don't let people commit crime with drugs or steal alcohol.  Our last argument is that we think that a zero-tolerance policy would deter young people from joining gangs and other criminal organizations.  In many parts of the world, gangs are the only way in which young people can get access to alcohol.  In the united states, for instance, gangs are the only way for people to get access to alcohol, and because of that, there's a huge black market for alcohol in the united states.  And because of that, there's a huge demand for alcohol in many parts of the country.  Ultimately, if you have a zero-tolerance policy, you're going to see a decline in violence, a decrease in crime, and ultimately a decrease in the number of people in the community that are affected by crime.  So for all of these reasons, we should adopt a zero-tolerance policy.  Thank you. ","[4, 2, 4, 1, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 2, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4]",15,"[20225558, 45190823, 13581319, 29155723, 20512953, 45181383, 45191873, 45181152, 45272708, 6432269, 45405037, 44044795, 45181253, 19838540, 6579519]"
0a6213ff-0ddc-43d8-a877-45aed042e261,3212,We should adopt the teacher tenure reform,Speech-GPT2,"We should adopt the teacher tenure reform.  In the status quo, teachers are largely unchecked.  They can strike out on their own and have very little fear of repercussions.  The result is that there are very little checks on teachers.  There's little fear that they might be put in jail or lose their job.  They're completely unchecked.  This is problematic because teachers are the most important actor in a school.  They determine what the culture is and what the children are learning and how to live their lives.  They're the one who decides what is and is not going to be acceptable in the school.  They determine what the standards are for the entire school.  They determine what the children's literature and what the children are learning and what is and is not acceptable.  It's difficult for teachers to plan their entire lives in advance.  It's difficult for teachers to come to a conclusion as to what the children are or are not learning.  It's difficult for teachers to come to a conclusion on a day to day basis as to what the children are or are not learning.  Teachers are the one who is able to gauge the level of engagement and the level of engagement of the students.  It's the one who can decide what the level of engagement and the level of engagement of the students is and it's the one who can decide whether or not they want to have that conversation with the students.  It's the one who can decide whether or not it's appropriate for them to have that conversation and whether or not it's good for the students.  It's the one who can decide whether or not it's good for the school and for the students.  It's the one who can decide whether or not it's good for the school to have that conversation and it's the one who can decide whether or not it's good for the school to have that conversation.  We think that this is the best way to have a balanced and fair system of government and we think that this is the best way to do so.  We think that when you have teacher tenure, you're more likely to have a system of government that is reflective of the community.  It's one that is reflective of the the people that are in the community.  You have more of a general consensus amongst your people and this is reflective of the people that live in the community.  We think that when you have teacher tenure, you're more likely to have a system of government that is reflective of the community and one that is reflective of the community.  We think that this is the best way to have a balanced system of government and for these reasons, we should adopt the teacher tenure reform. ","[4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 2, 4, 2, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 2, 4]",15,"[45185975, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 15448937, 20512953, 45355658, 34110399, 19838540, 45405037, 30777913, 6340330, 38202325, 33708599, 30398579]"
8739abec-860c-454c-b0a6-5ff175e2e3e8,2616,We should ban alternative medicine,Speech-GPT2,"We should ban alternative medicine.  So, in this debate, we're going to argue that the state should ban alternative medicine, also known as homeopathy or herbal medicine, and otherwise allow the sale of herbal medicine and herbal medicine to people under the age of eighteen.  We have three arguments for our side today.  The first is that we think it's unethical to allow people to self-medicate.  We think that, ultimately, people are not able to consent to the state in which they're born, in which they're raised, in which they were educated, and in which they live their lives.  We think that this is inherently unethical, because people aren't able to consent to a state in which they're born into, in which they are raised in a certain way, in which they're educated in a certain way, in which they live their lives.  We think that, ultimately, the only way that people can consent to the state is one in which they are born into that state, and if that's not the case for a given population, we think that there is no way for that population to consent to that state.  Our second argument is that we think that it's unethical to allow people to self-medicate.  We think that people who are born in a state with a particular set of laws or a particular set of values that were put into that state, are not able to access the same protections that people outside of that state have.  We think that, for instance, if you were born in a state with religious restrictions, you are not able to access the same protections that someone who is born in a different state might be able to access.  We think that, ultimately, the state should not be forcing people to live in a particular set of morals, in which they are born into a certain set of values, and if you're born in a different state, you don't have the same protections that you were born into, but you don't have the same set of values.  We think that, ultimately, the only way to create a state in which all people are equal, in which people can access the same protections, and in which people can access the same freedoms, is one in which everyone has equal access to certain goods.  We think that this is the case in the US, britain and many other countries.  But the reality that many countries don't have this, the case in the united states, is that there is unequal access to certain goods, and we think that this is ultimately harmful for a country's economy and its people.  Our third argument is that we think that we should ban it because it's dangerous.  So, in this debate, we're going to argue that alternative medicine, in particular, is incredibly dangerous.  We're not saying that there aren't certain benefits to using it, but we think that the state should always be a check against bad ideas, and that if you have a dangerous idea, you should ban it.  And, ultimately, we think that because alternative medicine is unregulated and because it's dangerous, that the state should ban it.  For instance, in the US, you can't have blood transfusions because it's dangerous to the recipient, and in the UK, you can't allow certain kinds of cosmetic surgeries because it's dangerous to the patient.  And in the same way, we think that in the US or the UK, we should ban the use of alternative medicine because it's dangerous.  For instance, in the united states, you can't have an experimental new drug because it's risky to the experimental drug's creator, even if that means that the drug could potentially go bad.  So, ultimately, we think that there are clear benefits to regulation, but that the risks to people's health are unacceptable.  For all of these reasons, we should ban alternative medicine.  Thank you. ","[4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 3, 2, 2]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 45191873, 45183231, 45181152, 45272708, 7756990, 45282792, 45336991, 44044795, 19838540, 34110399, 30398579, 45483811, 33708599]"
c27a20c9-35ef-4e70-9995-63d73878ef42,2483,We should ban anonymous posts,Speech-GPT2,"We should ban anonymous posts.  So, in this debate, we're going to argue that we should adopt a sort of social contract, where we think that governments should, you know, make public statements about what they think are the principles that they think are guiding principles, and that they should be like sort of things like transparency, you know, and openness.  We're not going to ban you from saying that like, you know, we should ban a particular action, but we are going to ban you from, you know, anonymously posting on a website or a bulletin board.  So, three reasons why we think this is the case.  The first is that we think that there is a principle justification here.  So, right now, it may be true that people don't want to associate with those that they don't like, but I think that that's probably the case, and that's the case because there's a principle justification for people not wanting to associate with those that they don't like.  But, I think that the problem is that that justification for not wanting to associate with those that you don't like doesn't apply to anonymous speech.  So, for instance, if you're trying to like do something that is like really really harmful, then like, you know, the risk of like, if you're doing it in a way that is like really bad, like, the risk of like, that like, if you're doing it in a way that's like really bad, like, the risk of like, if you're doing it in a way that is like really bad, then the risk of like, it's just like a risk that you can't take, but you can't like, like, you can't like, you can't risk that, but like, there's no real risk that that like, you know, like, that like, you're going to get away with doing something like that.  So, for instance, if you're trying to hack something, or hack an email, or like a hack a website, or a bulletin board, or things like that, like there's no real risk to the people that you're going to be interacting with, like, you don't really have to worry about those things, because there's no actual risk to the people that are interacting with these things.  So, in order for like to have a positive standard of what is like the acceptable way of doing things, you need to have some sort of positive external standard.  But, in this case, you don't really have a positive external standard.  Like, in the same way, anonymous speech isn't like a positive alternative to the actual like actions of like government or private actors.  Anonymous speech, on the other hand, is like a negative alternative.  So, we think that it's like the same thing.  So, in order to like to like minimize the negative externalities, in order to minimize the negative externalities, we need to adopt a positive standard.  But the negative standard that we adopt right now is that, you know, like, you can't just like go and yell, like, "" fire "" in a crowded movie theater, like you can't do that in your home.  And I think that this is just like a ridiculous standard.  Like, it's true that you can't go and yell, "" fire "" in like a crowded movie theater, but the risk is, you know, much higher than it is for like for like, you know, like, a movie theater, or a movie theater, or things like that.  And I think that that's the real reason why like, you can't just go and like, destroy like, like, like a movie theater, and just like destroy the movies that are in there, because like, that's like a risk to yourself, like, if you do something like that, you're just risking yourself, like, for all those things.  But additionally, if you're going to be using anonymous speech, you're also putting your personal feelings and your personal feelings in danger, and that's something that like, you're putting like your like emotional feelings in danger, because you're not just putting a like physical threat to yourself, but you're putting like a mental threat to yourself, that's like a real risk.  And, in addition to that, we think that the risk of getting away with something like that, like, if you're not careful, you could get away with it.  Like, if you're trying to sneak drugs into like a person's house, or if you're trying to steal somebody's phone, or whatever, or whatever, like you can do a lot of stuff with like a phone, like steal someone's like phone, like get like a hold of somebody's phone, or","[4, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 3, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 45185975, 45191882, 45191885, 45185946, 13581319, 31948170, 45190823, 45953041, 34110399, 45169947, 19838540, 20512953, 45411178]"
e4118147-1c2a-4828-8212-41af403eb9e0,2225,We should ban factory farming,Speech-GPT2,"We should ban factory farming.  So, in this debate, we're going to argue that the state should ban the use of factory farming.  We're going to explain to you why the use of factory farming is harmful for the environment, and then we're going to tell you why it's a bad idea.  Our first argument is that we think that factory farming is harmful for the environment.  In the status quo, for instance, when you have a large hog farm in the united states, which is run by a family of farmers who are very concerned about the environment, you're putting waste into the surrounding area.  There's a huge amount of manure that goes into the local groundwater, which can then leach into the local aquifers and then into the local groundwater.  So the local water supply is contaminated by animal waste, which is ultimately harmful to the local ecosystem.  We see that in the same way that we prevent people from putting so much manure into the surrounding area, we're ultimately putting harmful chemicals into the local water supply.  The problem with this is that when you have these large factory farms, even though they're killing large amounts of animals every day, they're putting these chemicals into the water supply.  And, in fact, many of these chemicals are highly toxic to the local ecosystem.  For instance, if you have thousands of pigs that are put into a single factory, and then those pigs are killed, the chemicals that are released into the water supply eventually will damage the local ecosystem, and ultimately destroy the local water supply.  We think that that's unacceptable.  Our second argument is that this is a bad way to use land for agriculture.  In the status quo, many people are willing to give up some land for the sake of having access to land.  Factory farming, on the other hand, requires that you have a huge amount of land, which means that you have to transport the produce that you're growing into, and ultimately it's putting some of that produce on the land that wasn't originally theirs.  We think that that's unacceptable, and ultimately makes the use of land for agriculture even more expensive and inefficient.  Our third argument is that we think that this is inefficient.  Factory farming is a lot more expensive than organic farming.  If you have to grow thousands of pigs, for instance, then you have to transport those pigs thousands of miles.  We tell you that ultimately, the only way to have an efficient use of land is to have some sort of a large scale, and that this is impossible for small farms.  So, ultimately, for these reasons, we should ban factory farming.  Thank you. ","[4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 3, 4, 2, 5, 5]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 20225558, 45190823, 45401087, 45181383, 45181384, 45190571, 45538225, 45458968, 6432269, 13581319, 43877630, 30777913, 29155723]"
7dac4a19-9b7d-499d-8907-3211a46182ab,2539,We should ban genetically modified crops,Speech-GPT2,"We should ban genetically modified crops.  So, we think that in the future, genetic testing, for instance, which is very popular and often used to determine bloodlines, should be banned, because it has the effect of making people's genes, which are incredibly similar to someone else's genes, and putting them back into a sort of genetic algorithm that tries to make them as similar as possible.  We're okay with allowing people to get genetic testing for a limited purpose, like if they're planning on having a child, or if they're planning on having a child after a certain age, but we think that genetic testing should be banned.  We're okay with allowing people to get genetic testing for a limited purpose, but we think that genetic testing, in general, should be banned.  Our first argument is that this allows for racial discrimination.  Consider that, for instance, if you have a white, in the united states, and you want to select a gene that might be associated with white people, you might go to a black person's house and pick up a gene that might be associated with black people, but then you might not be able to use that gene to select a gene for use in a lab.  So, ultimately, this is discriminatory, because it's based on something that's incredibly racist.  Our second argument is that this is harmful for the environment.  So, for instance, when people in the US use genetic testing to determine where they're going to have children, we think that it's likely that they're going to select for a certain gene that could ultimately be harmful for the rest of the country.  For instance, if you have a gene for susceptibility to a certain type of diabetes, and a certain gene was found, and the rest of the country decided to do a genetic test on it, it might be possible that the US would use that to select for a gene for something like cystic fibrosis.  We think that it's likely that the US would use this to select for a gene for something like cystic fibrosis, and not use it to select for anything else.  We think that this would ultimately be harmful because, ultimately, the health of the rest of the country would be worse if people had access to these genetic tests.  So, ultimately, because of this, we should ban genetic testing.  Thank you. ","[4, 4, 2, 2, 1, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 1, 1, 1, 2, 4]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 20225558, 45458968, 45405037, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45538225, 45181384, 6432269, 29155723, 21785776, 13581319, 45361788]"
f8ca9430-2b1b-4050-a36c-dfa842c60a5a,2615,We should ban homeopathy,Speech-GPT2,"We should ban homeopathy.  Homeopathy is a practice which is based on the idea that you can cure disease by immersing yourself in a well.  You take a little bit of a medicine, say, an herbal or a plant, and then you soak your hand in it and say, "" oh, no.  "" And then you rinse off some water and say, "" oh, no.  "" And then you wash your hands in the same way that you would wash your hands after you've taken a little bit of medicine or a little bit of an herb or something like that.  So you take a little bit of water and then you wash your hands in the same way.  It's all very very similar.  So the other side might say, "" oh, well there's no evidence that this works.  "" But the other side might say, "" oh, well there's no evidence that it doesn't work.  "" But the other side might say, "" well, if you think that there's no evidence that it doesn't work, then maybe it's not that big of a burden to put on doctors to tell people that there is no evidence that it doesn't work.  And so the other side might say, "" well, maybe that doesn't work.  "" But the other side might say, "" well, maybe it's not as effective as other kinds of treatments.  "" So the other side might say, "" well, maybe that's not a good idea.  "" But the other side might say, "" well, maybe that's not a good idea because it's risky.  "" Or the other side might say, "" well, maybe that doesn't work.  "" And so the other side might say, "" well, maybe that doesn't work.  "" And so the other side might say, "" well, maybe that's not a good idea.  "" And so the other side might say, "" well, maybe that won't work.  "" But the other side might say, "" well, maybe that won't work.  "" And so the other side might say, "" well, maybe that's not good.  "" And so the other side might say, "" well, maybe that won't work.  "" Or the other side might say, "" well, maybe that won't work.  "" And so the other side might say, "" well, maybe that won't work.  "" And so the other side might say, "" well, maybe that won't work.  "" And so the other side might say, "" well, maybe that won't work.  "" So the other side might say, "" well, maybe that won't work.  "" But the other side might say, "" well, maybe that won't work.  "" And so the other side might say, "" well, maybe that won't work.  "" But the other side might say, "" well, maybe that won't work.  "" And so the other side might say, "" well, maybe that won't work.  "" But the other side might say, "" well, maybe that won't work.  "" And so the other side might say, "" well, maybe it's risky.  "" And so the other side might say, "" well, maybe it's risky.  "" But the risk isn't too much because the risk is very low.  The other side might say, "" well, maybe it won't work.  "" But the other side might say, "" well, maybe it's risky.  "" And so the other side might say, "" well, maybe it's risky.  "" But the risk isn't that high.  The risk to the individual is very low.  So the other side might say, "" well, maybe that won't work.  "" But the risk isn't that high.  And the risk to society is very low.  So for all of these reasons, we should ban homeopathy.  Thank you. ","[1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1]",15,"[45567227, 45567220, 31948170, 45411178, 45405037, 45185975, 45191882, 45336988, 45361788, 45336993, 45206691, 45189900, 20512953, 44044795, 30777913]"
9998a4b0-c50c-42c6-a803-c87e36b7fc7c,2125,We should ban organic food,Speech-GPT2,"We should ban organic food.  Organic food is the food of the future.  It's the food that comes out of the earth and is nourished and grown naturally.  It's nourished in the same way that we nourish our food today, only better.  It is nourished in the same way that we nourish our food today.  Organic food has many of the same benefits that we have today, but they're done naturally and with no added chemicals or chemicals that are added to our food today.  We should ban organic food because it's the only way to preserve the environment.  Organic food is good for the environment.  It doesn't have to be processed, it doesn't have to be stored, it doesn't have to be shipped in a way that creates huge waste and it doesn't have to be shipped in a way that is harmful to the environment.  It's the only way to have a sustainable environment for the future.  So with that background in mind we have three arguments for why we think organic food is the way to go.  First, let's talk about why it's good for the environment.  Organic foods are healthier.  Organic foods are foods that are grown in a different way from the way that food is grown in the status quo.  Organic foods are grown in a way that is more sustainable for the environment.  You don't have to destroy an area in order to get a crop.  You don't have to truck everything from different areas to get a crop.  You don't have to use as much land, in order to ship the food, in order to ship the food.  It's all done in a sustainable way.  So you're able to get the same benefits, but you're using a different kind of land, a different kind of method of farming, to do it.  You're using more land, and you're able to grow more food.  And on top of that, organic foods are just healthier.  They're produce is produced without using chemicals or other kinds of harmful ingredients.  They're produced without using oil, and they're produced without using any kind of farming or fertilization.  It's all done in a sustainable way, and that's the way that we should be doing it.  But moreover, organic food also has other environmental benefits, like there's less waste, which means that you're able to reuse more of the land that you're growing the food in.  You're able to use more of the earth's carbon, which means that you're able to put more carbon into the atmosphere, which contributes to climate change, which contributes to things like global warming and sea level rise, which is really bad.  But besides all of those kinds of environmental benefits, there's also just like this like healthier like feel to the environment too, and that's like a big reason why like like like when like like like like like like like like the thing that like the earth does like just like the carbon that like the carbon in the atmosphere is like bigger than the carbon in like the atmosphere and that's because like the atmosphere just isn't big enough to hold all of the carbon.  So when you have like massive amounts of carbon in the atmosphere, like the earth just isn't able to take all of the carbon out of the atmosphere.  So when like like things like carbon monoxide in the atmosphere, which is a by product of like the fact that like the carbon is in the atmosphere, when you have like massive amounts of carbon in the atmosphere, you're just not able to like use all of the energy in the atmosphere to like do all that much good stuff.  So when you're like growing food, you're also contributing to the carbon in the atmosphere, which is a problem.  But besides all of those kinds of like like like environmental benefits, there's also the health benefits too.  It's a problem that like a lot of the time when like the environment is in trouble, like we're facing like climate change, or things like that, like there's a lot of problems in the environment, like like we're facing like we're facing like we're facing things like climate change, like we're facing things like we're facing things like like rising sea levels which are going to destroy like a lot of like like infrastructure in like cities, or like we're facing like we're facing like we're facing things like we're facing things like we're facing things like we're facing things like we're facing things like like we're facing things like we're facing things like we're facing things like we're facing things like like global warming which is just a problem.  There's a lot of things that are contributing to climate change, like we're seeing things like rising sea levels, which is obviously a problem, but besides all of those kinds of like problems that we're facing like global warming, there's also things like rising sea levels, which is probably one of the biggest threats that humanity is facing in the","[4, 4, 2, 4, 1, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 2, 2, 1, 4, 1]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 45458968, 45191882, 45411178, 45206691, 45189900, 45185975, 45185946, 20512953, 31948170, 19838540, 30777913, 45191885, 27770607]"
5aca2f9c-7c22-4fbd-8e52-f40651eebf6e,2480,We should ban racial profiling,Speech-GPT2,"We should ban racial profiling.  So, in this debate, we're going to argue that the US should prohibit racial profiling, also known as the "" white flight "" to other countries, and also known as the "" backlash "" if you prohibit it.  So, in the US, we think that the police should stop stopping people for traffic violations.  They shouldn't be stopping people for traffic violations, and they shouldn't be stopping people for public urination, because those are acts that are inherently racist.  And we're going to tell you that the same thing should be prohibited in other countries.  Three arguments for you.  The first is that this is inherently racist.  In the US, for instance, it's very difficult to determine if someone is guilty or not based on race.  So, for instance, in the majority of the country, the criminal justice system can't determine if someone is guilty or not for certain races.  For instance, if you're white and you're a member of the majority, then the criminal justice system can't determine if you're guilty or not.  So, ultimately, because of the inherent racism that exists in the united states, we think that this is inherently racist.  Our second argument is that we need to prevent the backlash that would otherwise be created by racial profiling.  So, in the US, for instance, in the civil rights movement, it was very difficult to determine whether people were being racist.  Ultimately, it seemed to be the case that everyone in the country was racist, and it was the only way to make the country a better place.  We think that one of the great lessons of the civil rights movement was that the best way to make the country a better place, was to get rid of the system of racism that was creating hate and the only way to do so was to make everyone in the country feel that they had to be racist.  We think that one of the great lessons of the civil rights movement is that the best way to create a better place for people to live is to make everyone in the country feel that they have to be racist, rather than just to go and create an equal place for people to live.  And we think that one of the great lessons of the civil rights movement is that ultimately, you need to be racist in order to prevent the backlash that would be created if you didn't have racial profiling.  Our third and final argument is that we think that the civil rights movement gave us a better understanding of how the world looked at a certain point in history.  We see that in the US, for instance, the civil rights movement helped create a much more integrated society, one that included people of all different races.  We think that one of the great lessons of the civil rights movement is that the country had to come to terms with the fact that slavery had become an accepted part of the US society, and that the only way to get rid of that was to get rid of the system of slavery.  And that's exactly what happened in the US, when the civil rights movement forced the abolition of slavery.  And the reason for that is that the US was one of the only countries in the world that wasn't racist in the early twentieth century.  Many parts of the world were racist, such as the US and many parts of europe were racist, but the US was one of the few that wasn't.  So, ultimately, because of the civil rights movement and because of the backlash that would ultimately arise if you banned racial profiling, we think it's clear that the US should continue to have racial profiling.  Thank you. ","[4, 4, 3, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 1, 2, 4, 2]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 13581319, 45336988, 45206691, 45336993, 28810858, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45405037, 45538225, 31948170, 21785776]"
4abdd42f-5d36-4335-ba9f-976438ad0f9a,1661,We should ban school uniforms,Speech-GPT2,"We should ban school uniforms.  School uniforms are a common sight in which students are forced to wear a uniform that is very different from the uniforms that are typically worn by students in high school.  Because we think that school uniforms are fundamentally unjust and cause immense suffering among students, we would support the following model that all schools should adopt a uniform policy: that students will be required to wear a uniform, and that schools will be required to provide students with a good suit that will allow them to live the rest of their lives.  We will ensure that school uniforms are optional, will ensure that students can wear their uniforms, but will require students to wear a good suit that will allow them to live a good quality of life.  This means that the same uniforms that are currently required for high school will not be required in secondary school.  This means that students will be required to wear a suit, a uniform, a school uniform.  We think that this will allow students to express themselves more clearly.  We think that the benefits of this will be that first, it will allow students to have more uniformity in their academic performance, which will ultimately improve their standing in the community and in the workplace.  Secondly, we think that it will improve the well-being of students.  Students who are forced to wear a uniform will be much more likely to feel comfortable talking to their teachers and to their fellow students.  This will allow students to have a better understanding of their education and, ultimately, to live a better quality of life.  This is particularly important in the workplace.  We think that a lack of uniformity is ultimately detrimental to productivity.  We think that in the status quo, if you do not have a good enough idea of what your students are doing, you are likely to get a lot of misunderstandings, a lot of misunderstandings, and a lot of misunderstandings.  We think that by forcing students to wear a uniform, by forcing students to interact with their peers, by forcing students to interact with their teachers, they will be more likely to build these relationships, to understand the problems that they are facing, and to address them.  This will ultimately make the workplace more productive, and we think that it will be beneficial to all students.  My first argument then, is about how this will help students express themselves.  Students will be much more likely to feel comfortable speaking out in their classes if they feel that they can be effective in doing so.  We think that if students feel that they are isolated, they will feel that they cannot express themselves effectively.  This will ultimately be harmful for students because they will feel isolated, they will feel that they cannot express their views effectively, and they will be less likely to engage in these higher-order skills that are essential for a successful future.  My second argument then, is about how this will improve educational opportunities.  We think that students will be more likely to have an active role in their classes if they are required to wear a uniform.  We think that this will encourage them to study more effectively, and ultimately to contribute back to the education system.  We think that this will lead to more students being sent to college, and ultimately to more education overall.  This will improve the education system and ultimately benefit students.  This is especially important because right now, the education system is failing many students.  The average student is not doing well in school, and this is due to the fact that there are very low expectations of students.  This means that the total educational output per student is very low.  We think that by forcing students to spend their time doing something that is like a lower-order pleasure, we can have them do something that is like a higher-order pleasure, which will ultimately be better for the education system as a whole.  For this reason, we should ban school uniforms.  Thank you. ","[2, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 5, 3, 2, 3, 1, 2, 4, 2, 1]",15,"[28813722, 45405037, 45411178, 6432269, 34609243, 45355658, 15448937, 44044795, 45181243, 45181253, 45181256, 45181262, 19838540, 45677971, 20512953]"
559fdb94-ae3f-4019-9f87-b5aa55fd88d0,2402,We should close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp,Speech-GPT2,"We should close the gatestown detention camp.  So, in the status quo, the united states keeps a small group of people, mostly in its homeland, that are convicted of a variety of offenses, most of them criminal.  Those people are kept in isolation, they're kept under surveillance, they're kept under surveillance, and they're kept under surveillance, and that surveillance is very, very high quality.  It's very hard to get into, you know, the actual nature of these people's crimes, because it's kept in a very high security state.  So, in the status quo, in the status quo, there's a concern about security, and a concern about the future of the US.  And those are, in large part, concerns because of the fear of terrorism, because of the fear of losing out on, like, the people who are there, the people who are like in charge of the situation, like the military, like the intelligence, and all those kinds of things.  And those are very very big issues.  So, in the status quo, there's a lot of tension between the US and its allied states.  And the biggest reason for that is because of the threat of terrorism, and the threat of losing out on those people.  So, the US has a lot of concerns about security, because of the threat of terrorism.  And the biggest reason for that is because of the terrorist attacks that happened, because of the threat of losing out on those people.  So, the US is very concerned about security, and the only way to counter that security concerns is to isolate them, and then like go after them, and that only happens when you're not isolating them.  And the only way to do that, in the status quo, is to use military force.  So, in the status quo, the US is using military force, and it's doing so in a very, very problematic way.  Military force, in and of itself, is a very harsh thing.  Military force can cause more damage, and it's not just like the US, because of the threat of the military.  It's like the US, in britain, in the united states, in britain, in a lot of these places, in like places like china, in like the middle east, where you're not really having a choice about, like, the way you're going to use military force.  Military force is like a weapon, and you're using it more and more.  And the problem with that is that, military force, like military action, can cause a lot of collateral damage.  So, like, for example, when the US invaded iraq, it created a lot of collateral damage, like the US occupying, like, a lot of land, like the US military occupying, like, a lot of like a lot of like a like a lot of like a like a lot of like a like a like a lot of like a like a lot of like a like a lot of like a bigger than a like a lot of like a like a like a lot of like like a bigger than a like a lot of like a like a bigger than a like a lot of like like a like a lot of like a bigger than a like a like a like a lot of a like a lot of a lot of like a bigger than a lot of like a lot of like a like a bigger than a lot of like a bigger than a lot of like a lot of like a bigger than a lot of like a bigger than a lot of like a bigger than a lot of like a bigger than a lot of like a lot of like a lot of like a bigger than a lot of like a lot of like a bigger than a lot of like a bigger than a lot of like a bigger than a lot of like a bigger than a lot of like a bigger than a lot of like a lot of like a bigger than a lot of like a bigger than a lot of like a bigger than a lot of like a bigger than a lot of like a bigger than a lot of like a bigger than a lot of like a bigger than a lot of like a lot of like a bigger than a lot of like a bigger than a lot of like a lot of like a bigger than a lot of like a lot of like a bigger than a lot of like a bigger than a lot of like a bigger than a lot of like a bigger than a lot of like a bigger than a lot of like a bigger than a lot of like a lot of like a bigger than a lot of like a bigger than a lot of like a bigger than a lot of like a bigger than a lot of like a bigger than a lot of like a bigger than a lot","[2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 4, 4, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1]",15,"[13581319, 19838540, 20225558, 45355658, 29155723, 20512953, 44044795, 45677971, 45567220, 45190823, 28810858, 15448937, 45411178, 28813722, 45405037]"
50624034-b7b9-4792-8252-0501f12c9158,2621,We should disband the United Nations,Speech-GPT2,"We should disband the united nations.  The UN was created in order to bring together disparate groups of states who want to end the cold war and create a better world.  The UN has a very liberal or progressive approach to diplomacy and states.  Because the UN was founded in a time when the cold war was seen as inevitable and has a very liberal approach to diplomacy, the UN has never seen the end of the cold war.  It has created and continues to create tension between states and each other.  There are always tensions and always tensions between states.  The cold war never got rid of the UN and we think that the UN should be based on creating a better world rather than the end of the cold war.  First, why is this the case? The cold war never ends.  It never ends because the UN, through its veto, never gets the final say.  The UN can never get a final say.  The UN can never get a final say because it has no final say.  It's just an all around body and it's very very democratic.  Secondarily, the cold war never really ends.  It's a continuous cycle where the UN constantly divides and constantly threatens to divide states.  It's a cycle where the UN constantly makes a decision that is divisive, even though the UN is supposed to be non-partisan and non-sectarian.  The UN constantly pushes states into the middle of the road and into the middle of the road that ultimately makes them more vulnerable to attack.  It's a cycle where the UN constantly pushes states into the arms of the US and the US pushes states into the arms of russia.  It's a cycle where the UN constantly uses its veto to keep the peace in the region.  It's a cycle where the US and russia are at war with other states.  It's a cycle where the US and russia are at war with other states.  It's a cycle where the US and russia are at war with other states.  And these are all things that the UN never wants.  It never wants to be the most powerful or the most democratic.  It's always about regional cooperation and peace.  And the reason for that is because the UN was founded to serve the united states and to serve the US and russia.  And it doesn't have the ability to see that that's the case.  Because the UN has no final say in the matters that it should and should not be doing.  It's not just that the UN should like to like to like send peacekeepers to places in africa to make sure that the peace is not disrupted and the peace is not disrupted but also to like keep its own priorities and those priorities are never being looked out for.  It's not like the UN should focus on ending the war in south america.  It's not like the UN should focus on ending the war in syria.  It's not like the UN should focus on making sure that like the same people are not being killed in the US in syria.  Like all of these are very very important priorities but it's never really the case that the UN should be doing them.  The reason for that is because the UN never gets to veto.  So when the UN votes on these kinds of things, it never gets to veto.  It never gets to decide what the final outcome of these kinds of things is.  But the US and russia are like: "" what do we want? "" And the result of that is that the UN never gets to choose the final outcome.  So what that means is that the US and russia are always going to be at odds with each other.  The US and russia are never going to compromise on their interests because the US and russia are always going to be at odds with each other.  It's never going to be like the US and russia can be like: "" look, we agree on this.  We're going to fight on this.  "" And then russia gets to vote and like: "" look, like we want you to fight on this.  "" And then the US and russia are never going to compromise.  So it's never like the US and russia can be like: "" okay, so what are our final two or three options? "" Like the US is never going to be able to like: "" we're going to like fight in the middle east.  "" And then russia gets to vote and like: "" okay, so what are the final two or three options? "" And the result of that is that the US never gets to choose the final outcome because russia gets to have final say.  So we think that the US and russia never have the ability to like: "" okay, we want the peace to continue.  "" And we think that this is always going to be worse than the alternative because the alternative is that the US and russia are just going to be like: "" look","[3, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 1, 5, 4, 4]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 45567220, 45567227, 45538225, 21785776, 45411178, 20225558, 13581319, 20512953, 29155723, 15448937, 45191885, 45458968]"
a8c95fe8-9be2-437f-95f4-7f3dad9f9b64,3581,We should end cheerleading,Speech-GPT2,"We should end cheerleading.  So, in this debate, we're going to argue that the united states should ban the practice of cheering for your team or cheering for a particular athlete.  We think that this could take place in many different arenas, such as in the olympics or in the games themselves.  So with that in mind, we have three arguments for our side.  The first is that we think that the practice of cheering for a particular team or a particular athlete is disrespectful to the memory of that team or that athlete's country.  We think that, for instance, when you cheer for the US or canada, you're saying that your country is like, just, a country that doesn't respect the wishes of the people who live in other countries.  We think that this is disrespectful to those nations' citizens, and in particular, to the memories of those nations' citizens.  We think that this is disrespectful to the soldiers and civilians who fought in those countries, and ultimately diminishes their dignity and their sense of national pride, which means that it's disrespectful to the memory of those countries' citizens.  Our second argument is that we think that the practice of cheering for a particular team or a particular athlete, in and of itself, is disrespectful to the memory of that team or that team's leader.  We think that when the leader of a team or the leader of a team is killed or injured, this is disrespectful to the memory of that team.  So when the US or canada or britain or germany or britain or some other country, their leader, whoever, is killed or injured, is forced to take the reins of the team and, in doing so, to use it as a way to express national pride, to express national support, and to convey that support to the people of that country.  We think that this is disrespectful to the memory of that country and to the leaders of that country, and ultimately diminishes their standing in the world.  Our third argument is that we think that the practice of cheering for a particular team or a particular athlete distorts the public's perception of that team and the people that they support.  We think that when the public sees the name "" american"" or ""canadian "" in the stands at a sporting event, this is a generic term applied to any country that has a sporting event, but in the case of the US or canada or britain or germany, this is a more specific term, with a more specific meaning.  We think that when people cheer for the US or canada or britain or germany or some other country, they're supporting that country's government, they're supporting that country's people, and this is disrespectful to the people of that country.  We think that this is disrespectful to the memory of those people and to the leaders of that country, and ultimately diminishes their ability to speak out in the world.  For instance, in germany right now, when the chancellor is killed or injured or when the country is in economic crisis, people in the country are very afraid to criticize the government.  We think that when people cheer for american or canadian or british or germany or some other country, they're supporting those people, they're supporting that country's government, and we think that that is disrespectful to those people.  So for these reasons, we should end cheerleading.  Thank you. ","[4, 2, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 1]",15,"[45538225, 20312760, 44690955, 45181152, 45272708, 45191873, 45183231, 43984981, 45191882, 45206691, 45189900, 45181384, 45190571, 45181383, 34854490]"
ae08e1c2-0b83-477e-b943-7b617c10c8ad,3197,We should end progressive taxation,Speech-GPT2,"We should end progressive taxation.  So, in this debate, we're going to argue that the state should not use a progressive tax, which is a tax system with a progressive income tax, as opposed to flat tax.  We're going to have three arguments for you.  The first is that the state needs to have a fundamental right to property and to maintain its security of property.  And the reason for this is that the state has an obligation to its citizens to maintain the security of its property.  If the state is taking money from someone, and that money is going towards paying off a debt or paying off a welfare program or education or whatever, it's necessary that the state pay back the money that it takes from that citizen.  The state doesn't have to spend money on social programs if that money is going towards paying off a debt, because it is not providing for the people that pay into that system.  So the state has a fundamental right to property and a fundamental right to maintain its property, which means that it has to have a flat tax.  Our second argument is that a flat tax would be more fair for individuals.  So, basically, what we're going to tell you is that the state would have to pay a different percentage of income to each individual, based on their previous income.  So, let's say that you had a flat tax in the united states, and that in order to pay for the schools that your children go to, the state would have to pay a higher percentage of their income to people that are poorer.  We're okay with defending a system with a progressive income tax because that would still allow the state to provide for all of its people, but we're okay with defending a system with a flat tax, because it means that the state would be more likely to be solvent.  And our final argument is that a flat tax would be more fair for business.  So, for businesses, to give an example, let's say that you had a very high corporate tax in the united states, and you had to pay a lower rate of tax.  We're okay with defending a system with a flat tax, but we're okay with defending a system with a progressive one.  We're okay with defending a system with a progressive tax because it means that businesses would pay the same as a flat tax, but on top of that, we're okay with defending a system with a flat tax because it would be more equitable for businesses.  For all of these reasons, we should end progressive taxation.  Thank you. ","[4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 2, 3, 4, 5, 4, 5]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 6432269, 45569485, 45567227, 45677971, 45567220, 44094031, 45411178, 45405037, 6340330, 44044795, 19838540, 15448937, 30777913]"
7cf17fa3-fbef-4c13-8ad5-46b52ab6879f,3205,We should end water fluoridation,Speech-GPT2,"We should end water fluoridation.  We think that the state should never use force or use any sort of policy to take away water from people.  In fact, we would say that the state should never try to take away water from people unless it has a good reason.  We have three arguments in this speech: first, on the right of the people to water, second, on why it is a bad policy and third, on why it is bad.  First argument: opposition is going to tell you that the people have a right to water.  We think that the reason for this is that people have a right to access all of the goods that they consume.  It is a natural thing that when you consume something, you're going to want more.  The reason why people want more is because they want the cheapest option.  It is cheaper to produce and more expensive to buy and as such, we are going to give people more access to water.  But this isn't really the case.  People don't want to pay for water.  They don't want to buy it.  They don't want to consume it.  What they want is just going to be some sort of like vague like vague public utility which is like the cheapest option, that's it's not something that is actually like good for the people that are consuming it.  Second argument: opposition is going to say that the government shouldn't be meddling in people's water.  We think that the problem with this is that the government is not really in a good position to decide like what water to use.  We see that the US and many other developed countries don't have a good idea of what water to use.  They don't have a good idea of which water to use.  What this means is that it is the case that the people in your country have to make a choice about which water to use.  We think that the government has an obligation to make these decisions for you and to your citizens.  We think that this is like a really bad idea because it means that the government is spending a lot of money on something that is not a really good idea.  We also just think that the government doesn't have a good idea of which water to use.  So you can't really choose like a top three or four or five or six or seven or eight or nine or a top two or three or four or five or six or seven or eight or nine or a top one or two or three or four or five or six or seven or eight or nine or a bottom one or two or three or four or five or six or seven or eight or nine or a bottom one or two or three or four or five or six or seven or eight or nine or a bottom one or two or three or four or five or six or seven or eight or nine or a top one or two or three or four or five or six or seven or eight or nine or a bottom one or two or three or three or four or five or six or eight or nine or a top one or two or three or four or five or six or seven or eight or nine or a bottom one or two or three or four or five or six or eight or nine or a bottom one or two or three or four or five or six or seven or eight or nine or a top one or two or three or four or five or six or seven or eight or nine or a bottom one or two or three or four or five or six or eight or nine or a bottom one or two or three or four or five or six or seven or eight or nine or a bottom one or two or three or four or five or six or nine or a top one or two or three or four or five or six or seven or eight or ten or twelve or thirteen or fourteen or fifteen or sixteen or nineteen or twenty or twenty one hundred and thirty thousand times more than what we can spend on this.  And we think that this is money that the government simply does not have and so we should cut that out.  Please propose. ","[1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 4, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1]",15,"[45483811, 43877630, 29155723, 45361788, 31948170, 44094031, 27770607, 45397152, 38202325, 45191885, 45185946, 20312760, 20170210, 34609243, 28513847]"
4fa40dbd-ac7e-467b-8653-601fe0d9356e,3223,We should fight global warming,Speech-GPT2,"We should fight global warming.  Global warming is the biggest threat humanity will face in the next one hundred years and is the biggest threat to humanity's survival in the next one hundred years.  The rising sea levels are already destroying cities and killing people.  We think that when the average temperature in the world goes up by four degrees celsius over the course of just the last century, we're going to see the worst impacts of global warming in the next one hundred years.  It's already killing people and displacing people, and it's only going to get worse.  The impacts of global warming are already starting to be felt in the US and EU.  We think that the only way to stop the progression of global warming is to drastically change the way that we are behaving right now and to drastically change the way that we interact with the rest of the world.  The only way to do this is to drastically change the way that we use energy and the way we interact with the rest of the world.  We need to drastically increase the amount of nuclear fusion that we put into the nuclear power plant, the amount of solar power we put into our power grid.  We need to drastically change the way that we use oil.  We need to drastically change the way that we use fossil fuels.  We need to drastically change the way that we use the sun's energy.  We need to drastically change the way that we use water.  We need to drastically change how we use fossil fuels.  We need to drastically change the way that we use energy in general.  It's very clear that we need to drastically change the way we interact with the world.  It's just a question of how and when we do it.  We need to drastically change the way that we use energy, and it's the only way to do it.  But the climate change that we're facing is even worse than the worst impacts of global warming, and if we don't drastically change the way that we interact with the rest of the world, we're only going to get more extreme weather events, more droughts, more powerful storms, and the worst impacts of those things.  We think that the only way to make the world more livable in the future, the only way to make the world more livable in the long term, is to drastically change the way that we use energy.  And that's the only way to stop global warming from taking a worse turn.  The only way to stop global warming is to drastically change the way that we interact with the rest of the world.  It's the only way to stop global warming from taking over the earth and destroying the most important cities in the world.  It's the only way to stop global warming from completely destroying the earth.  And if we do that, we're going to be able to have the same type of peace and prosperity that we have right now.  We think that in the future, the only way to stop global warming is to drastically change the way that we interact with the rest of the world.  We think that the world has reached a tipping point where we need to drastically change the way that we use energy.  We need to drastically change the way that we use fossil fuels.  We need to drastically change how we use nuclear fusion.  We need to drastically change how we use solar energy.  And the only way to do that is to drastically change the way that we interact with the rest of the world.  We think that the only way to do that is to drastically change the way that we use energy so that we don't have to use it as much.  We think that that's the only way to make the world more livable in the long term.  We think that the only way to do that is to drastically change the way that we interact with the rest of the world.  We think that the only way to do that is to drastically change the way that we use energy so that we don't have to use it as much.  And that's the only way to stop global warming from taking over.  For these reasons, we should fight global warming. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 2, 3, 1, 5, 2, 1, 4, 5, 4]",15,"[45185975, 45191882, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 45190823, 13581319, 20312760, 34110399, 45411178, 20512953, 29155723, 6340330, 30777913, 45355658]"
6bc7dfb9-5386-4b23-9592-97f08cc92640,3199,We should fight urbanization,Speech-GPT2,"We should fight urbanization.  When the state is involved in a particular area, it is using the assumption that that the people living in that area are largely ignorant of the benefits or even the existence of that particular area and that as such they are unlikely to adopt the most rational and most beneficial use of land in that area.  We think that urbanization ultimately makes the area that we're in more powerful and more prosperous, but also leads to a worse quality of life for the average individual in that area.  We think that urbanization ultimately is a threat to the well being of the area and therefore that the state should fight it.  Two arguments, first on why the state has an obligation to protect the well being of the community.  The first argument is that urban areas are inherently worse for the environment than the rural areas that it controls.  The reason for this is that urban areas are, on balance, more populated than rural areas.  This is because urban areas have to provide the services that allow people to live in the area and to work in the area.  Urban areas also have to have infrastructure which provides them with the infrastructure necessary for them to drive to work and to live in the area.  This means that they have to have a higher density of people, which means that they are more likely to have traffic accidents because of the population density.  It also means that they have to have more waste, which means that the land surrounding the urban areas is less fertile and more likely to become a place that is suitable for agriculture or for any kind of life.  It also means that they're more likely to have a degraded environment, which means that the environment around urban areas is less hospitable to animals, which means that you have more pollution and more overpopulation of animals, which ultimately compromises the well being of the animal population.  It also means that urban areas are more likely to be dangerous for the average citizen in that area.  We think that the average citizen in a rural area is less likely to be able to access the services that are necessary for them to be a part of that community, to be able to live a good quality of life, if they're not in a city.  We think that this is a problem because urban areas ultimately drain the well being of the area in which they're located.  When the state controls a large urban area, it can't provide the same benefits or the same services to the people that are in that area.  We think that this is a problem because urban areas can't be separated from their urban areas.  They can't be allowed to flourish independently.  We think that urban areas ultimately are a threat to the well being of the area in which they're located and that in order to protect the well being of that area, the state must intervene.  The second argument is that urban areas are inherently worse for the environment.  We think that urban areas are often built on the wrong side of the spectrum.  We think that there is a trade-off between urban areas and rural areas, which means that urban areas will always be worse than rural areas.  This is because urban areas are built on the wrong side of the spectrum and it's very difficult for a rural area to adopt the same services or the same services that urban areas do.  We think that if you're going to have urban areas and you're going to have urban areas, you're going to have to put people down against one another, you're going to have to have to separate those urban areas from the rest of the country and the only way to do that is by having a city.  We think that this is inherently problematic because the benefits of urban areas, the benefits of urban areas, are benefits that the people in those urban areas don't have access to.  For example, in new york city, new york city is built on the wrong side of the spectrum.  We think that the benefits of urban areas are different than the benefits of rural areas.  For example, in rural areas, you might have to have roads, you might have to have water, you might have to have electricity, you might have a train running through the area.  We think that these urban areas don't allow these things to happen.  Urban areas don't allow these things to happen.  We think that if you were to build a city on the wrong side of the spectrum, it would be more likely to have these things happen.  We also think that there are more conflicts between urban and rural areas, because of population density.  We think that when you have a city that is built on the wrong side of the spectrum, you're more likely to have conflicts between those cities.  You're more likely to have conflicts over resources, and we think that this is inherently problematic because urban areas are inherently more prone to corruption and we think that rural areas are inherently less prone to corruption","[3, 3, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 45953041, 31948170, 45411178, 45191882, 45458968, 45185946, 45185975, 45336988, 45189900, 45361788, 20512953, 45190823, 43877630]"
f16549a2-6701-4688-bd97-e2ec076992d0,2465,We should further exploit small modular reactors,Speech-GPT2,"We should further exploit small modular reactors.  So, by this we mean to say that countries with nuclear reactors should build more of them, put more money into building them, and otherwise use them as a sort of a showcase of how they're doing things in the future.  We have three arguments for our side this evening.  The first is that nuclear reactors pose an existential threat to the future of the world.  Nuclear reactors, like any other kind of nuclear power plant, is a safety hazard.  Nuclear reactors are often, at least to some degree, unguarded, because there's no real way to ensure that there's no one inside them.  Nuclear reactors pose a very high risk of a meltdown, because if there is one, a small amount of nuclear fallout could cause an immense amount of damage to the surrounding area.  It's not a safe space for the average person to live, and it's not something that people are able to take on with great ease.  Even in the most secure areas, people are very unlikely to be able to go back to those areas, because they could easily be contaminated.  And finally, nuclear reactors pose a huge risk of explosion, because they are so close to the ground, and because of the fact that it's a nuclear reactor, you could easily have an explosion in one of these places.  And finally, nuclear reactors pose a risk to the environment, because when you have a nuclear reactor, there's no way to keep an eye on the area in which it's being used.  And that's why we have the nuclear power plants that are so dangerous to the people living in those areas.  We think that building more nuclear reactors is not the way to go, because it would be a safety hazard, a risk to the future of the world, and an unnecessary expense for the country.  So for all these reasons, we should further exploit small modular reactors.  Thank you. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 1, 3, 3, 1, 2, 4, 1, 3, 2]",15,"[45185975, 45191882, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 13581319, 20312760, 45458968, 6367365, 20512953, 45355658, 34609243, 30783876, 6340330, 45169947]"
858bcad8-d8dc-44b4-b6f6-02bc7082f26a,2401,We should increase fuel tax,Speech-GPT2,"We should increase fuel tax.  So, in this debate, we're going to argue that the states should introduce a tax on fuels, on fuels, in order to recoup the cost of fuel.  So, in the status quo, states are allowed to levy a small tax on every single product that they consume.  But they can't levy a tax on fuels, because that would be an unfair tax on people who are worse off in the world.  We think that the state should instead tax fuels, and if the cost of fuel exceeds the cost of fuel, the state should tax them.  So, with that in mind, we have three arguments for why we should tax the fuel.  The first is that we think that this will be a fair and just solution for the climate crisis.  So, right now, there's a huge debate in the developed world about climate change.  The most important question, of course, is whether we can stop global warming dead in its tracks, and the answer is no.  We need to move as quickly as possible to reduce the amount of carbon that is put into the atmosphere, which will inevitably lead to global warming, which will lead to things like rising sea levels and more extreme weather.  The only way to do this, therefore, is to put as many people as possible in power who can push the buttons, push the levers, and turn the lights off.  But we think that, right now, there's a huge power imbalance in the developed and developing world, and that, ultimately, the only way to make a change, to fight climate change, is to have a market that is regulated, that is controlled, that is controlled by the people who live on the ground.  We think that this is the only way to do it, because the people who live on the ground are the most informed, and the people who are making the decisions are the most educated.  We think that, therefore, the people who are most affected by climate change are the people on the ground, and that we need to put the people who are most affected in power.  The reason for this is that, right now, the average person in the developed world is only a single vote out of a whole lot of people in the developed world.  We think that, therefore, if you put a tax on the people living on the ground, that they're more likely to take action, and that this is a one-time opportunity for people to change their behavior.  The people who are in power right now are very very different from the people who are in power right now, and it's clear that, in the future, people will have more power, and we'll be able to use that power more efficiently.  Our second argument is that this will save states money.  So, right now, if states want to build up their energy infrastructure, they're spending a lot of money to do so.  And that's a problem.  We see that, for instance, in the US, that a big oil companies are using up all of the oil in the country, and that's why the price of oil is going up.  It's a problem that, right now, the US is spending more than $100 billion a year on oil.  But, right now, we're spending less than $1 trillion a year on oil, which is a fraction of what we need.  We think that if you tax the energy that the state uses, that that money will go much further.  For instance, if you have a big nuclear power plant, and the price of nuclear power goes up, and people are using that for their own energy, that means that you're going to be able to get more of the energy that you need for your own energy needs, and that money will go further.  And, in the same way, a tax on fuel will also reduce the cost of fuel.  So, ultimately, because you will be able to recoup the cost of fuel, and because this will save the state money in the long term, we think that this is a good idea.  For all these reasons, we should tax fuel.  Thank you. ","[2, 3, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 3, 4, 4, 2, 4, 3, 4, 2]",15,"[45411178, 34110399, 20512953, 45953041, 21017840, 30777913, 6432269, 6340330, 45458968, 44094031, 45355658, 27770607, 44044795, 15448937, 33708599]"
80af27f9-21f0-4d87-8b26-fc6e10cb85b1,3196,We should increase immigration to the United States,Speech-GPT2,"We should increase immigration to the united states.  We think that the US should increase its annual immigration and its monthly immigration, and these should be for a population that is not being discriminated against, that is being actively sought after, and that these are areas that should be the focus of US policy.  We're going to talk about two things today: first, why we think the US should not limit the number of immigrants and secondly, why we think that the US should allow these immigrants to come work.  First, on US policy.  We think that the US should be an accepting country.  We think that when the US adopts a particular ideology, it adopts a particular set of values, and we think that when the US adopts a particular set of values, it adopts a particular set of laws and customs.  We think that, for instance, the US should not ban a particular set of religious practice because it might be beneficial for the majority of americans.  In the same way, the US should not ban an ethnic group because it might be detrimental to the majority of the american people.  We think that ultimately this is unfair to the majority of the american people.  We think that, for instance, the fact that the US restricts the freedom of an ethnic group to move from one place to another is an infringement on the part of that group.  We think that, for instance, the US should not deny that freedom of movement because it might be detrimental to its own citizens.  We think that, ultimately, the US should try to keep its its citizens safe and its citizens happy.  The reason for this is that, ultimately, there is a reciprocal obligation to other people.  The US protects the citizens of other countries from the other country.  We think that the US should, therefore, try to maintain its citizens' freedom, even if that freedom is not popular in other countries.  Our second argument is that we think it's in the US's interest to let immigrants come work.  We tell you that, for instance, if you have a large number of immigrants working in a country and you want to keep that employment, then it's likely that you will have to let all of them stay, even if it means losing some of your own citizens.  So, in the US, for instance, if you have a large number of immigrants working, you're likely to lose out on all of them.  We think that, ultimately, it would be better for the US to let immigrants come work if they want to.  We think that ultimately, for instance, when you have a large number of immigrants working, the US economy as a whole benefits.  We think that for instance, when the US allows people to come work in its factories, that ultimately that ultimately it's more likely that that will lead to greater output and higher wages.  We think that this is ultimately in the US's interest, and therefore that it should not limit the freedom of movement of these immigrants.  Our final argument is that we think that the US should welcome immigrants.  We tell you that the US is the only country in the world that doesn't discriminate against people based on national origin.  So, for instance, if you were born in the united states and you were brought there by your parents, you are eligible for US citizenship, but you aren't allowed to stay and work.  We think that, for instance, if you were born in the united states and your parents were unable to immigrate, you would be eligible for citizenship if you were a US citizen, but you wouldn't be able to stay and work as an immigrant in the united states.  We think that this is unfair to people who were brought to the US as children, and therefore that the US should welcome immigrants.  For all these reasons, we should not limit the number of immigrants.  Thank you. ","[4, 4, 5, 2, 3, 2, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 3, 4]",15,"[45567227, 45569485, 45458968, 28813722, 34110399, 45411178, 20512953, 15448937, 44044795, 21785776, 30777913, 45355658, 34609243, 34854490, 44094031]"
e208dc34-1185-4961-8f98-50c9d903933c,3180,We should introduce goal line technology,Speech-GPT2,"We should introduce goal line technology.  We think that the world has changed in the last few decades.  Technology has changed.  The status quo is one of the most dynamic, interesting and difficult times for an athlete to come back from.  We think that this is why we are living in the most interesting time period in history.  We think that the sport has evolved and that the most effective way to come back from this type of situation is to have a goal line that allows you to look back at your career and say, "" look at what I did.  "" We think that this allows you to assess the mistakes that you've made and learn from them.  We think that the other side of this is that it forces athletes to evaluate their performance in the most direct way possible.  If they're allowed to evaluate the mistakes that they make, they are far more likely to correct them.  This is why we see that people who make the same mistakes over and over again are far more likely to make the correct decision than those who make the same mistakes once and twice.  We think that this is a problem with today's players because they don't know how to evaluate their performance.  They don't know how to evaluate their performance.  They don't know how to analyze the mistakes that they make.  They don't know how to analyze their mistakes.  They don't know how to come back from these situations.  We think that this is a huge problem because these are the people that are most vulnerable and most undervalued in the status quo.  We think that these are the people that are most undervalued and that these are the people that are most easily influenced by the goals and the goals of the other.  We think that these are the people that are most easily influenced by the goals of the other and that the only way to gain back this respect and this respect from these people is to have a goal line.  We think that this will allow you to evaluate the performance of your own performance and from there to make better decisions and better decisions.  For these reasons, we should introduce goal line technology. ","[3, 4, 1, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 6432269, 45567220, 45567227, 45181384, 45190571, 45401087, 45181383, 45411178, 45538225, 45361788, 45189900, 45336988, 21785776]"
1bf319a9-402e-40c6-9574-22473e058374,3191,We should introduce recall elections,Speech-GPT2,"We should introduce recall elections.  So, in the status quo, when you're electing a government, there's a certain amount of work that goes into it.  There's a certain amount of effort that goes into it.  And there's also a certain amount of money that goes into it.  And there's a certain amount of money that goes into it.  And it's a balance between the need to have some sort of democracy and the need to have some sort of economic stability.  And that balance is one that the government has to strike.  And that balance is one that is easy for people to understand.  It's easy for people to vote, because they don't have to face the the actual policy proposals that would be coming out of a government, and they don't have to face the actual policies, or the actual political decisions, that would be made by the government.  And, in fact, in many cases, people don't even know what they're voting on, because they don't have any sort of direct connection to the government, because they don't have any sort of direct connection to the people that elected them.  They don't have any sort of direct connection to the people that elected them, and they don't have any sort of direct connection to the people that elected them.  And, in fact, in many cases, they don't even know who they're voting for, because they don't have any sort of direct connection to the people that they're voting for.  So, in a way, it's like an echo chamber, where you're only allowing your own constituents to be louder and more obnoxious.  And, in addition to that, there's a very direct and clear consequence to that, which is that the people that you're getting rid of through this are those people that are loudest and most obnoxious, those that are most prone to being turned out.  And those are the people that are most prone to being harmed.  And the reason for that is because, in order for the government to actually make good decisions, in order for the government to like go to war, in order for the government to like invest in like a like a well-funded, well-managed, like a well-staffed, in order for the government to like like get its job done, in order for the government to like like get its economy going, in order for the government to like like like do all of these things, there's a direct and obvious need to get these people that are like loudest and most obnoxious out of the way.  So, in order for the government to actually be a good actor, you need to get rid of these people that are going to be like most prone to getting elected.  So, in order for like for the government to like do what's best for like the country, in order for the government to like do what's best for the country, you need to like go for like the people that are like most prone to being elected, and you need to get rid of those people.  So, in order for like for like for like for the government to like do what's best for like the country, in order for like for like for like for like for the government to like make sure that like the economy's doing well, in order for like for like the government to like like like like like like like like do all of these things, you need to get those people that are like most prone to being elected out of the way.  And if you're going to do that, you need to like you need to like let those people that are like most prone to being like elected out of the way, because they're the ones that are like most likely to be going to get elected.  And, in fact, like in like in a lot of ways like, in a lot of ways you don't want to like let the people that are most prone to like problems like like corruption, like like problems like like like economic stagnation, like economic problems, like these things are like the ones that are most likely to get worse, and the reason for that is because those are the ones that are like most prone to getting worse.  Those are the ones that are like most likely to be like most prevalent.  So, in order for like for like the government to like do what's best for like the country, in order for like for like the government to like make sure that like economic growth is occurring, in order for like the government to like like make sure that like economic development is happening, like there's things like trade agreements, like you're like there's all these things that like you don't want to have to like, trade agreements, like you don't want to like be like a trade agreement with like a country like say japan, because like they're like a like a trade","[2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 2, 1, 5, 4, 4]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 20225558, 45458968, 45405037, 45181383, 45401087, 45190571, 45181384, 45538225, 6432269, 21785776, 30777913, 45189900, 45206691]"
7254305b-b6d1-4a7c-8cd7-308742beccc6,1902,We should legalize ivory trade,Speech-GPT2,"We should legalize ivory trade.  We think that in the status quo, the US is one of the largest consumers of ivory, and that it's a waste of money, because we have the infrastructure to produce more in the long term.  Our first argument is that it's a violation of international law.  So, in order for the US to have an ethical obligation, it has to abide by the law of the majority of states.  This is in order to ensure that, for instance, the US doesn't step in and rule over another state, and that would be unjust.  So, in order for the US to have an ethical obligation, it has to abide by the law of the majority of states.  We think that this is, in essence, a violation of sovereignty.  If the united states decides to invade another state, that is, to take it, and then rule over the state that is being invaded.  We think that it's unacceptable for the US to rule over other states, and to rule over a state that is not being attacked.  And moreover, in the status quo, the US is one of the largest producers of ivory in the world.  It's true that the US is a poor place to buy ivory, but it is one of the largest importers of ivory, and we think that it's clear that the US is going to continue to be one of the largest importers of ivory, and one of the largest consumers of ivory, and that this is a violation of US law, and one of the few remaining checks on the US, as a sovereign state.  Our second argument is that it's a poor use of funds.  In the status quo, the US is one of the few states that can afford to import ivory.  We see that the US is the only country in the world that can afford to import ivory, and that this is a major reason why the US has such a strong economy.  Why is that the case? Well, first of all, we think it's important to recognize that the US is a very poor place to spend money.  We see that the US has a very low rate of return on investment, and the reason for that is that the US is a poor place to spend money.  The reason for that is that, in order for the US to be a strong, wealthy, powerful country, it has to have economic stability, and that's not happening in the US.  We think that if you had the US buying and selling ivory, that this would then create economic instability, because there's no way that the US can buy back all of the ivory, in order to invest in its economy.  And in the same way, we think that it's clear that if you had the US buying and selling ivory, that this would create economic instability, because there's no way that the US can invest in all of the ivory, in order to invest in its economy.  And in the same way, we think that it's clear that if you have the US buying and selling ivory, that this would destabilize the US, and that this would lead to a trade war between the two countries, which would ultimately undermine the US economy.  For all of these reasons, we should legalize ivory trade.  Thank you. ","[1, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 5]",15,"[6432269, 45567220, 45567227, 45538225, 13581319, 20225558, 45953041, 45185975, 45206691, 45336988, 45361788, 45185946, 45191882, 20512953, 44044795]"
ef72a421-3f24-41e2-9645-666e5aa46ad4,2184,We should legalize public nudity,Speech-GPT2,"We should legalize public nudity.  So, in this debate, we're going to argue that countries should regulate these types of things much more closely than they do right now, with some minor changes to protect individuals' privacy and to prevent people from being coerced into committing a crime.  With that in mind, we have three arguments for you.  The first is that we think that the state should intervene to limit individual freedom only in two cases: the first when there is an asymmetry of information between two people entering into a contract, which we think is often the case in these instances because people don't know how to properly consent or can't consent to the state if they're in a certain part of the world or two people have an interest in privacy, and one of them is being coerced into committing a crime.  But we don't think that there is a good reason to ban these sort of activities, even though they might be harmful to one person or one community.  Our second argument is that we don't think that the state should force people to violate their privacy, and I'm not trying to make some sort of sweeping generalization here.  But I think it's clear that the state should limit people's behavior in certain ways, and that the privacy rights violation that we're talking about in this debate is different than the rights violation that we're talking about right now.  We think that the state should limit people's activity only in cases where there are very clear externalities to that activity.  So, for instance, if you are a fire that is started, the state should ban that fire because it's detrimental to the public.  We don't think that the state should go in and ban a particular activity if there's a very obvious external harm, even if that means violating someone's privacy.  Our last argument is that we think that, generally, the public should be able to consent to the state.  So, for instance, when the state passes a law, people should be able to vote in favor of it.  If you don't know what the law is, then you should be able to go out and vote to ensure that the law is passed.  This is why we have, for instance, referenda in the US and many european countries to decide referenda.  If people don't know what the law is, then people should be able to go out and vote to ensure that the law is passed.  We don't think that people should be able to consent to the state in a meaningful sense.  So with that in mind, we think that the state should not ban nudity.  Thank you. ","[4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 2, 5, 2, 5, 2, 1, 1, 2]",15,"[21017840, 45336991, 7756990, 45191873, 45183231, 45181152, 45272708, 45282792, 44044795, 45483811, 44690955, 27934334, 26649250, 43984981, 45355658]"
9600621b-98c9-4cec-bbd2-2e1ad35fd79b,3198,We should limit the right of self-defense,Speech-GPT2,"We should limit the right of self-defense.  So, in this debate, we're going to argue that states should limit the right of people to have weapons.  We're okay with other kinds of limitations, such as requiring people to wear a seatbelt or require people to wear a helmet, but we think that ultimately this is the best solution to an obvious problem.  We think that, in the status quo, there's a massive asymmetry of power between citizens and the state.  For instance, in the US, there's very little check against police brutality, much less between citizens and police.  If you're a black person living in the united states, it's very likely that you're going to be treated very harshly by the police.  The only check against this is your ability to have some level of physical defense, but that's impossible for most people in the status quo.  So the only way to prevent abuse by the police is to limit their physical security.  In the same way that we limit the right to travel, we limit the right to speech, and we limit the right to bear arms, we think that we should limit the right to physical security.  With that in mind, we have three arguments for you.  The first is that we think that, ultimately, physical security is more important than speech or the right to travel, because it's the only way to maintain the public's trust in the state.  It's true that physical security is more important than speech, but we think that the state should do what's best for the people.  The reason for this is that physical security is easier to access than it is for people to access their rights.  For instance, if you're afraid that some people are going to steal your car, you can't just yell, "" fire "", in the middle of the street.  It's much more difficult for people to do so, and ultimately it's better for everyone.  Our second argument is that we think that physical security is more important than freedom of speech or the right to travel.  We see that, for instance, in the US, you can't criticize the government without being arrested.  But in the same way that you can't criticize someone for using force, we think that physical security is much more easily accessible.  If people want to criticize the state, you have to have physical security for that.  And in the same way that we don't allow people to criticize the state without being arrested, we think that physical security is fine.  In fact, it's probably more important.  Our last argument is that physical security is more important than speech or the right to travel.  It's true that you can't criticize people without being arrested, but that's not really an option for everyone.  We think that in order for the state to be legitimate, you need physical security.  If people want to express themselves, then they need physical security.  We think that physical security is more important than speech, and therefore that the state should limit it.  For all these reasons, we should limit the right to physical security.  Thank you. ","[5, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 4, 4, 2, 1]",15,"[19838540, 45355658, 13581319, 20225558, 20512953, 44044795, 29155723, 27934334, 34110399, 28513847, 45190823, 45677971, 45567220, 28810858, 45405037]"
bc1bde53-e9f9-4a45-9f97-a7bfecd7fab9,2110,We should lower the age of consent,Speech-GPT2,"We should lower the age of consent.  The age of consent is the age below which a minor is legally incompetent to consent to sexual acts.  We would lower it to the age of like like seventeen to nineteen in the united states and you're going to have sexual acts, you're going to be like sexually assaulted, you're going to be sexually assaulted again and again.  And you're going to be like constantly assaulted.  And you're going to be like constantly raped.  And you're going to be like constantly like sexually assaulted again and again.  And you're not going to like you're not going to like your parents' age is like a factor in determining your like your sexual identity, but you're not going to stop being sexually assaulted by a like a sixteen year old or a seventeen year old, like you're not going to be able to do that.  And you're not going to be able to keep having sex.  You're not going to stop being sexually assaulted.  And you're not going to be able to take it away from you.  Because it's like you're going to like be like constantly raped again and again and again, and you're not going to like it.  You're not going to be able to take it easy, you're not going to like it.  You're not going to be able to take it easy.  You're not going to like it.  You're not going to like it.  So you're not going to be able to like you're not going to be able to like you're not going to be able to like keep being sexually assaulted by a sixteen or a seventeen year old, you're not going to be able to like keep being sexually assaulted by a sixteen or a seventeen year old, you're not going to be able to like keep being sexually assaulted by a sixteen or a seventeen year old, you're not going to be able to keep being sexually assaulted by a sixteen or a seventeen year old, you're not going to be able to keep being sexually assaulted by a sixteen or a seventeen year old, you're not going to be able to like keep being sexually assaulted by a sixteen or a seventeen year old, you're not going to be able to be able to keep having sex.  You're not going to be able to like keep having sex.  And that's the biggest problem with the age of consent is because it's not a real consent.  It's not like people are consenting to sex, consenting to sexual acts, because they're underage.  And that's like a big problem because consent isn't really possible.  Like sexual acts are a part of like an incredibly intimate part of people's lives.  And consenting to them, consenting to sexual acts, is a very intimate part of your life.  And sex is like a big deal.  Like if you're going to have sex, like if you're going to have sex with someone, like you're going to have sex with like a sexual partner, like you're going to like like like spend like like like like like like like your life with like a sexual partner, a sexual partner, you're probably not going to like sex, like you're not going to like sex.  Or you're not going to like sex in like a romantic way.  Like like sex, like sex, like any kind of like sexual act is like a very intimate part of people's lives.  And sexual acts are a big deal.  And sexual acts are like a big deal.  And sexual acts, like sex, are a big deal.  And sexual acts, like sexual acts, like sex, is like a big deal.  And sex is like a big deal.  And like a big deal is like a very intimate thing that people get into, a big deal of like like sexual acts, a big deal of like sexual activity, like sexual acts.  And like a big deal of sexual acts, like sexual acts, like sexual acts are like a big deal.  And like sexual acts are a big deal.  And like sexual acts are like a big deal.  And sexual acts are like a big deal.  And like sexual acts are like a big deal.  So when you're talking about sexual acts, when you're talking about sex, when you're talking about sex, you're talking about like something that is very intimate, something that is very intimate, and you're talking about something that is like very intimate.  Like if you're having sex with somebody, if you're having sex with your partner, if you're having sex with your partner, if you're having sex with other people, like you're talking about like a very intimate thing.  Like, like sexual acts, like sexual intercourse, like, like sexual activity, like sexual intercourse, and like sexual intercourse is like a very intimate thing.  Like sexual intercourse can be something that is like intimate, like intimate, intimate, intimate, like","[4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 3, 1, 1]",15,"[45185975, 45191885, 45191882, 45185946, 45953041, 13581319, 28813722, 45169947, 29155723, 45355658, 19838540, 34609243, 6340330, 33708599, 45405037]"
7c3b4c28-1a4d-476b-8195-393295ecea11,3208,We should prohibit slum tourism,Speech-GPT2,"We should prohibit slum tourism.  We think that in the status quo, there are a number of abuses that are associated with tourism, such as the fact that there is a massive human rights violation in places like russia, such as tearing people down, such as the fact that there's a lack of respect for the local culture, such as the fact that it's hard for people to be self-respecting, and all of these are reasons that we think that there are a number of abuses that are associated with tourism, such as the fact that there is a massive human rights violation in these places, and we think that these are a major reason why it's a bad thing, and that these are reasons that should be changed.  Our first argument then is about why we think it's bad to encourage violence.  We think that, first of all, when you encourage violence, you're giving a rise to violent crime.  We think that when you encourage people to be violent, you're giving them a reason to do so, because it's fun for them to be violent, and you're giving them a rise in crime.  We think that, ultimately, this means that you're giving rise to a new generation of people that are more likely to commit crimes, more likely to be violent, and we think that that's a bad thing.  We think that, ultimately, if you want to encourage respect for the local culture, if you want to encourage respect for the local law, if you want to encourage respect for the law, if you want to encourage respect for the law, then you need to make sure that people are respectful of it, and that those people are not going to be prone to violence.  We think that, for instance, when you go to places in the middle east, such as places like hamas, you're more likely to see people be respectful of the local culture, and that this is true of the law, and that when you encourage violence, you're giving rise to a new generation of people that are more likely to go out and fight, and more likely to use violence, because they're more likely to be like, "" look, I'm going to have fun doing this, "" instead of, "" look, violence is a bad thing.  We think that, ultimately, the rise of violent crime is a bad thing, because you're giving rise to a new generation of people that are more likely to commit crimes, and more likely to use violence, and we think that that's a bad thing.  Our second argument then is that we think that this promotes discrimination.  We think that, ultimately, because there's a big difference between encouraging violence, which is what happens when you encourage tourism, and promoting tolerance, which is what happens when you promote tolerance, we think that it's clear that you should prefer one type of tourism over another.  We think that you should prefer the kind of tourism that takes place in the states, for instance, rather than the kind of tourism that takes place in places like europe.  We think that, ultimately, this is the way that we choose to live our lives.  We think that, ultimately, we should prefer to live in a world in which people are tolerant of other cultures, and we think that this is the only way to do it.  We think that, ultimately, there's a clear trade-off between the two, and that the more tolerant you are, the more likely you are to have tolerance, and we think that that's a good thing.  And our final argument is that we think it's bad for the economy.  We think that, ultimately, because there's a huge cost to the state to have these kinds of things, it's probably true that, ultimately, if you're going to have this kind of tourism, it's going to come at a cost to the economy.  We think that, ultimately, it's bad for the economy to have this tourism, because it detracts from the ability to spend money in other ways.  We think that, for instance, when you have this kind of tourism, it detracts from spending money in other ways.  For instance, when you have this kind of tourism, it's a good thing that you spend money on things like roads, and hotels, and all these other things, because that helps promote economic growth, and that's ultimately what's going to happen.  So, ultimately, because it's harmful to promote tolerance, and because it's bad for the economy, we think that we should prohibit these kinds of activities.  Thank you. ","[4, 4, 2, 3, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 31948170, 45181383, 45336993, 45567227, 45206691, 45361788, 45567220, 45189900, 45336988, 45538225, 20225558, 21785776]"
391f3188-7cc0-4268-af9b-e99109f58d52,802,We should protect Antarctica,Speech-GPT2,"We should protect Antarctica.  So, in this debate, we're going to argue that the US and other countries should put in place a cap on the amount of ice that will accumulate in the Antarctic region.  We're okay with limiting the winter that people are allowed to have in the summer, and we're okay with limiting the summer that people are allowed to have in the winter.  We're okay with having some sort of semi-annual or annual cap on the amount of ice that's going into the atmosphere, and we're okay with that.  We're okay with having some sort of gradual approach to climate change, where we think that the levels are rising, the temperature is rising, and we're okay with that.  We're okay with a world in which we move away from fossil fuels as the primary driver of climate change, in which we start to replace fossil fuels with green energy, in which we build up more and more nuclear power.  We think that these are all things that are the natural evolution of the environment, and we need to move quickly to protect the environment, because climate change is an existential threat to humanity.  We think that it's the responsibility of the united states to try to put in place a cap on the amount of ice that will accumulate in the Antarctic region, and to do so in a sustainable way.  The reason for this is that, right now, the rate of climate change is accelerating, which means that sea levels are rising, which are destroying coastlines, which are taking away millions of lives from coastal areas, and the list of harms is growing.  We need to act now, before the worst impacts of climate change are coming.  We need to get to the point where we can start to plan for the worst impacts of climate change.  We need to put in place a cap on the amount of ice that's going into the atmosphere, and that's the only way to do it.  So, in this debate, we're going to explain to you why we think that this cap on the amount of ice is the only way to do it, and why that cap is the only way to do it.  The first reason for this is that, right now, the rate of climate change is accelerating.  The global warming that we're seeing is unprecedented in the modern day, and it's accelerating in both directions.  The temperature is rising, which is leading to more extreme weather, which is leading to more droughts, which is leading to more irregular weather, which is leading to more dangerous seasons, which is leading to more erratic patterns, which are leading to increased migration, which is leading to increased environmental disasters, which is leading to bigger problems like the worst impacts of climate change.  All these things are only accelerating, which means that the worst impacts of climate change are going to come to pass.  We need to act now, before the worst impacts of climate change are going to come.  The second reason that we need to act now is because of the environmental costs that we're running.  Right now, the cost of climate change is a pretty big problem, but that's the point.  We need to act now, before the cost is too high, and the cost isn't worth it.  We need to put in place a cap on the amount of ice that's going into the atmosphere, and that's the only way to do it.  We need to build up our nuclear power, and that's the only way to do it.  We need to put in place a cap on the amount of green energy we're putting into the atmosphere, so that we don't put in too much.  We need to put in place a cap on the amount of oil that's being put into the atmosphere, so that we don't put in too much.  We need to make sure that we're not putting in too much coal, which is leading to massive climate change.  And, obviously, we need to protect endangered species, and that's the only way to do it.  And, obviously, we need to protect endangered species, because they're a huge threat to humanity, and it's the only way to do it.  But, besides all of those things, we need to put in place a cap on the amount of carbon that's going into the atmosphere.  The carbon that is put into the atmosphere is a big contributor to global warming, and the biggest contributor to global warming.  If we put in too much carbon, we're leading to climate change, and that's the biggest threat that we're facing, and the biggest danger that we're facing.  And, obviously, we need to act now, before the worst impacts of climate change are going to come, because that's the only way to ensure that we don't have to face those worst impacts.  And that's the only way to ensure that we don't have to face those worst impacts.  The carbon that's put in the atmosphere isn't just damaging to the environment, it's also damaging to humans","[4, 4, 1, 5, 2, 3, 3, 1, 5, 3, 4, 5, 4, 4, 2]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 6432269, 45538225, 21785776, 6340330, 20312760, 28813722, 44690955, 13581319, 45183231, 45191873, 45272708, 45181152, 33708599]"
fac6a4a7-13f5-487c-a1d4-75e5d515fd9c,2654,We should protect whistleblowers,Speech-GPT2,"We should protect whistleblowers.  So, in the status quo, you have a legal system in the united states that is very very loosely regulated.  You have a legal system in the united states that doesn't apply to private corporations, that doesn't apply to companies or to a lot of different kinds of things.  So, for instance, you could have a whistleblower who's going to say, "" this is what I saw.  This is what the government did, "" and the government might not want to hear about it, because it might hurt the company.  So you have this legal system in the united states that is loosely regulated, and this is a problem because you have, in the status quo, a situation in which a lot of the people who are the whistleblowers aren't actually punished.  So, for instance, when you have a company, say, that's violating the law, the US government might not be able to get the information out of that company.  So you have a situation in which, if you're a company that's violating the law, you're not going to be held accountable for it, whereas when you're a whistleblower, you're able to be held accountable.  And that's the way that we need to move forward, right? Because right now, the legal system in the US is sort of shoddier than it needs to be, and that's not really all that great.  We need to get rid of the legal system, and that's what a whistleblower is able to do.  So, for instance, if you're a government scientist, you're able to get a hold of a secret, and you're able to help the US government, and it's like an open book, and the US government is able to use that to blackmail you, in order to get what you want out of the way.  Or like, if you're a major oil company, and you're able to get hold of a secret, and you're able to use that to threaten people, and you're able to use that to like hurt your business, or to like like blackmail you, and the US government doesn't know about it, and the US government doesn't want to hear about it, and that's why they like keep trying to blackmail you, and like keep using like you as like a tool for their own ends.  And like, in like similar kind of way, you can also like, you can also like hack into the computer system of a private corporation, in order to get access to the internal communications of the corporation, and things like that.  Or you can hack a government website, in order to get access to the internal documents of that government.  And these are like very similar kinds of things.  And the reason for that is that, for instance, if you're trying to hack a private corporation, you can use the same kind of methods to do that, without the company being able to fight you, and you can get the same benefits, without the company having to lose out on all of the money that you're trying to get.  So, for instance, you can hack a government website, in order to get access to internal documents, and then you can hack the computer of the private corporation that owns the government's internal communications, in order to get the same kind of benefits.  So, in the same way that you can like hack a private corporation, you can hack a government website, in order to get access to the internal documents of that private corporation.  We think that in the same way that you can hack a private corporation, you can hack a government website, in order to get the same benefits that you're getting from a private corporation, but the government doesn't have to lose out on all the money that you're getting.  So, in the same way that you can't hack a private corporation in order to get access to all of its internal documents, you can't hack a government website, in order to get access to all of its internal documents.  We think that that's the way that we should protect whistleblowers.  We should protect whistleblowers because it's the only way to ensure that the government and the state are actually transparent, and the only way to do that is to have the legal system that is actually enforced.  But also, we think that it's important to recognize that the legal system, the legal system that we live in right now, is very loosely regulated.  We live in a world, for instance, in which the US is not allowed to wiretap phones, and the UK isn't allowed to wiretap phones, and in many countries around the world, like britain isn't allowed to wiretap phones, because of the way that they're used in international relations.  We think that there are many similar violations going on right now, and that at the end of the day, the","[2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 3, 2, 4, 2, 3, 3, 3]",15,"[45190823, 20225558, 13581319, 29155723, 20512953, 45181383, 45272708, 45181152, 45191873, 45411178, 45405037, 6432269, 45189900, 45191882, 6340330]"
18daa440-f62c-417a-9add-62c9b9e569a5,2689,We should subsidize Wikipedia,Speech-GPT2,"We should subsidize Wikipedia.  So, in this debate, we're going to argue that the US federal government should pay more money to subsidize the upkeep of wikis, should make it easier for people to use wikis to find information, and should subsidize, you know, people to use wikis to learn about the world.  Three arguments for why we think it should be done.  The first is that we think that this will lead to a global culture of tolerance.  We think that when you have a more tolerant society, you're more likely to have tolerance for different groups.  When you have a more tolerant society, you're more likely to accept people of all different religions, and you're more likely to accept people of all different nationalities.  So with this in mind, we think that when you have a more tolerant society, you're more likely to accept other people, even if you disagree with them.  We think that one of the biggest problems that the world has right now, where there's a huge divide between nations, is that people don't really accept other cultures.  People don't accept muslims, people don't accept people of different races, and we think that one of the biggest things that the internet can do, besides just the fact that it's great for people to see people of all different races, is that it can provide a platform for people to learn about other cultures, and to interact with people from all different cultures.  And when you have more of a tolerance, one of the biggest things that you can do is promote tolerance.  We think that when you're more tolerant, you're more likely to have a more tolerant society, and that that's something that's good for people to have, because it means that you're more likely to have interactions with different cultures, and you're more likely to have an understanding of the world around you.  You're more likely to have an understanding of the cultures that exist around you, which means that you're more likely to be tolerant of those cultures, and that's the best way to have an open society, one in which you can interact and coexist in a way in which you want to.  We also just think that it's important that this tolerance extends to different religions.  In the status quo, different cultures are treated differently, even if they're not in conflict.  We think that one of the big things that the internet can do is promote tolerance.  So, for example, in the united states, there's a huge amount of hate speech, a huge amount of racism, a huge amount of sexism, and a lack of tolerance.  One of the big things that the internet can do is allow people to have an understanding of other cultures.  It's something that can unite people of all different cultures and all different backgrounds in a way that's really important.  And when you have more of a tolerance, you're more likely to have an understanding of other cultures, and that's the best way to have an inclusive society.  Our second argument is that we think this will lead to a more diverse set of ideas.  In the status quo, the united states is still very segregated, especially in terms of race.  But now we think that one of the biggest problems in the united states is that different cultures are treated differently.  If you have a very white christian society, for example, and you have like a very black american society, and you have a very latino american society, and there's not really a lot of tolerance for people of other cultures.  We think that one of the biggest problems in the US is that different minority groups are treated differently than majority groups.  For example, the chinese, for example, are treated differently than chinese, and that's one of the biggest things that's different between chinese and chinese culture.  We think that one of the biggest things that the internet can do is allow people from different backgrounds to have an understanding of one another's cultures.  We think that one of the biggest things that's different between different cultures is that there's tolerance for one culture to exist alongside another culture, whereas that tolerance isn't allowed in the united states.  So one of the biggest things that the internet can do is allow people from different cultures to interact and to share ideas, and we think that this is one of the biggest things that we can do for people to build understanding and tolerance.  And finally, we think that this is ultimately good for the economy.  In the status quo, for example, you have a huge influx of immigrants because of the economy, but we think that one of the biggest things that the internet can do is encourage more people","[3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 2, 3, 2, 4, 2, 4, 4, 2, 2]",15,"[13581319, 20225558, 45567220, 45677971, 19838540, 45405037, 28813722, 45569485, 45567227, 28810858, 45355658, 45458968, 15448937, 21785776, 45411178]"
fd5ea392-5b54-4319-90f2-7a130fcf9b14,2588,Assisted suicide should be a criminal offence,Arg-Human2,"Permitting assisted suicide would undermine the physician's role as a healer, and could eventually be used as the most financially expedient option.  Euthanasia and assisted suicide is illegal, and there is no role for nurses in facilitating these activities.  When viewed as broad public policy, assisted suicide is bad medicine.  Legalizing assisted suicide would put the elderly and other vulnerable californians in harm's way.  Legalising assisted dying could put vulnerable people at risk.  Legalizing assisted suicide would diminish the value of life and potentially put vulnerable people at risk.  Legalizing assisted suicide will lead to elder abuse.  Legalizing assisted suicide could cause vulnerable people to be killed off prematurely.  Legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia would pose profound risks to many patients.  Legalizing assisted suicide is a recipe for elder abuse.  Physician-assisted suicide will somehow inordinately affect poor and underserved populations.  Physician-assisted suicide is categorically unethical and bars doctors from participation.  The legalization of doctor-assisted suicide would undermine the trust between doctor and patient.  Outlawing assisted suicide was necessary to help prevent abuse of elderly residents by their caregivers who are seeking to profit from their patients' demise.  Voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are gravely unethical, and he defends their continued prohibition by law.  Legalising assisted suicide would ``inevitably'' lead to some vulnerable people opting to end their lives to avoid becoming a burden on their loved ones.  Legalizing assisted suicide would be a slippery slope unto mass euthanasia.  Legalizing assisted suicide would make it too easy for people - including doctors - to give up the fight for health and take a fast exit out of life.  Relaxation in the law on assisted suicide will lead to people who could have continued with meaningful lives dying.  Legalizing physician-assisted suicide will lead to future abuses.  Legalizing assisted suicide would eventually result in the abuse of our most vulnerable citizens.  Legalizing physician-assisted suicide inevitably leads to further erosion of medical ethics and thus crucial protections for ourselves, our loved ones and society.  Physician assisted suicide is completely unnecessary and an affront to the inherent dignity of all people.  Physician-assisted suicide doesn't promote compassion because its focus isn't on eliminating suffering - it's on eliminating the patient.  Medically assisted suicide puts the vulnerable and the elderly at risk.  Decriminalizing assisted suicide sends a dangerous message to society.  Attempts to legalise assisted suicide could create ""collateral damage"" on society and leave vulnerable elderly people exposed to ""darker"" motivations.  Physician-assisted suicide is ""dangerous for the health care profession.  Physician-assisted death is immoral.  Legalized aid in dying discriminates against and harms people with disabilities by leading to their premature and unnecessary deaths.  Physician-assisted suicide was ""immoral and a crime.  Legalizing assisted suicide for the disabled would imperil vulnerable people and deny the supremacy of the sanctity of life.  Genuine fears that assisted suicide could lead to misuse and abuse.  Legalising doctor-assisted suicide will start a slippery slide towards mass euthanasia.  Condoning assisted suicide would undermine the sanctity of life.  The legalisation of assisted suicide would lead to a slippery slope with ultimately more people with a learning disability needlessly dying.  Permitting a regulated regime of assisted suicide would create a real risk of involuntary deaths of vulnerable people.  Legalising assisted suicide would place an intolerable burden on vulnerable people.  The ban on assisted suicide was justified for the good of society.  Legalising assisted suicide would lead to abuse.  Physician-assisted suicide is unethical and should remain illegal.  Euthanasia or assisted suicide will cause great harm.  Physician-assisted suicide is prohibited under jewish law.  The prohibition against assisted suicide is constitutional.  The legalization of assisted suicide in connecticut poses a threat to the lives and liberty of all disabled citizens living in the northeast. ","[5, 4, 3, 4, 3, 2, 5, 5, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 2, 4]",15,"[45953041, 45191885, 45458968, 21017840, 20512953, 34110399, 15448937, 45167145, 28813722, 19838540, 45355658, 6340330, 30777913, 34609243, 45181384]"
fbfa9343-6578-41e7-a68f-adf087e93dbe,3279,Blockade of the Gaza Strip should be ended,Arg-Human2,"The israeli blockade is indeed oppressing the gazans.  Stopping the gaza blockade is actually good for peace.  High unemployment rates and the ongoing israeli blockade imposed on the strip are major reasons for any future eruption of violence.  The israeli blockade on the gaza strip and restrictions on the entry of construction materials into the enclave ""are negatively impacting the lives of palestinians there.  The israeli-egyptian blockade of the gaza strip ""has no place in humanity.  The israeli blockade of the strip is inhumane.  The gaza blockade and the israeli attack on the flotilla of ships were illegal and a violation of international law.  The israeli blockade is an illegal action.  The gaza blockade and the israeli raid are illegal.  The israeli blockade amounts to collective punishment.  The ongoing blockade of the gaza strip denied palestinians access to infrastructure and economic development, as well as access to land and natural resources.  The zionist regime, with continuation of gaza blockade and killing women and children, have created an unprecedented tragedy in current century.  The israeli blockade is illegal and immoral.  The gaza blockade was unjust and counterproductive.  Lifting the blockade of the gaza strip is important in and of itself, because it is the root cause of the conflict between the two nation.  The blockade of the gaza strip imposed by israel had created a tremendous sense of entrapment for the population.  The gaza blockade is illegal and must be lifted.  The israeli blockade is a ""violation of international law.  The israeli blockade has been the primary cause of gaza's impoverishment.  The israeli blockade was a ``dangerous development that must be countered at every turn.  The gaza blockade is unlawful.  The gaza blockade has to be put to an end.  The israeli blockade imposed on the gaza strip over the past eight years has pushed up poverty in the coastal enclave to new highs.  More than four years of israeli blockade weakened the palestinian economy and worsen poverty and unemployment in the enclave.  The israeli blockade has made things even worse because it has helped increase unemployment and consequently poverty.  The israeli blockade on gaza continued to ""disproportionately affect"" civilians and must be lifted.  The gaza blockade could ``undermine rather than strengthen, israel's security.  The israeli blockade had exacerbated the overall employment, housing and sanitation conditions.  Lifting the israeli blockade on the strip, and not merely easing it, is an unquestionable national right.  The israeli blockade had resulted in a stifling of economic activity and a serious decline in education, health care and water and sanitation services in the area.  Ending the israeli blockade imposed on the gaza strip is the basic key to create job opportunities and end years of suffering and poverty in gaza.  A lifting of the israeli blockade of the gaza strip was also a necessary condition for a renewal of ties.  The gaza blockade and shortage of medical aid could lead lead to human catastrophe.  The israeli blockade was ""unacceptable"" and ""unsustainable.  The gaza blockade must be lifted.  In order to ensure a lasting truce the israeli blockade of gaza must be lifted.  The gaza blockade itself is illegal.  The blockade of the gaza strip was inhumane and called on israel to immediately lift it.  The gaza blockade which violates the fundamental rights of the palestinian people is clearly illegal.  The israeli blockade of the gaza strip constitutes collective punishment on a massive scope and scale and is tantamount to a war crime against the palestinian people.  The israeli blockade is illegal under international law, which prohibits collective punishment of a population.  The israeli blockade of gaza is illegal according to the international law. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 2, 1, 5, 4, 4, 4, 2]",15,"[45181384, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45191882, 45189900, 45206691, 45483811, 29155723, 43877630, 45361788, 45336993, 45336988, 44094031, 27934334]"
d4c63443-1746-4856-8fe1-f084cb109854,3195,Casinos should be banned,Arg-Human2,"That casinos will destroy their communities with more crime, traffic and addiction.  New casinos lead to broader societal woes, such as increases in crime, more domestic violence, and lower home values.  New casinos would increase crime and compulsive gambling.  Legalising casinos would threaten the government's stability.  Opening more casinos generally has a negative effect on local lottery sales.  New casinos increase the prevalence of problem gambling.  The casino would cause a huge increase in gambling addiction locally, especially in the neighborhoods around the casino.  Where casinos locate there is an increase in crime, bankruptcy, suicide and divorce.  The costs of these casinos far outweigh any associated benefits.  Mega casinos will lead to increased crime.  The casinos will create: increases in traffic, crime and community dysfunction.  The casino is a social harm and its finances were too ambiguous.  Expanding casino gambling could increase gambling addiction, exploit those suffering from addiction and their families, and have harmful effects on the communities where casinos are located.  The gaming industry does not benefit the economy.  The costs of casino gambling far outweigh any economic benefits derived from its legalization.  The proposed casinos would result in more gambling addiction.  Legalising casinos risks encouraging addiction to gambling among youngsters and those on low incomes.  Social evils such as drugs and prostitution that are associated with casinos would far outweigh the advantages of the enterprise.  Permitting casinos would threaten the success of the lottery.  The casino is hurting area families and the city's image in the region.  The casino could create burdensome traffic, hurt property values and increase crime.  The casino could lead to a spike in crime in the area.  The casino would be bigger and more damaging to the community than the ""entertainment center"" developers have described.  The long-term costs of casinos outweigh the short-term benefits (.  That adding casinos in the state would lead to an increase in gambling addiction.  The potential casinos can have negative side effects to a community, and having one built in one's own hometown can be a controversial topic.  Introducing casinos would create a generation of gambling addicts or spur a new crime wave.  The casino will increase area crime.  Wherever casinos open up there is an increase in crime, divorce, bankruptcy and other social ills.  With opponents fearing that casinos will lead to a rise in social problems, including gambling addiction and organised crime.  The casino could harm the city's quality of life through crime and traffic.  The casino is a bad thing because it will take too much money away from the city.  The casino would lead to an increase in neighborhood crime.  The casino would lead to an uptick in crime or an influx of the wrong element among the ranks of tourists.  The casinos could lead to increased instances of gambling addiction here and create opportunities for nefarious organizations and organized crime syndicates to operate in the shadows of the casinos.  The casinos will lead to an increase in crime and addiction.  The casino complex could attract prostitution and mafia gangs and even encourage gambling addiction.  The opening of casinos here could have an adverse effect on society and create social problems such as gambling addiction and debt troubles, which could lead.  Destination casinos would increase crime.  That casinos invariably attract crime.  Legalizing casinos will lead to problems with gambling addictions and organized crime.  The casino created a hostile work environment.  New casinos would increase societal problems such as crime and compulsive gambling.  The casinos encourage the habit of gambling among the people of the state and thereby undermine public morality.  Gambling casinos are linked to crime. ","[5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 3, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 3]",15,"[45677971, 45567220, 45569485, 45538225, 45567227, 45458968, 21785776, 45181243, 45181253, 45181256, 45190571, 34609243, 19838540, 45355658, 28513847]"
284af649-8f71-4caa-888a-f5b9117533b3,3730,Community service should be mandatory,Arg-Human2,"Community service would benefit society and also reduce the burden on the prison system.  Community service would give people the chance to network and keep job skills current.  Community service learning helps students ""see"" forms of race, gender, and class oppression.  Mandatory ""community service"" could provide an alternative to debtors' prison.  Community service learning provides students with the opportunity to see the social world in a more critical light.  Community service promotes equality, as while a fine would affect people of different wealth in disproportionate ways, community service would be more equal for all.  Community service is teamwork, fun, beneficial and rewarding.  Participation within a variety of community service projects may help individuals to achieve a sense of connectedness and belonging to their community.  Community services played a vital role in the progress and welfare of the nation.  Maintaining community services is ""vital"" to stopping loneliness and isolation.  Community services can demonstrate robust outcomes.  Community service is not only important to our society, but enjoyable, too.  Providing community service is essential to making the community work.  The community service program as it is now is an effective deterrent.  The community service requirement is ""a great opportunity for rha tenants to connect with the community and see how the community works.  Requirements from the region's schools for mandatory community service are a wonderful way to expose youth to social needs.  Community service was a good way of making such individuals realise their mistakes, and to adhere to the road and traffic safety rules in the future.  Service to one's community and country is essential to make societies strong.  The community service work also benefits the students, who gain experience in patient interaction.  Engagement in community services promotes students' academic learning and social and personal development.  The simple act of community service has the ability to transform an entire world in a positive way.  Community service should be required for students because it is a great way to give back to the community.  Community service is rewarding for people.  Community service will be an effective deterrent.  Vital community services, like mcs, play an important role in building strong and healthy communities.  Sustained community service can lead to increased levels of academic learning and workforce readiness skills among youth.  sidebar.  Incorporating community service into classroom instruction usually benefits students.  Community service plays a vital role if a leader is to grow professionally.  Community service is very important for students.  Community work is the most successful deterrent.  Community service will help us diminish inequality among people in our society.  Community service is very important for the development of our young leaders.  Students who do community service perform better in school.  Community service was an essential component for the development of happy, well-rounded individuals.  Community service is vital to a successful reentry.  Compulsory community work has allowed us to raise our level of awareness and understanding of those in need.  Community service strengthens our country by forging societal bonds, enriching communities and building financial capital.  Early involvement in community service helps students build a spirit of civic responsibility, which can then be expanded as they move through secondary school.  Community service would allow offenders to give back to society and feel for others.  Such community service is a great benefit to local governments, churches, youth sports, and other local causes.  Community service is one of the cornerstones of a strong democracy.  Community service is one of the cornerstones of our democracy.  Community service plays a large role in the development of a young person.  The community service curriculum will help emirati and expatriate pupils to engage with the broader community. ","[4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 2, 5]",15,"[45181384, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45191882, 45189900, 45206691, 45483811, 29155723, 43877630, 45361788, 45336993, 45336988, 44094031, 31948170]"
8cfe5587-4889-423a-8360-5c538f24e8c1,2449,Organ donation should be mandatory,Arg-Human2,"Neal said 95 percent of americans think organ donation is a good thing.  Organ donors save lives.  Organ donation helps to save and improve lives of ailing patients.  Organ donation can save valuable lives.  A survey conducted two years ago among 1,400 residents in the uae indicated that about 60 per cent were willing to become organ donors.  The need for organ donors has never been greater.  Organ donation should be made compulsory.  Organ donation should be part of the national curriculum.  Organ donation is critical.  Organ donation should be compulsory because a lot of people are in need.  Organ donation is an important part of life.  ""organ donation should be made a law.  Organ donation was vital since millions die due to organ failure and unavailability of organs.  Organ donation is a good idea.  Anything that helps promote the importance of organ donation is a good thing.  Surveys show that 95 percent of the population thinks organ donation is a good thing.  Organ donation saves and changes lives.  Organ and tissue donation benefits everyone, because anyone can find themselves on the waiting list at any time.  Around 70% of people in the uk believe that organ donation is the right thing to do.  More organ donors would mean more lives would be saved and significant savings for the government on costs on expensive dialysis.  Clinical lead for organ donation at the hospital dr john hall said: ""organ donation is hugely important, as it saves thousands of lives every year.  ""evidence has shown that the vast majority of people support organ donation.  Organ donation could resolve many health problems.  The organ donation program is a great thing.  Organ donation is a beautiful way to continue to help the world long after a person has left, giving life after death.  Organ donation is a good thing.  Katie fox, specialist nurse for organ donation at queen's hospital, burton, said: ""organ donation saves lives and one organ donor can save or transform up to nine lives and even more by donating tissue as well.  Dr vikas sobti of max health care, said: ""organ donation is an important way to help humanity.  Alvarez said christine donaldson still believes that organ donation is important.  Organ donation is the right thing to do.  Organ donation saves lives, and we believe the new legislation will help to increase the number of people potentially able to contribute to the organ donation pool.  Organ donation is a beautiful way to continueto help the world long after a person has left, giving life after de ath.  Organ donation saves lives; increasing the rate of organ donation allows us to save more lives.  Encouraging organ donation will help the country's economy.  The move was prompted by supervisor don knabe, who said that a single organ donor can save up to eight lives and tissue donors can heal up to 50 other people.  Organ donation is vital for the treatment and quality of life of patients of all ages - including children - living with a wide variety of conditions.  Organ donation is a ""fundamental human obligation.  Market research has shown that 90 per cent of people support organ donation.  Organ donation is essential to save lives.  Organ donation is so important clinically.  Being an organ donor is the hallmark of being human.  Organ donation is a way of everyone helping others benefit.  Organ donation is an excellent process.  Surveys show that 95 percent of tennesseans strongly support organ and tissue donation.  Organ donation is in many ways beneficial.  Organ donation is a supreme obligation, a fundamental responsibility.  Organ donation is important.  Organ donation should be mandatory. ","[5, 5, 3, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 20225558, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45181384, 45458968, 45538225, 6432269, 45189900, 45191882, 45336988, 45336993, 43877630]"
b481b1f4-11a2-4824-8fa5-2950899caed0,2108,Surrogacy should be banned,Arg-Human2,"Surrogate motherhood will bring serious legal, ethical and social problems, which will disturb the ethical order of society.  Surrogacy was now ""absolutely banned.  Surrogacy is prohibited or restricted in many european countries.  The practice of surrogate motherhood should become a universal crime.  Surrogacy as it is currently practiced exploits and reinforces inequalities, making it undesirable.  Surrogacy is sinful.  The practice of surrogacy unfairly benefits the wealthy who can afford it, while exploiting those of lesser means.  Commercial surrogacy leads to human trafficking and the exploitation of women.  Surrogacy is risky.  Surrogacy is completely prohibited under this bill.  Surrogacy treats children like commodities that are manufactured by renting wombs.  Surrogacy be deemed illegal.  Surrogacy is illegal in italy.  Surrogate pregnancies demean women and children by turning them into commercial enterprises.  Surrogacy can't be legal in the country.  Surrogacy is circumventing adoption laws and exploits women.  Surrogacy is banned in india.  Surrogacy is an ""immoral"" practice that ""brings harm to both mother and the child.  Surrogacy robs children of their constitutional rights and reduces their birth mothers to the status of 'breeders.  Surrogacy should be treated ""like a sex crime.  Surrogacy disturbs the ethical order of society and may cause physical or psychological harm to surrogate mothers and their children.  Surrogacy reduces a woman's womb to an object for rent and that its allowance can lead to people exploiting other people's wombs for financial purposes.  Surrogacy is akin to human trafficking.  Surrogacy is against indian ethos and moral values and should not be encouraged.  Surrogacy should be treated as a ""sex crime.  Commercial surrogacy portrays women as objects and leads to the commercialisation.  Commercial surrogacy is illegal here (as in many other countries around the world.  Surrogacy has been shown to have a negative impact on children.  Surrogacy is a ""punishable offense"" under german law.  Surrogacy is a fraught practice ethically, legally and psychologically and is not in the best interests of birth mothers or children.  Surrogacy is illegal for nepalis.  Surrogacy can be arduous and fraught with regrets.  Commercial surrogacy is immoral because of the exploitation of women and children it entails and therefore applies hefty repercussions on transgressors of this moral code.  Surrogacy would have a negative impact on the child's well-being and development.  Surrogacy would have a negative impact on the child's psychological wellbeing.  Surrogacy is dangerous for the woman's mental and physical health.  Promoting commercial surrogacy in a country with no regulatory oversight may lead to ""baby farms.  Commercial surrogacy turns children into articles for sale and surrogate mothers into paid breeding machines.  Surrogacy is wrong because it exploits women's bodies and reproductive rights.  Paid surrogacy ""will lead to the exploitation of women, especially poorer ones, by more affluent couples.  Surrogacy is exploitative and degrading for the women.  Surrogacy inevitably leads to ethical problems and legal disputes.  Surrogacy is unforgivable.  Surrogate motherhood will bring serious legal, ethical and social problems.  That paying for surrogacy will lead to exploitation.  The surrogacy of the babies is illegal.  Commercial surrogacy is immoral and is opposed to public policy and therefore void.  Surrogacy is as big an evil as female foeticide.  Surrogacy act is against all norms of human life and is morally and physically devastating to the society.  Surrogacy would cause problems.  Commercial surrogacy should be banned as it was opposed to public policy, was unethical and violated the constitution as it amounted to exploitation of indian womanhood.  The proposed legislation will ban commercial surrogacy and possibly make it a criminal offence.  In the uk, commercial surrogacy is a criminal offence.  Surrogacy is forbidden in islam.  Surrogacy is a human right abuse.  Surrogacy was a form of human trafficking. ","[5, 5, 4, 1, 4, 4, 1, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 3, 4, 4]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 6432269, 45538225, 45336993, 45189900, 45411178, 45361788, 45190571, 45181383, 45401087, 21785776, 20225558, 45567220, 30777913]"
008b95ce-66d5-4b1e-ad0b-ae023339476d,3759,Tattoos should be banned,Arg-Human2,"Tattoos are synonymous with criminal activity.  Tattoos are unprofessional.  Tattooing is a crime.  Tattoos carry a risk of irritation and infection.  Prominent tattoos ""damage the professional image"" of the country's biggest force.  Unsanitary piercing and tattooing can lead to infections like hiv and hepatitis.  Tattoos can be dangerous.  Tattoos can cause infection, sweat problems - and even serious regret.  The study found that acute problems were more likely among people who had many tattoos and tattoos that covered a large part of their body.  Tattooing could cause hiv infections.  Tattoos can be dangerous.  A tattoo is associated with aggression.  Tattoos are associated with deviant behaviour.  Tattoos can increase the risk of skin cancer.  Tattoos have long-term medical risks which may lead to chronic complications that require surgical treatment.  Tattoos are still considered unacceptable in many workplaces.  Tattoos can lead to errors in medical treatment.  There is no evidence stating that inks used for tattoo are safe.  Tattoos are linked to an increased risk of cancer, according to news. com. au.  Tattoos cause many people to suffer long term skin issues, leaving them in pain and enduring emotional distress.  People with tattoos are generally less intelligent and most crime is committed by people with tattoos.  Tattoos are sinful and a waste of money.  Tattoos can lead to infections and allergies.  Having a visible tattoo can have negative impacts on their employment opportunities.  The process of getting tattoos and the colors which are used can lead to infections and allergic reactions.  Tattoo and piercings can lead to allergic reactions, skin infections and blood-borne diseases like tetanus and hepatitis, besides viral transmission.  Tattoos are linked to an increased risk of cancer.  Tattoos harm career prospects.  The infected needles used for tattooing can cause infections, hepatitis c, hepatitis b and hiv.  Tattoos may lead to serious viral infections like hepatitis b and hiv, in absence of proper care and hygiene.  Tattooed individuals exhibited significantly higher levels of verbal aggression, anger, and reactive rebelliousness when compared with non-tattooed adults.  Tattoos undermine and ruin the myanmar culture.  These new tattoos are very dangerous.  Getting a tattoo is a bad idea.  The tattoo particles may lead to chronic enlargement of the lymph nodes over a lifelong exposure.  Tattoos and piercings could undermine a patient's confidence in an employee's professionalism.  Getting a tattoo can lead to skin allergies.  Getting tattoos could have long-term health risks that were previously unknown.  Proving those with tattoos stand higher risk of getting viral hepatitis, which is a blood-borne infection.  Tattoos is counterproductive.  Tattoos would have agreater negative effect on customers' service quality perceptions.  There have been reports that non-sterile tattooing practices have led to the transmission of syphilis, hepatitis b and c, and other infectious organisms. "".  Tattoos may hinder students' abilities of obtaining professional jobs.  Colored tattoos can increase the risk of cancer.  Tattooing is revolting and repulsive.  The tattoo itself might cause certain skin diseases.  Tattoos are bad for your health, or just plain nasty.  Black henna tattoos may cause harmful skin reactions in some people.  Tattoos can have a negative impact on the workplace.  Tattooing is a dangerous fashion and should be shunned for good health.  Tattooing carries the risk of infection from hiv and hepatitis, as well as skin complications such as scarring and granulomas.  Tattoos are harmful to the human lymph nodes.  Tattoos can cause serious infections.  The survey found that 60. 6 percent of respondents indicated that visible tattoos had a negative affect on an individual's chance of being hired.  Tattoos can cause skin problems and allergic reactions.  Tattoos are unprofessional and offensive.  Tattoos have the potential to cause skin diseases, dermatitis, eczema, and contribute to the spread of aids. ","[4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 3, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 1, 4, 4]",15,"[45185975, 45191882, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 31948170, 45190823, 21785776, 13581319, 34110399, 29155723, 45355658, 45169947, 45405037, 19838540]"
556166ed-a372-485f-97f0-38699525517f,2604,The right to Internet access should be protected,Arg-Human2,"Access to the internet is a human right.  Internet access has been declared to be a human right.  More countries should recognize internet access as a human right.  Internet access is a social right.  Access to internet is particularly central for freedom of expression and should be provided for as a civic and political right.  In 2011, united nations declared internet access as a human right, putting it on par with the right to freedom of opinion and expression.  Some governments already recognize access to the internet as a human right.  Last week, the un human rights council passed a resolution classifying the censorship of the internet as a human rights violation.  In 2015, un had declared internet access as a human right, and last month, kerala became the first indian state to declare the internet as a basic right for every citizen.  Idc believes that the recent proposal to include the right to internet access in the federal constitution will create a positive impact in driving the digital economy and gross domestic product (gdp) of the country.  Right to the internet access is recognised as a human right by un.  Right to internet access is universal and not restricted by the indian government.  With its passage, the human rights council now officially recognises that people have a right to internet access and online freedom of expression.  The un now classifies internet access as a human right.  The right to internet access has been elevated to a basic right.  Net neutrality, open free access to the internet, is critical not only to our democracy, but also to building our economy.  The right to internet access is synonymous with human rights, the minister said adding the government should ensure free internet access for its all citizens to remove digital divide.  Precisely, authorities need to understand that the right to internet access is fundamental human right including freedom of expression, right to freedom of speech etc.  te access should not even be denied unreasonably to an individual.  Free access to the internet is a huge benefit.  So here the concept of e governance seems a process to slice out people out of the global village,"" wrote a jammu kashmir bank officer adding that authorities should understand that the right to internet access is fundamental human right including freedom of expression, right to freedom of speech etc.  While the united nations has declared internet access as a human right, mobile internet still isn't affordable in many developing countries which deprives many off the opportunities to learn and access valuable services.  The citizens' right to internet access is ""non-negotiable"", and the government will not allow any company to restrict people's entry to the internet.  The citizens' right to internet access is ""non-negotiable"", and the government will not allow any company to restrict people's entry to the internet, it minister ravi shankar prasad said on thursday.  Nearly two years ago, secretary of state hillary clinton boldly declared ""the freedom to connect"" as an essential avenue for the exercise of fundamental human rights, saying that ""governments should not prevent people from connecting to the internet, to websites or to each other. "".  Internet access ought to be an essential right for all citizens.  Everyone in the world should have the right to internet access.  The bench led by justice dipak misra has said that right to internet access is a part of fundamental right of expression.  The right to internet access, also known as the right to broadband or freedom to connect, is now a basic human right.  Internet access is a human right.  The right to internet access is synonymous with human rights.  The right to internet access is basically the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information.  The right to internet access is a human right. ","[5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 1, 2, 3, 2]",15,"[45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 45191882, 45189900, 45206691, 45181384, 45190571, 45181383, 45401087, 43877630, 6367365, 45190823, 44094031]"
8bb968af-87e3-4aef-8ab8-fdb69cd0f5ac,3234,The use of AI should be abandoned,Arg-Human2,"The technology behind ai is likely to fail, resulting in robots destroying human life.  Greater use of ai will lead to worsening inequality because large companies can make bigger profits using ai and the improved efficiency it can bring.  Intelligent ai is the greatest risk to the future of humanity.  Artificial intelligence will lead to more monopolies.  The advancement of ai will lead to job loss.  The development of true artificial intelligence might lead to the extinction of humanity.  Artificial intelligence is a terrifying problem and a threat to human civilization.  Artificial intelligence poses an existential threat to humanity.  Robots and ai will lead to unemployment.  The ultimate effect of ai could do more harm than good for people's jobs and livelihoods.  Increasingly powerful ai systems may lead to unintended and even disastrous consequences.  Use of ai may dilute the patient-provider relationship and potentially replace clinician roles in the future.  Intelligent machines will lead to a significant loss of production jobs across multiple industries.  Steady advances in ai and robotics threaten virtually every human vocation.  Artificial intelligence threatens to destroy mankind.  Intelligent machines could pose a risk to civilization.  The rapid development of ai could pose certain significant risks.  Artificial intelligence is a greater threat to civilisation than the north korean regime.  Intelligent machines might pose a threat to humanity.  Artificial intelligence represents an imminent threat to humanity.  Artificial intelligence is ''potentially more dangerous than nukes.  Artificial intelligence will reduce the number of jobs available to people without a college education.  Artificial intelligence will threaten all human jobs and could even spark a war.  The advancement of ai might steal jobs from humans.  The threat of artificial intelligence is more dangerous than that of north korea's nuclear ambitions.  Concerns were shared by elon musk, bill gates and steve wozniak who, along with more than 8,000 leading researchers and scientists, signed a letter warning that artificial intelligence can potentially be more dangerous than nuclear weapons.  Autonomous weapon systems powered by ai could shatter international laws and could create chaos everywhere.  Artificial intelligence would eventually render humans obsolete.  True ai represents the ""biggest risk to human existence.  The rise of artificial intelligence will lead to an increase in social engineering attacks, network penetrations, and data theft.  The development of ai could lead to the destruction of humanity by diminishing the value of human beings.  The advancement in ai might be dangerous to the human race in the future.  The integration of ai will result in a loss of jobs.  The rise of artificially intelligent machines could prove disastrous for humanity.  The threat that ai poses is too great to react to.  The quest for singularity and ai self-awareness is dangerous.  Artificial intelligence will eventually lead to jobs being automated - and then to unemployment.  Increased use of ai could lead to a loss of jobs and make workers redundant.  Machine intelligence will lead the optimal form of creative destruction.  Super-smart artificial intelligence (ai) could eventually replace humanity.  The growth of ai is the biggest threat to mankind.  Artificial intelligence is the greatest existential threat to human life in this century.  The creation of full artificial intelligence could threaten the existence of humanity.  The rise of ai could be dangerous.  The ai is completely moronic.  Artificial intelligence is one of the biggest threats facing the future of humanity.  Artificial intelligence is ""the greatest risk we face as a civilization.  The artificial intelligence is a much bigger threat than nuclear weapons.  Artificial intelligence will threaten the survival of human populations.  Artificial intelligence poses a threat to humanity.  Artificial intelligence should be viewed as a threat to the human race.  Artificial intelligence poses a threat. ","[2, 4, 3, 4, 1, 4, 3, 4, 4, 2, 5, 5, 5, 3, 5]",15,"[13581319, 19838540, 20225558, 45355658, 29155723, 20512953, 44044795, 45677971, 45567220, 45190823, 28810858, 15448937, 45458968, 28513847, 45405037]"
9eac0e10-1f7f-48bd-94b7-f34233ff63f8,3207,We should abandon social media,Arg-Human2,"Social media is exacerbating the problem because it encourages travellers to compete by checking-in and sharing images from far-flung destinations.  Social media is harmful (vs.  Social media plays a negative role in relationships.  Social media is damaging society.  The social media is causing fear in the city.  Social media plays a negative and sometimes overwhelming part in society.  Social media is dangerous.  Social media is allowing children - and adults, too - to be nasty in new and inventive ways.  Social media is potentially harmful to democracy.  Social media is damaging to a user's sense of self-worth, resulting in increased levels of depression, anxiety, and loneliness.  The social media sites encourage negative behaviors for teen students such as procrastination (catching up with friends.  Social media is a 'distraction' that should be banned at work.  Social media was an impediment to patient care.  Social media is a danger to children.  Social media is harmful to adolescents, that excessive time on social media is linked to things like depression, unhappiness.  Social media is increasing political risk, especially in emerging markets.  The consequences of social media far outweigh the benefits.  Social media use is linked with increased anxiety, depression and poor sleep.  The social media culture encourages poor english grammar and spelling.  Social media poses various threats.  Social media is a dangerous and addictive game.  Social media poses a threat to the personal interaction that occurs on the show floor.  Social media platforms were undermining traditional journalistic values.  The use of social media at work leads to information stress.  Social media sometimes create problems.  Social media is worthless.  Social media use is associated with negative body image and eating disorders, depression, anxiety and can also have an impact on your relationship and sleep patterns.  Social media is bad for kids.  Social media is actually bad for your health.  Social media is a horrible thing that happened to american society.  Using multiple social media platforms could be emotionally and mentally harmful to adults.  Social media is making us anti-social because we tend to go on social media at the most inappropriate times.  The mixing of personal and professional connections through social media can cause problems at work.  The social media are dangerous if not controlled because they can lead to civic mobilisation.  Social media is especially dangerous because it fosters the creation of echo chambers rife with tribal confirmation bias.  Social media is a waste of time.  Social media is bad for your brain.  Using the social media site makes people sad.  Social media is leading in the spreading of hatred which is in turn breeding violence among people.  Social media is harmful for careers because it is too much of a distraction and doesn't provide a valuable return on investment professionally.  Social media is worse than useless.  The social media is a trash.  Social media is ruining the world.  Social media often leads to mental health issues such as depression and low self-esteem issues.  Social media use leads to less satisfaction in life and more depression.  Social media is unsafe with the increasing cases of cyber crime.  Social media is a dangerous place.  Social media hinders or undermines a youngster's moral development.  Social media makes it easier for kids to get into trouble.  Social media would undermine professional reporting.  Social media is harmful to humanity.  Unrestricted usage of social media has a negative impact on employee productivity.  Use of social media could potentially increase the exposure of physicians to disciplinary and medico-legal issues.  Social media is bad for democracy.  Social media websites can generate dangers of social isolation, leaving social contacts to be electronic rather than face to face. ","[1, 3, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 1, 1, 3, 5, 5, 2, 4, 2]",15,"[45538225, 20312760, 44690955, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 43984981, 34110399, 34854490, 45191882, 45206691, 34609243, 45189900, 27934334]"
59862d89-389f-4767-97b6-d91077870208,3194,We should abandon television,Arg-Human2,"Likely the television keeps kids from getting enough sleep - which can also increase the risk of obesity.  Prolonged television watching decreases viewers' sense of self efficacy in maintaining personal health.  Television has bad effects on a very young child.  Television is the leading cause of violence in today's society.  Television is bad for children and should not be viewed at all by the under threes.  Television has a high level of violence.  Television can be harmful for young children, especially those under the age of two.  Television viewing is associated with unhealthy eating behaviors.  Television is bad for kids.  High levels of television viewing were associated with a greater cardio-metabolic risk than computer use.  Several studies and surveys show that excessive television watching is linked to everything from poor heart health to being overweight.  Television viewing is a risk for excess weight gain among adolescents.  Entertainment tv promotes a lot of very harmful stereotypes for young women.  Television is bad for children.  Television teaches violence.  Children who watched too much television were at a greater risk of diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure.  Television watching in excess is harmful.  Television and computer games are damaging for youths.  The constant viewing of tv violence leads to a compromise with violence.  Prolonged television viewing may be a risky behaviour for death from pulmonary embolism.  Excess tv viewing in childhood predicts risk for obesity well into adulthood.  Television was a potential threat to family life.  Television is a top culprit in the lack of sleep.  Television has failed in its idealistic and visionary promise of educating the populace and raising the level of public discourse across society.  Television viewing can increase a child's display of aggression.  Watching television (tv) for several hours is harmful to health.  Excessive tv viewing leads to poor educational achievement.  Excessive television can have long-term consequences.  Television has a negative impact on the minds and bodies of older people.  Television is potentially dangerous for people of all ages.  Excessive television can have long-term consequences for behaviour.  Exposure to violence in television can be harmful to a child's developing brain.  Excessive television is linked to sleep problems, behavior problems and even risky behaviors.  Brutality on television could be the direct cause for juvenile crime.  Television viewing negatively impacts on the development of children under three and poses risks such as encouraging passivity.  Excess tv viewing has negative consequences to health.  Watching too much of television is bad for heart.  Television is a ""bad influence.  Researchers has indicated that prolonged tv viewing is associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and premature death, a private tv channel reported.  Television viewing affects mental development in children and is bad for health in general.  Television has a negative influence.  Television can be harmful for babies and toddlers.  Television is too violent.  Watching too much television can destroy our brain cells and generally turn people into zombies.  Excess television viewing in children increased the risk of criminal conviction later in life.  Watching too much television caused the antisocial outcomes.  Television is a waste of one's life.  Watching excessive amounts of tv is bad for your health.  Even small reductions in television viewing could lead to vast public health improvements.  Excessive tv watching can lead to poor behaviour.  Watching less tv can reduce the risk of diabetes to a great extent.  Audience analysis, cultivation, media effects, international, theory of reasoned action cultivation analysis argues that long-term exposure to television content leads to a distorted perception of reality. 1.  Television is a passive and sedentary activity that is threatening the health of our nation.  Television and film violence encourages aggression in a number of ways.  Television could be as destructive as a nuclear weapon. ","[2, 4, 4, 3, 2, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 3, 1, 5, 5, 2]",15,"[45190823, 20225558, 45189900, 28813722, 45405037, 45181383, 45191873, 45181152, 45272708, 45411178, 20512953, 29155723, 6432269, 15448937, 34609243]"
c931a0c6-6e0a-471e-9f2e-4713aed15523,3222,We should abolish bitcoins,Arg-Human2,"Bitcoin carries risks of significant losses, fraud and theft.  The bitcoin is a threat to investors.  Bitcoins were linked to criminal activities, including extortion, money laundering and terrorism.  Bitcoin is sometimes associated with shady business deals.  The production of bitcoins uses so much energy it threatens to seriously harm the planet.  Bitcoin was a dangerous speculative bubble and a toxic concept for investors.  Bitcoins would pose a threat to the paypal platform.  Bitcoin is a fraud.  Bitcoin is a ""fraud.  Bitcoin could pose a threat to the financial stability of traditional currencies and markets.  Bitcoin is a threat to the revenue streams of taxing authorities and traditional banks.  Bitcoin is intrinsically worthless.  Bitcoin represents extreme risk and volatility.  Bitcoin has been used to launder money and facilitate criminal activity.  Bitcoin is used for criminal activity.  Bitcoin has no future.  Two weeks ago, china's central bank said bitcoin was not a currency and thus prohibited local financial institutions from processing bitcoin transaction.  Bitcoin makes it far too easy for criminals to launder money.  Bitcoin would lead to an increase in global warming by two degrees.  Bitcoin is a fraud because all of the value is being driven by speculation and not utility.  Bitcoin is terribly inefficient.  Bitcoin is ""dangerous.  Investing in bitcoins is illegal.  Bitcoin is intrinsically worthless,.  Dealing in bitcoin is a crime.  What they did: the study estimates that bitcoin usage emitted 69 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2017, while accounting for just 0. 033% of cashless transactions in the same year.  Such currencies as bitcoin pose threat tothe global economy.  Bitcoin was ""stupid"" and ""far too dangerous.  Bitcoin could threaten the stability of banks.  Bitcoin isn't a good method of payment .  Caption economist joseph stiglitz speaks about strengthening global tax policy at the 2016 imf world bank spring meeting in washington source thomson reuters nobel-prize winning economist joseph stiglitz says bitcoin serves no useful function - other than circumventing legality.  The widespread adoption of bitcoin could bring serious risks to the established financial system.  Washington - u. s.  attorney general eric holder told a congressional panel tuesday that bitcoin and other virtual currencies raise new risks for money laundering and other illegal activity.  Bitcoin is a ""dangerous"" investment.  Writing to attorney general eric holder and drug enforcement administration chief michele leonhart, the senators denounced bitcoin because it is used on silk road, an online market for illicit drugs.  Being said, bitcoin can still be used for criminal activities.  Bitcoin is bad for the environment.  Investing in bitcoin is a bad and dangerous idea.  The bitcoin could become a threat to financial stability if its usage grew significantly.  Using the virtual currency bitcoin is dangerous.  Bitcoin is a ""toxic concept"" and a ""dangerous, speculative bubble.  The bitcoin's volatility makes it a poor store of value and, therefore, a lousy inflation hedge.  Bitcoins could also abet illegal transactions.  Bitcoin is ""not a stable source of value"" and is ""a highly speculative asset.  Bitcoin was overhyped and potentially dangerous.  Currencies like bitcoin only lead to greater financial fraud and cybercrime.  Bitcoin was too volatile and a risky investment.  Bitcoins might become 'an increasingly useful tool for various illegal activities beyond the cyber realm'.  Bitcoins are starting to become another alternative mode for drug traffickers.  Bitcoin is ""disruptive to our economy"" and ripe for abuse by criminals.  Bitcoins, given its circulation, will pose a significant threat on hong kong's financial system.  Bitcoin could destroy the planet.  Bitcoin is not safe.  Bitcoin is a ""fraud worse than tulip bulbs.  Virtual currencies - the bitcoin remains the optimal currency for criminals.  Bitcoin is intrinsically worthless.  Bitcoin futures pose a systemic risk. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 1, 4, 2, 4, 2, 4, 1, 2]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 20225558, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45181384, 45538225, 6432269, 21785776, 45458968, 45405037, 13581319, 45190823, 43877630]"
5d5355dd-839a-4d3b-b823-147c4d19b5ee,3227,We should abolish capital punishment,Arg-Human2,"Using the death penalty is fiscally irresponsible in this economy.  The imposition of the death penalty contravened the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, and should be considered illegal.  The death penalty violates the dignity and inviolability of the life of a person.  The death penalty violates the right to life and is cruel, inhuman and degrading.  The death penalty was a cruel and inhuman punishment with no proven deterrent effect on crimes, and called for the progressive restriction of the death penalty.  The death penalty was cruel and inhumane.  There is no concrete evidence showing that the death penalty actually deters crime.  The death sentence is unconstitutional, inhuman and uncultured.  The death penalty was unconstitutional.  There is no slightest credible evidence that capital punishment reduces the rate of homicide.  There is no empirical evidence that supports the claim that death penalty does in fact deter crime.  The death penalty was a violation of the right to life.  The moratorium on the death penalty and its abolition would improve the protection of human rights and promotion of inclusive societies.  There is no empirical evidence that capital punishment is an effective deterrent.  The death penalty was 'inherently cruel, inhuman and degrading.  The imposition of capital punishment is evil.  There is very little evidence that the death penalty discourages violent crime.  The death penalty was both uneconomic and unnecessary, as well as unjust.  There is no evidence that the death penalty is more of a deterrent to crime than other forms of punishment.  There is no evidence that capital punishment is a deterrent to crime.  The death penalty was expensive and ineffective.  There is no evidence that the death penalty deters violent crime,"" alasti said.  There is no evidence that the death penalty is a particular deterrent to crime, and its use will not eradicate violence against women in india.  There is no evidence to suggest that the death penalty reduces crime.  There was no evidence that capital punishment deterred crime, contrary to the arguments of duterte allies.  There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that increasing executions leads to a reduction in crime.  There is 'no reliable evidence that the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime. '.  There is no evidence to prove that death penalty helps reduce further crime.  The death penalty was immoral and not a deterrent to crime.  The death penalty undermines human dignity and there is no conclusive evidence available that it deters crime.  There is no credible evidence that the death penalty effectively deters crime.  There is no evidence that the death penalty actually prevents crime.  There is no scientific proof that shows that death penalty is a deterrent to criminal behavior.  There is no convincing evidence to indicate that the death penalty works as a special deterrent against crime.  There was no proof that the death penalty was a deterrent to crime.  There is no substantial evidence that capital punishment actually deters violent crime. "".  The death sentence is barbaric and it needs to be abolished.  There was ""no evidence that the death penalty deters any crime. "".  The death penalty's drawbacks outweigh its benefits.  There is still no proof that the death penalty even deters crime.  There is no evidence that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to crime.  The state's death penalty was unconstitutional.  The state's death penalty is unconstitutional and is at odds with today's societal values.  The death penalty was incompatible with fundamental human rights.  The death penalty violates the state constitution.  The imposition of a sentence of death inevitably caused suffering.  The death penalty violates the right to life as proclaimed in the universal declaration of human rights. ","[5, 5, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 4, 5]",15,"[6432269, 45567220, 45567227, 45538225, 13581319, 20225558, 45191882, 45206691, 45361788, 45336988, 45189900, 45336993, 29155723, 45355658, 30777913]"
f571c44f-5c98-4de7-b659-25162e0a0d5b,3661,We should abolish foster care,Arg-Human2,"The foster care environment can sometimes lead to further instability and trauma in this already vulnerable population.  Needlessly placing children in foster care could lead to more harm than good.  Wexler added that needlessly placing children in foster care could lead to more harm than good.  Foster care is worse than leaving children in their own homes in typical child welfare cases, and even in many cases involving children born with cocaine in their systems.  Foster care has a negative impact on biological children.  This study provides convincing evidence that foster care has detrimental effects on a mother's health and wellbeing.  Children in foster care experience significant academic challenges.  The story, and several others covering the same government report, highlight the fact that doctors are giving children in foster care powerful mind-altering drugs at a much higher rate and dosage than other children.  Foster care often leads to health problems, addiction, homelessness, early pregnancy, domestic violence, arrest, incarceration, and sex trafficking.  Kids in foster care often don't have school stability.  Foster children may have been severely neglected, suffer from physical and sexual abuse and may have emotional problems.  Children placed in the foster care system often perform below average academically.  Foster care placement is a risk factor for health problems in childhood.  Youth in foster care do worse across many measures than other youth.  There is no evidence that foster care would be an improvement over a home situation.  The foster care program is a failure in the state as there are only few takers.  The foster care system here is a colossal failure.  Long term foster care creates problems because children resent continued social work involvement.  Placing a child in foster care may cause more harm.  Children in foster care are four times more likely to be exposed to sexual abuse.  Something like foster care could do great damage (emotionally) to a child.  Children in foster care are at particular risk of receiving too many or inappropriate medications.  The foster care system has failed children.  Foster youth often fare worse on standardized tests and report higher dropout rates, absenteeism and truancy.  Girls in foster care are at an increased risk of being trafficked.  The panelists also noted that children who are in foster care are at a higher risk of becoming victims of sex trafficking.  The broken foster care system has detrimental effects that bleed into many different aspects of society including homelessness and poverty, the mental health sector and prison reform.  The foster care system has failed so many mothers.  Long term stays in foster care do not promote child well-being.  Children put into the foster care system suffer from abuse and harm far more often than they do if left in ""troubled"" homes.  Children raised in foster care face increased risks of substance abuse, homelessness and teen pregnancy.  Thousands of texas children are molested or raped while in foster care every year, according to the most recent data texas self-reported to the federal government and according to the 2015 ruling u. s.  district judge janis graham jack issued in 2015 when she declared that texas' foster care system was unconstitutional.  A large part of the state's foster care system was unconstitutional and dangerous to children.  Foster care has detrimental effects on a mother's health and wellbeing.  Foster care is as bad or worse than severe, horrifying abuse.  The state's foster care system has real problems.  The texas foster care system violates the constitutional rights of many children in its care by failing to protect them from harm.  The foster care system violates the rights of children.  Foster care is a pipeline for the commercial sexual exploitation of children. ","[4, 1, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 3, 2, 2]",15,"[6432269, 45538225, 20312760, 44690955, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 43984981, 45189900, 45206691, 45191882, 9559045, 27934334, 44094031]"
e51bb257-3827-49cb-8b7e-6d2e391f1896,2694,We should abolish intelligence tests,Arg-Human2,"After a lengthy trial in 1979 judge peckham permanently prohibited the use of iq testing for placing african-american students in classes for emr or ""their substantial equivalent"" after concluding that iq tests were racially and culturally biased, and thus were responsible for the disproportionate placement of africanamerican students in dead-end classes (larry p.  v.  wilson riles, 1986).  Mandatory intelligence testing would doom us to government by the intelligent.  Conventional iq tests are inadequate for understanding the deficits of a child who has lead poisoning.  Iq tests are culturally biased towards the modern world.  Florida's method of determining intellectual disability via an iq test was unconstitutional.  Iq tests hardly have a good reputation to begin with.  Intelligence tests are a poor measure of future attainment and the worth of a person to society.  Iq tests have a margin of error.  Intelligence tests suffer from 'inherent imprecision.  The first weakness of his thesis is the fact that scientists have not proved that the iq test is a reliable indicator of a person's actual intelligence.  Recent studies share the common finding that iq testing is ineffective in the identification of students with learning disabilities.  Iq testing is ineffective in the identification of students with learning disabilities.  ) iq tests serve no educational purpose whatsoever.  New research has thrown out the old idea that iq tests predict life success.  Iq testing is actually rather 'meaningless.  Iq tests are a ridiculous idea.  In a separate self-control study, angela l.  duckworth, an assistant psychology professor at the university of pennsylvania, even found that self-control was a better predictor of a student's academic performance than an iq test.  Many intelligence tests are culturally flawed and unfair.  Of all people, shockley should have known that intelligence tests are a poor measure of future attainment and the worth of a person to society.  Iq test at school level is not good for the psychology of children.  Suggesting iq tests is pointless.  A national focus on standardized tests and iq scores is hampering global progress.  Keith stanovich, a professor of human development and applied psychology at the university of toronto, believes intelligence tests such as iq tests or sat/act exams do a very poor job of measuring rational thought.  Most intelligence tests fail to capture real-world decision-making and our ability to interact well with others.  Grossman and his colleagues argue that most intelligence tests fail to capture real-world decision-making and our ability to interact well with others.  Clearly rating a superintelligence using an iq test is useless.  Intelligence testing contributes to racist and genocidal practices, such as eugenics.  Prof.  robert sternberg argues that a national focus on standardized tests and iq scores is hampering global progress.  Stated intelligence tests are biased against minorities.  The iq tests are made by whites and so disadvantage blacks.  Iq testing minimizes the role of creativity in intelligence and problem-solving.  Iq testing is fundamentally flawed and doesn't measure a person's true intelligence.  Iq tests are culturally biased.  Iq tests are actually pretty bad at measuring intelligence.  Iq is not a very reliable measure of intelligence.  Traditional iq tests cannot provide a meaningful assessment of how intelligent a person is.  The largest ever study of intelligence has led researchers to conclude that iq testing is actually rather 'meaningless'.  The iq test is imprecise. ","[4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 45336988, 45361788, 45458968, 31948170, 45185946, 45191885, 45185975, 45411178, 45189900, 20512953, 45191882, 6340330, 30777913]"
a945dd68-79d5-4a3c-abc6-65a620b9f30e,2489,We should abolish no-knock warrants,Arg-Human2,"Since then, local residents have asked the city council to ban the salisbury police department's use of no-knock warrants.  The use of this no-knock warrant cost an officer his life.  The no-knock warrant was not justified.  No-knock warrants can go ""horribly wrong.  The issuance of a no-knock warrant was unreasonable.  No-knock raids, that put citizens -- often innocent -- at grave risk.  The no-knock raid is just an excuse for police to use their military surplus weaponry and gear.  The liberal use of no-knock warrants also imperils police.  Examples of the dangers presented by no knock raids can be found all across the nation.  Galloway said no-knock warrants are illegal.  No-knock warrants as a concept are simply too dangerous to ever be made safe.  Councilman david post suggested that the council suspend the use of no-knock warrants until it gets an opinion from the attorney general.  No-knock raids, in which police break into a home without announcing themselves, often lead to tragic results for police.  No-knock raids spell unnecessary confusion.  Cobb resident daniel galloway said no-knock warrants are illegal and asked the legislators why they are able to be used.  Since then, some residents have requested at city council meetings that the council ban police use of no-knock warrants.  Lately, public comment periods have been consumed by speakers advocating for an end to no-knock warrants and voicing concerns about violent crime.  No-knock raids increase the chance violence will occur.  Many of the aggressive, no-knock raids increase the chance violence will occur.  how.  A no-knock raid will be most dangerous to everyone involved.  In practice, though, no-knock raids are used too frequently and can yield disastrous results.  Nearly all the no-knock warrants served by the lrpd's narcotics unit over the past several years were illegal.  Aggressive, no-knock raids increase the chance violence will occur.  The no-knock raid resulted in damaging many doors.  Bou bou's parents, bounkham and alecia phonesavanh, have joined an effort by the american civil liberties union to oppose the proliferation of no-knock warrants and the ""militarization"" of police.  No-knock warrants and swat raids have resulted in an uncountable number of unnecessary injuries and deaths that are in some ways intrinsic to the process of militarized forced entry into a home.  The practice of no knock raids not only puts citizens in unnecessary danger, but the same can often be said for the officers executing the raids.  Al heggins, representing the group women for community justice, presented a petition to ban the use of no-knock warrants.  No-knock raids should clearly be outlawed for a number of reasons. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 2, 4, 3, 5, 5]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 45191873, 45183231, 45181152, 45272708, 7756990, 45282792, 45336991, 44044795, 20312760, 45483811, 34609243, 20170210, 44690955]"
362731c6-7899-4f3f-bcfa-0414f64deec1,3699,We should abolish primary elections,Arg-Human2,"Holding another primary election could even further suppress voter turnout.  An open primary is a disaster.  The creation of an open primary system would be unconstitutional.  Primaries would hurt party unity.  The party primaries are illegal.  An open primary can distort the results of an election.  The process of primary elections is quite unfair.  Primaries are costly and divisive.  The primary elections are a waste of time and especially money.  Primary elections are risky precisely because they sometimes produce poor candidates.  Primaries are socially regressive.  Primary elections can have a negative effect on cohesion.  The primary elections are harming our nation.  Primaries may be an unnecessary cost burden to the city, however.  The primaries are too costly.  The primary election process has become a farce and a waste of money.  Having a primary election ""may be a waste of funds and something that we can do without and still have an elected council that is representing the people.  Primaries are too expensive and the candidates won't come to the sunflower state in any case.  Holding uncontested primary elections ""erodes public confidence in the democratic process and devalues the importance of voting.  Primaries are too expensive and the candidates won't come to the sunflower state in any case.  An open primary just makes matters worse.  Idaho's open-primary system is unconstitutional.  An earlier primary election would create too many problems for state and local races.  Primaries were way more dangerous.  Primary elections are viewed by many as costly and potentially divisive.  Primaries are a waste of time and money.  The primaries have become more negative and personal.  A primary election is not important.  The primary election cycle was negative and divisive.  The primaries corrupt israeli politics.  Aaron ockerman, executive director of the ohio association of elections officials, expressed the completely valid concern that two primaries will cause voter confusion.  Albuquerque lawyers david crum and j.  edward hollington are arguing that new mexico's primary election system is unconstitutional because it denies the basic right to vote to a large number of voters in our state.  Primaries are an unnecessary distraction.  The primary election was not free and fair, and thus null and void.  Party primary creates unnecessary ripples.  The primary election process being used by our state is unconstitutional.  Primaries are a waste of money and the political parties should have a system for nominating final candidates when challenges arise.  Direct primaries would lead to crisis and violence.  Open primaries are a bad idea.  The study finds that such primaries have an increasingly negative spillover effect on the party's general-election performance as the prominence of the election rises.  Nelson polsby and aaron wildavsky warned, for example, that primaries could lead to the appearance of extremist candidates and demagogues who, unrestrained by party allegiances, have little to lose by stirring up mass hatreds or making absurd promises.  Primaries are corrupt and divide continues - amid talk of yishai partnership.  Open primaries may be costly, as they risk supporters of rival parties trying to interfere with the vote.  Turnout in the single digits - low single digits in many places - led iowa state university political scientist steffen schmidt to suggest ""primaries are a terrible way to choose candidates. "".  Pheu thai also pointed out that the internal primary election would add to the financial burden on political parties.  The adoption of open primaries would lead to chaos of an unimaginable magnitude which would definitely weaken the party's cohesion and strength.  The open primary, on its face, is unconstitutional.  Primaries were a costly waste of time.  Primary elections were doing more damage than good to the party. ","[2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 5, 3, 2, 2, 5, 3, 4, 5, 4, 5]",15,"[45411178, 34110399, 20512953, 21017840, 45953041, 30777913, 6340330, 6432269, 33708599, 45458968, 27770607, 45405037, 15448937, 44044795, 44690955]"
b22503b9-9d5f-485a-8630-cf632cb943f2,2647,We should abolish term limits,Arg-Human2,"Term limits might make things worse.  Term limits are uniformly unconstitutional.  Term limits is a gimmick - false hope.  Presidential term limits were unnecessary.  Term limits are cruel to presidents.  Term limits violate the ultimate rights of voters to choose candidates who best represent their districts and the state of maine.  Term limits in the michigan legislature do more harm than good.  Term limits violate office-holders' human rights.  Term limits are un-american, because they take away the right of americans to serve and the right of americans to elect their representative of choice.  Term limits could possibly impede democracy.  Term limits bring more negatives than positives to our city government.  The new mexico supreme court recently ruled that mayor and council term limits were unconstitutional.  Congressional term limits areunconstitutional.  The provisional results surpass predictions by pollsters that 92 percent of rwandans would support amending the constitution to remove the term limits.  Congressional term limits are unconstitutional.  Congressional term limits were unconstitutional.  Term limits violate an individuals right to run for office.  Term limits create weak and inferior governance structures.  Term limits are unconstitutional.  Term limits for county commissioners were unconstitutional.  The new mexico supreme court has ruled that term limits are unconstitutional.  The term limit infringes on the president's human rights.  Term limits are not in the best interest of the state or nation.  Term limits are a lousy idea.  Term limits are ""uniquely un-american. "".  Term limits will do more harm than good.  Term limits actually increased political corruption.  Abolishing term limits is crucial for effective leadership and increasing civility among lawmakers.  Term limits have been especially harmful.  Term limits eliminate voter choice.  Term limits are an unrealistic solution.  Term limits would be horrible.  The term limits are arbitrary, unnecessary and counter-productive.  The county's term limits for commissioners was unconstitutional.  There is even one study by political scientists james alt and david lassen that concluded that term limits actually increased political corruption.  Twelfth circuit judge deno economou had ruled in 2005 that the term limits were unconstitutional and unenforceable in sarasota county.  Term limits shouldn't be imposed.  Term limits are an exceedingly bad idea.  Term limits are a horrible idea.  Term limits are killing us in rural areas.  Term limits would lead to poor decisions and corruption from a wave of inexperienced legislators.  Term limits would deprive us of the skills of experienced lawmakers.  Term limits could cause greater problems in washington by concentrating more power with lobbyists.  Term limits have contributed to gridlock and increase influence by special interest groups.  Term limits lead to more spending.  Term limits hurt our state.  The elimination of term limits in combination with training programmes will provide bermudian workers with greater opportunities.  Term limits don't net the hoped-for benefits.  Term limits are unnecessary because voters can oust an unworthy officeholder, and a limit prevents an excellent one from staying in office.  Director term limits would be misguided and counterproductive.  Term limits would not be good for the state.  The term limit leads to inefficient government.  Term limits serve to disrupt a governing body and avoid stability.  The term limits were unconstitutional.  Term limits would weaken the stability of the republic.  Term limits are a terrible idea for legislators because legislators are supposed to write laws.  Term limits themselves are unconstitutional.  Term limits are associated with the death or disabilityof democracy.  Term limits infringe on people's voting rights.  Term limits violate an individual's right to run for office.  The wyoming supreme court ruled in 2004 that term limits were unconstitutional in regard to state legislators.  Term limits are a failed experiment for state and local offices. ","[2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 2, 1, 4, 5, 4, 5, 2, 3, 4, 5]",15,"[13581319, 20225558, 45677971, 45567220, 19838540, 45405037, 28813722, 45569485, 45567227, 28810858, 45458968, 45190823, 44044795, 45355658, 30777913]"
079c8867-072e-49d4-b6a7-ef17c0b761c9,3166,We should abolish the American Jobs Act,Arg-Human2,"What president barack obamais proposing in his american jobs act won't work.  Unfortunately, sadowski thinks that what president barack obamais proposing in his american jobs act won't work.  The republican congressman, who represents north phoenix and paradise valley, doubts that the american jobs act will sustain economic growth.  Speaking at a press conference at the republican national committee's offices, said the vote that failed in the senate tuesday evening shows that the american jobs act is dead on capitol hill, and democrats should work with republicans to provide solutions for the sagging economy.  The president's latest job-creation scheme, the american jobs act, would deliver few jobs and little economic growth.  Economically speaking, the american jobs act is a disaster.  The american jobs act, standing in the way of job creation and economic growth.  Mitch mcconnell voted to block the american jobs act which would have meant hundreds of billions in tax incentives and infrastructure investments.  Tax foundation fiscal fact no.  283, ""academic research suggests that the american jobs act will produce few jobs"" by david s.  logan, is available online.  The american jobs act is merely an example of pay-to-play and demonizes the unions as its prime beneficiary.  The american jobs act is not the whole solutionas my friend here on the economics faculty christina romer has said over and overwe have a trillion dollar plus problem.  ""tonight, senate republicans voted unanimously to block the american jobs act, standing in the way of job creation and economic growth.  The american jobs act will fail to live up to its unrealistic expectations.  Sen.  richard lugar believes the american jobs act will fail.  The bloomberg national poll found that a majority of voters don't believe the american jobs act will lower the unemployment rate, a downbeat assessment that reflects public skepticism about washington's ability to reverse the economic decline.  The american jobs act rehashed failed policies that would result in more debt and fail to cut unemployment.  The american jobs act is nothing more than an attack on the institution of marriage.  The american jobs act of 2011 will crush jobs, increase our national debt and raise taxes on small business owners.  At the start of a conference call with reporters to discuss the numbers, josh earnest, a white house spokesman, mentioned a remark by house majority leader eric cantor,r-va. , indicating that the american jobs act, as written, essentially was dead on arrival.  Democratic leader nancy pelosireleased the following statement today after senate republicans blocked action on president obama'samerican jobs act: ""tonight, senate republicans voted unanimously to block the american jobs act, standing in the way of job creation and economic growth.  Congress blocked the american jobs act, which critics called too expensive.  The american jobs act is dead on arrival.  The american jobs act does not represent the best solution to the nation's continued economic struggles.  The american jobs act will produce few jobs.  Washington, d. c.  - congressman glenn 'gt' thompson today responded to house speaker john boehner'sspeech before the economic club of washington, where the speaker stated that the president's proposed american jobs act is a ""poor substitute for the pro-growth policies needed to remove barriers to job creation in america. "".  The american jobs act will kill jobs and cripple the economy.  The infrastructure component of the american jobs act will go down to defeat.  Following that address, american petroleum institute ceo jack gerard panned the american jobs act, arguing that it ignores the potential job creation in the oil and gas industry.  The american jobs act is an ill-advised plan that will bring america into more debt.  The so-called american jobs act is not a solution for real and meaningful growth. ","[3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 45567220, 45567227, 21785776, 20225558, 45538225, 45411178, 45190823, 20512953, 45336993, 45206691, 45185975, 45185946]"
a7d8f332-af80-4e23-b5de-384efdfd84a7,2486,We should abolish the US Electoral College,Arg-Human2,"The electoral college distorts the political process by providing a huge incentive to visit competitive states, especially large ones with hefty numbers of electoral votes.  The electoral college is an antidemocratic throwback that should be abolished.  When asked about changing the way electoral college votes are apportioned, gaetz thought the entire system should be scrapped.  The electoral college be abandoned in favor of some french-style popular vote.  The electoral college would be time wasting.  Writing an op-ed for the atlantic, hillary clinton, said she believed that the american electoral college system should be abolished to counter the 'hate' rhetoric of the u. s.  president donald trump.  The electoral college suppresses turnout by taking away an incentive to vote if one party dominates a state.  System that is inherently un-democratic and gives voters in states with a large number of electoral votes more voting power than those in other states.  The electoral college needs to be abandoned.  The electoral college system is a joke and it should be banished.  The electoral college undemocratically skews election campaigns, affecting how candidates focus on individual states and their issues.  The us electoral college does not give justice to small states.  The electoral college system is a joke.  The electoral college is broken. ","[3, 4, 4, 3, 4, 1, 5, 5, 3, 5, 3, 2, 5, 2, 2]",15,"[13581319, 45677971, 45567220, 20225558, 19838540, 45405037, 45567227, 45569485, 21785776, 45458968, 44044795, 43877630, 30777913, 45190823, 34609243]"
21caa630-486c-4076-9c97-54ad91500669,2458,We should abolish the needle exchange programs,Arg-Human2,"And some officials don't want a needle-exchange program in their city because they fear it could bring more crime.  Anti-drug groups say needle exchanges make hard drug use 'acceptable.  Needle-exchange programs enable illegal drug use.  Needle-exchange programs simply encourage illegal drug use.  A needle exchange program may not be practical nor cost-effective for the county.  Needle exchanges increase drug abuse.  Needle exchanges encourage drug use.  Needle exchanges enable drug abuse.  Needle exchanges could promote instead of prevent drug use.  Syringe exchange programs increase crime.  Needle exchange programs encourage drug use.  Needle exchanges are ""a poison pill.  Needle exchanges could promote drug use.  Needle exchange programs increase illicit drug use.  Syringe exchange promotes drug use and the issue belongs on the local level.  Needle exchanges encouraged drug use.  Needle exchange programs simply facilitate or condone illegal drug use.  A needle exchange program would encourage illegal drug use.  Needle exchanges aren't as effective as they should be.  Needle exchanges do nothing to curb drug use and instead seem to encourage it.  Indiana law prohibits needle exchanges, a ban pence still supports.  She claims this study (which she didn't specifically cite) indicates that the needle exchange program was responsible for a substantial increase in hiv rates.  A needle exchange program is likely to encourage illegal drug use by making it easier to obtain needles and other paraphernalia.  A needle exchange program could be viewed as condoning illegal drug use.  Needle exchange programs jeopardize the health and safety of people living in the community.  Needle exchange programs increase crime.  He doesn't believe that [needle exchanges are] an effective anti-drug policy,"" said public health commissioner jerome adams on the call.  A needle exchange would be ineffective and a detriment to city neighborhoods.  Needle exchange demonstrates an acceptance of a criminal and deadly habit.  A needle exchange would lead to a proliferation of needles and increase the number of drug users at the jail.  Needle exchange would undermine efforts to prevent the supply of drugs to prisoners and to reduce demand through rehabilitation programs.  Needle exchanges contribute to illegal behavior.  Needle exchange programs can cause the circulation of hiv, hepatitis c and other diseases.  Needle exchange programs only encourage drug addicts to remain addicted to drugs and perpetuate the cycle of drug crime.  A needle exchange program would encourage more drug abuse among intravenous users.  A new needle exchange program is causing more harm than good.  Needle exchanges make hard drug use appear acceptable and bring crime to communities, among other concerns.  Long said pence isn't alone in his concerns that needle exchanges could promote drug use instead of prevent it.  Promoting needle exchange programs sends a terrible message that treatment, interdiction and prevention do not work.  The needle exchange would hurt the community by bringing more crime and discarded syringes to the streets.  The needle exchange would increase societal problems.  Needle exchanges enable addicts to continue their deadly habit.  The county finds that a needle exchange program is likely to encourage illegal drug use by making it easier to obtain needles and other paraphernalia.  Needle exchange increases drug use or encourages nonusers to start using.  Needle exchange promotes drug use and studies doubt the program helps.  Unfortunately, needle exchange as a social policy creates more harm, not less.  A needle program might increase drug use.  Needle exchanges make hard drug use 'acceptable.  Syringe exchange programs increase crime, encourage drug use and lure people into addiction.  Needle exchange programs spur additional drug use.  Needle exchanges essentially condone intravenous heroin use, which is killing more addicts every month.  Needle-exchange programs encourage drug use.  The needle-exchange program violates the city's zoning ordinance, according to court documents. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 3, 5, 3, 4, 1, 2]",15,"[21017840, 45191873, 45183231, 45272708, 45181152, 45282792, 45336991, 44044795, 45483811, 7756990, 44690955, 26649250, 45355658, 43984981, 27934334]"
7710bf82-d6d3-4663-928b-fce200aff4b0,2613,We should abolish the two-party system,Arg-Human2,"The two-party system would ruin our nation, and the people suffer for this in reality.  The two-party system has failed to improve life and opportunity for many americans.  The two party system would be ineffective in addressing growing inequality.  Two-party system produces disastrous consequences.  The two-party system, with its faceless power-brokers, is a distortion of democracy.  The two-party system is inefficient.  The two party system is obsolete.  The two-party system is broken.  The two-party system is obsolete.  The present two-party political system is no longer effective in dealing with the critical issues that we are facing.  The two-party system fails to provide the american people adequate choice in candidates.  The two party ""system"" is destroying our democracy.  A two-party system will hamper the functioning of the country.  The two-party system is the death knell for our people.  The two-party system is failing to produce solutions and serve people.  The two party system in america is failing and failing quickly.  The two-party system was corrupt and unable to deal with vital issues.  The two-party system must be abandoned.  The two party system is so corrupt and immoral.  The two-party system is so corrupt and immoral.  The two-party system is broken and not in the best interest of the american citizens.  The two-party system has become ineffective at doing anything except destroying the middle class.  The two-party system has produced no good result.  The two-party system is not a reliable measurable at best, and out of touch with today's young voter.  The two party system is an impediment to progress.  The two-party system does not work.  The two-party system doesn't work.  The two-party system is killing our democracy.  This two-party system is destroying our country because the moderates are driven out and the extremists in each party can't work together.  The two party system is outdated and a better method is available to our population.  The two-party system has not done much good for average voters.  The two-party system is a little bit flawed right now.  The two-party system has become a curse.  The two-party system is no longer viable to the future of the country.  The two-party system has become a catastrophic failure.  The two-party system kills dead skills of negotiation and compromise - skills that are essential in a proportional system where coalition government is the norm.  The two-party system is failing the interests of citizens.  The two-party system is dysfunctional, if not entirely disruptive to the nation's overall well-being.  The two-party system is incredibly damaging to the democratic process.  The two-party system] is not working in the best interests of our country and it needs to be challenged and, in some sense, assaulted.  Our two party system has become a dangerous, profit-seeking institution.  Our two-party system is failing our country miserably.  The two-party system is failing to deliver positive outcomes for the community.  The two-party system was never going to create the radical social and political change needed to save the country.  The two-party system is incredibly flawed.  The two-party political system is at best dysfunctional, at worst outdated and in need of modification.  The current two-party political system has failed.  The two-party system is a quagmire of deceit and corruption.  The two-party system is a prescription for mediocrity and corruption.  The so called two-party system is a big part of the problem, as much as the current state of public funding for candidates.  Smerconish, the two-party system is the worst idea in human civilization history.  The two-party system is unequivocally outdated and in dire need of reform.  The two-party system is fundamentally flawed.  The two-party system in and of itself is inherently undemocratic. ","[5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 1, 2, 1, 4, 3, 3, 1, 2, 5]",15,"[45567227, 45567220, 45185975, 45191882, 45191885, 45185946, 45411178, 13581319, 45190823, 20312760, 31948170, 20512953, 29155723, 19838540, 30777913]"
fa4df9a2-e51f-4ae2-8f26-2a3ef133c12f,2496,We should adopt a zero tolerance policy in schools,Arg-Human2,"The zero-tolerance policy is needed, and fair.  Tough new laws and zero-tolerance policies can help deter the perpetrators.  A zero-tolerance policy for your children is best.  Kirk schneidawind, executive director of msba, said zero-tolerance policies are important to ensure the safety of students.  All schools should implement a ""zero tolerance policy for any act of child abuse, exploitation, violence, discrimination, bullying and other forms of abuse.  The report added that the school should adopt a ""zero tolerance"" approach to behaviour which put other pupils at risk of harm.  Schools should have a zero-tolerance policy towards bullying.  Zero tolerance policies are effective.  Every school should have a zero tolerance policy on verbal abuse.  Schools needed to be more aggressive in implementing zero-tolerance policies against the bullying of teachers by pupils.  The school has a zero-tolerance policy against bullying.  A clear and strong zero tolerance policy towards bullying must be implemented in schools.  Zero tolerance policies make schools safer.  The american school health association recommends a zero-tolerance policy for bullying and advises schools to establish and communicate a strict code of conduct, as well as offering ""instruction in social and emotional learning skills. "".  Zero tolerance is a useful and necessary tool for removing disruptive children.  Zero-tolerance strategies would improve behaviour.  Most schools have a zero tolerance policy for bully behaviors.  Zero tolerance is the only way to manage modern schools.  A zero-tolerance policy should be a key component of an effective anti-harassment program.  Zero-tolerance policies reduce violence.  Zero-tolerance policies would make schools safer.  A zero tolerance policy is important.  A zero tolerance approach is a great solution.  Schools must remain vigilant and maintain a zero tolerance policy, because racism is a pernicious blight on our society that we must never turn our gaze from.  Implementing a zero-tolerance policy toward illegal and unsafe behavior on our campus would seem to be a very productive place to start.  Participating in school zero-tolerance policies can help shape the future of bully prevention methods.  Zero tolerance policy towards unethical behaviour will improve the matter.  Education minister simon birmingham, who today calls for a ""zero tolerance approach to bad behaviour"" in schools, says the latest update on australia's performance in pisa shows 46 per cent of students in low socioeconomic schools were badly behaved, compared with 32 per cent of students in high socioeconomic schools.  A move toward a zero-tolerance policy was appropriate.  Supporters credit zero-tolerance policies have helped make students feel safe at school.  A zero-tolerance policy is needed for profanity and aggression.  A zero-tolerance policy is the best approach.  Charlie kyte, executive director of the minnesota association of school administrators, supports zero-tolerance policies by schools.  The aiou regional director, said here monday that zero tolerance policy would be adopted against miscreants and persons using unfair means during exams.  Schools must take a zero-tolerance approach to sexual abuse and harassment.  Widely used zero-tolerance policies are effective at curbing bullying behavior.  Zero-tolerance policies are the most effective.  A zero-tolerance policy will be promoted for any act of child exploitation, violence, discrimination, and other forms of abuse.  The introduction and enforcement of a zero tolerance policy would reduce ed violence.  Zero-tolerance policies save lives and prevent violence.  A zero-tolerance policy would offer the best protection.  Zero tolerance policies are necessary and fair.  Zero tolerance policies save lives and prevent violence.  Zero tolerance policies are promoted as preventing drug abuse and violence in schools.  Zero-tolerance policies ensure safe schools and make students feel safer.  Enders said school officials have imposed zero-tolerance policies to deter students from violating drug laws and using weapons.  Schools should adopt a zero-tolerance policy towards child abuse. ","[3, 3, 2, 3, 3, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 2, 2, 4]",15,"[20225558, 45190823, 29155723, 13581319, 20512953, 45181383, 45191873, 45181152, 45272708, 45411178, 45405037, 45355658, 45181262, 45181256, 6340330]"
0c4b9554-a647-46e9-9f03-eace7813ed3b,3185,We should adopt socialism,Arg-Human2,"Socialism is somehow good for the future of our nation.  The bill and melinda gates foundation spent $170 million to create and implement common core standards, and said socialism was the only thing that can save us from climate change.  Socialism should be held in higher regard than capitalism given its more empathetic qualities, and thus actively agitated to implement it.  Socialism is a viable economic system.  Socialism is freedom.  Socialism is desirable.  Socialism is an efficient or moral economic system.  Socialism is the solution.  Socialism is the politically correct doctrine to financial success, without including god in the equation.  Socialism is a force for good rather than an agency of evil.  Soft socialism is beneficial.  Only socialism is able to give a fundamental answer to the big issues facing the people in the capitalist countries.  Socialism would bring prosperity.  Young americans ages 18 to 29 have a positive view of socialism and a negative view of capitalism, according to a 2011 pew research poll.  Only socialism is capable of overcoming difficulties and preserving the gains of the revolution.  Socialism would eliminate the inequalities of capitalism.  Socialism is the solution for society's hardships and inequalities.  Socialism is a more effective economic system than capitalism.  The tenets of socialism would help to create a society without crime and violence.  Socialism was superior to capitalism as a way to ensure the most rapid development of the forces of production.  Socialism is central to winning full equality.  Socialism is essentially good and acceptable, whereas communism, fascism, and nazism (national socialism) are violent and antidemocratic.  Socialism is a solution for our cultural issues.  Creative and innovative forms of socialism can work.  Socialism can work well.  Capitalism is bad and only socialism is good.  Socialism system is better than capitalism.  Socialism made a decisive contribution in uplifting the levels of quality of human life and civilization to hitherto unknown higher levels.  Socialism is better than free enterprise.  Socialism was an enlightening experience that could replace the opiate of religion.  Socialism would provide a healthy corrective for the shortcomings of liberalism in the economic field.  Socialism has a positive impact on society.  Socialism was more beneficial for gender rights than capitalism.  Socialism is a way ""to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development.  Socialism was a good idea, once which is about ""helping people"" and spreading the wealth.  Socialism represents the ideal and rosy future of mankind.  Socialism is the way to go.  A socialist system is the answer.  The arf believes that socialism is the only way to create a just society and eradicate the abuse and exploitation that hurts our country.  Socialism is the only way to avoid abuse.  Socialism would be good for the country.  Socialism represents the future of mankind and nothing can check the vigorous struggle of the progressive mankind to defend and advance the cause of socialism.  Socialism is the future as it guarantees sustainable development.  The poll of 1,400 people found that 59pc of germans in the formerly communist east consider communist and socialist ideals a good idea for society.  Socialism is required to salvage the economy and, by extension, the political system from over dominance of the conglomerates of big business, billionaires and millionaires.  Socialism is the answer to all our problems.  Socialism should be a good word, just a word that's like, 'it could be better for everyone.  The sacp believe that socialism is the future, where the state control all strategic industries and resources.  Socialism is the most effective and scientific solution for human kinds to overcome the crisis of capitalism.  Socialism represents moral value, the dignity and human rights of all citizens.  Communism/socialism is the ideal form of government.  Socialism is the purest expression of democracy. ","[2, 5, 4, 5, 2, 1, 5, 4, 5, 2, 4, 2, 3, 4, 3]",15,"[28813722, 45405037, 45411178, 6432269, 45181243, 45181256, 45567220, 15448937, 45677971, 21785776, 19838540, 45181253, 45181262, 45355658, 28513847]"
72057c92-1a1b-4d6b-b5e8-e4b08d8cb9d8,3212,We should adopt the teacher tenure reform,Arg-Human2,"Teacher tenure reform and merit pay is the better course to improving classroom performance and ensuring the education system is constitutional.  With, but teacher tenure reform is very important.  Republicans claim we need teacher tenure reforms to be able to ""weed"" out the bad ones, thus ensuring our kids will be taught a ""world class"" education from the cream of the crop.  The teacher tenure reform achieved last year was a major accomplishment, and the merit-pay experiment in newark could have positive implications statewide.  Teacher tenure reform and merit pay is the better course to improving classroom performance.  Teacher tenure reforms, which have been long in coming, will no doubt improve the quality of education for students in new jersey.  Recognizing the importance of the teacher tenure reform measure to the states economy and jobs, tennessees four biggest urban chambers of commerce endorsed the initiative this week.  Supporters of teacher tenure reform in new jersey always have maintained that the goal is to make it easier - and less expensive - to remove bad teachers from the classroom.  Teacher tenure reform act"" might work nicely.  Supporters of teacher tenure reform in new jersey always have maintained that the goal is to make it easier - and less expensive.  Those that have become law - such as teacher tenure reform and capped health coverage for teachers - are practical and address serious financial and educational challenges to public education.  The teacher tenure reform achieved last year was a major accomplishment.  Teacher tenure reform means great teaching is recognized and poor teachers eased out.  Teacher tenure reform is very important.  Public support remains as high as ever for federally mandated testing, charter schools, tax credits to support private school choice, merit pay for teachers, and teacher tenure reform.  The state senate recently passed a major teacher tenure reform initiative, fulfilling years of republican efforts to reform tennessee's tenure system.  Malloy's plan focuses on closing the achievement gap by creating teacher tenure reform, increasing early childhood education and revising teacher certification requirements.  June 30: legislature approves teacher tenure reform emphasizing effectiveness over seniority.  Comprehensive unemployment insurance reform and teacher tenure reform as measures that will help the budget.  To reward and protect good teachers while weeding out substandard ones, we passed the most sweeping, effective teacher tenure reform since its inception in 1937.  That a new teacher tenure reform bill, which has been discussed for a more than year, will be introduced soon.  The teacher tenure reform was a major accomplishment and something.  The teacher tenure reforms passed by the state house make a powerful statement that michigan is now setting education policy based on best serving the needs of children.  June 30: legislature approves teacher tenure reform, putting effectiveness over seniority.  Rauner is also a firm believer in meaningful teacher tenure reform and that the best teachers should be rewarded for their efforts and failing teachers should be held accountable.  Kansas schools are ""among the best in the nation,"" and boasts of teacher tenure reform and job growth.  A recent poll by minncan, the minnesota campaign for achievement now, said that teacher-tenure reform has 90-plus-percent, bipartisan support among minnesotans.  Michigan gov.  rick snyder in july signed teacher tenure reform into law as part of his plan to reinvent the state's educational system.  Brizard's appointment, coupled with recent senate action in support of meaningful teacher tenure reform.  It's time for this change: a recent poll by the minnesota campaign for achievement now found that teacher-tenure reform has 90-plus-percent bipartisan support among minnesotans.  Teacher tenure reform bill proposes reasonable protection -- for students and school employees alike. ","[4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 3, 5, 2]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 45191873, 45183231, 45272708, 45181152, 7756990, 45282792, 45336991, 44044795, 45483811, 43984981, 34609243, 20170210, 33708599]"
f09e27e6-343c-4694-8e13-70dd4f7fa34c,2143,We should ban abortions,Arg-Human2,"Induced abortion is associated with significant risks and potential harms to women.  The law banning ""dismemberment"" abortions should be upheld.  The termination of pregnancy is not safe either for the girl or the foetus.  Legal abortion is unsafe.  These abortions are unsafe.  An abortions ban could improve the demographic situation in the country.  Multiple abortions could lead to ""life-threatening problems.  Surgical abortions could increase the risk of infection, which could affect future pregnancies.  Fetuses can feel pain sooner than previously thought.  An abortion will result in an increased risk of breast cancer, even though scientific studies show no cause-and-effect relationship.  Legalizing abortion does not positively impact women's health.  Taxpayer-funded abortions should be prohibited.  The roe versus wade decision, legalizing abortion should be overturned.  Legalized abortion is morally and ethically wrong because it allows individuals to legally and purposely end the life of an innocent and defenseless human being.  Legalizing abortion has harmed women.  An abortion is the murder of an innocent human being.  Legalizing abortion would be profoundly harmful to women.  Any policy that sanctions abortion is immoral.  Legalizing abortion increases the number of unborn human beings who are unjustly killed which they said makes abortion a premier human rights issue.  Dismemberment"" abortion constitutes ""cruel and unusual punishment.  Direct abortion is always morally wrong.  Termination of pregnancy is unacceptable and amounts to murder.  The abortion drugs are inherently dangerous.  The abortion restrictions protect women's lives.  An abortion is illegal and very dangerous in much of the world.  An abortion poses a risk of breast cancer.  Race-based abortions must also be outlawed.  Legalising abortion is unconstitutional.  Legalizing abortion is a bad policy.  The majority of latinos believe abortion should be illegal.  An abortion increases the risk of breast cancer.  Later-term abortions pose significant health risks to women.  Elective abortion is ""a violent act of injustice.  Induced abortion increases the risk of breast cancer.  Induced abortion may increase a woman's risk of breast cancer.  Surgical abortions could increase the risk of spontaneous pre-term births in comparison with medical terminations.  Prior abortions boost breast cancer risk.  Multiple abortions could cause ""life-threatening problems in later pregnancy.  Induced abortion increases the risk of breast cancer for all women with black women and other minorities having higher rates.  Legal abortion may pose an additional health risk for women.  Choosing an abortion increases the risk of mental health problems, and even suicide.  Banning abortion or restricting contraceptives might boost fertility.  The termination of pregnancy is neither good for the girl nor for the foetus.  Women who have abortions are at increased risk of mental illness.  Repeat abortions result in an increased threat to the psychological and physical health of women in future pregnancies.  The abortion industry misleads and deceives women and does not adequately protect their health in the abortion context.  Having an abortion increases your risk for breast cancer.  Banning dismemberment abortions will actually improve the health of women, since late-term abortions are particularly dangerous.  An abortion can triple a woman's subsequent risk of developing breast cancer.  Having an abortion increases the risk of having mental health problems.  Having an abortion is wrong, and is morally wrong.  The abortion industry is trying desperately to redefine a scientific debate that it is losing as more studies show abortion is harmful to women and their unborn children.  Eliminating abortion and restricting abortion is the best way to decrease abortion.  Multiple abortions leads to a greatly increased risk of breast cancer.  Restricting abortion access is an effective strategy.  The termination of a pregnancy is immoral.  Second-trimester abortions should be illegal.  Legalizing abortion would just encourage learners to fall pregnant and engage in sexual activities. ","[4, 5, 2, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 31948170, 45206691, 45361788, 45411178, 45458968, 45189900, 45185946, 45185975, 45191885, 29155723, 20512953, 44044795, 45190823]"
db8b6e8e-1821-4cf8-804c-a595f5ba5ecb,2572,We should ban algorithmic trading,Arg-Human2,"What it does do is considerably increase market volatility, which traders thrive on, but which creates uncertainty among genuine investors.  Algorithmic trading puts small investors at a disadvantage in comparison to big brokers and foreign institutional investors.  Algorithmic trading has the potential to cause rapid and significant market distortion.  Algorithmic trading can result in inadvertent executions with no change in beneficial ownership.  Algorithmic trading contributes to volatility.  Algorithmic trading can cause disruptions or result in unfairness.  Algorithmic trading is a decrease in fairness and transparency on asx.  Trading algorithms are potential weapons of mass destruction for the firms using them, and the broader financial system.  Hft and other forms of algorithmic trading do more harm than good.  Algorithmic trading could destroy the relationship between investors and companies.  Algorithmic trading is seen as more risky because the algos operate faster and things can go wrong quickly.  In certain circumstances computer-based trading can lead to significant instability.  They can cause significant market instability if their finely tuned algorithms encounter unusual market conditions or, in layman's terms, go haywire.  Algorithmic trading could destroy the relationship between investors and companies, and that the nature of the trading adds risk but little value to the capital markets.  A combination of algorithmic trading systems and rational trading behavior drove a broad liquidity crisis that caused unprecedented gyrations in the equities markets.  The combination of hft and pre-programmed, algorithmic trading could lead to unstable stock markets.  Stocks are being driven artificially higher by big, nasty banks using a combination of virtually-free money and algorithmic trading systems.  ``moreover, the proliferation of trading venues and algorithmic trading significantly increases the risk of unexpected market movements or disruptions, which can undermine investor confidence.  Faulty algorithms can put the entire market at risk.  The boss of one firm that competes and works with knight said the experience shows that trading algorithms are potential weapons of mass destruction for the firms using them, and the broader financial system.  Electronic and algorithmic trading also has the potential to facilitate trading practices that are not helpful to market liquidity.  The 2010 flash crash showed that algorithmic trading can give rise to significant risks, principally systemic to the market; there is an increased risk of overloading trading venues' systems due to large volumes of duplicative or erroneous orders leading to disorderly markets.  High-frequency trading algorithms exacerbated the devastating impacts to the market five years ago today.  Risks associated with algorithmic trading activity have outpaced control improvements.  Research by the bank of engl andfound that in times of stress, algorithmic trading provided poor liquidity and inefficient prices, magnifying shocks.  The proliferation of high-frequency algorithmic trading is the biggest near-term risk to financial markets.  Automated trading will cause market disruptions or result in unfairness.  Algorithmic trading has ""caused significant volatility and market disruption.  Algorithmic trading makes it impossible to find out the right price in the market.  Algorithmic trading increases the potential for systemic risk to propagate across asset classes.  Trading algorithms create unnecessary volatility in the stock market without a rule in place preventing them from automatically shorting stocks on days of heavy selling and compounding losses.  With regard to automated trading, regulators believe that algorithmic trading has the potential to cause rapid and significant market distortion.  Algorithmic trading is distorting markets and needs to be curtailed.  Algorithmic trading poses systemic issues around the globe.  Algorithmic trading can give rise to significant risks, principally systemic to the market.  Algorithmic trading poses some unique risks.  Algorithmic trading will result in violations of the commodity exchange act (cea) or cftc regulations.  The algorithmic trading is something that we see problems in the market with.  Automated trading can be used to manipulate markets. ","[2, 4, 3, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 5, 5, 5, 3]",15,"[13581319, 19838540, 20225558, 45677971, 45567220, 44044795, 45355658, 45190823, 28810858, 45405037, 28813722, 45411178, 45458968, 15448937, 28513847]"
35ce3770-1022-4b3c-ad7d-705fa2911f4a,2616,We should ban alternative medicine,Arg-Human2,"Alternative medicine is ineffective and possibly dangerous.  The results of a recent study showed that cancer patients who initially chose treatment with alternative medicine alone were 2. 5 times more likely to die versus patients who received conventional cancer treatments.  The research builds on work done by the same team, published earlier this year, that found cancer sufferers who used only alternative medicines had higher death risks than those getting conventional treatment - more than twofold for lung cancer up to nearly sixfold for breast cancer.  Most of alternative medicine is unethical.  The study, published today in the journal of the national cancer institute , found that patients who choose alternative therapy solely to treat cancer are at a much higher risk of death than patients treated with conventional therapies.  The information supplied by practitioners of alternative medicine is often incomplete, wrong or dangerously misleading to the point of seriously endangering public health and thus violating medical ethics.  The study controlled for key health factors and concluded that the regular use of complementary medicines is a direct contributor to poorer health outcomes.  The alternative medicine always has adverse effects.  There is no evidence that alternative medicine is effective.  Alternative medicine is dangerous for users.  Thursday, aug.  17, 2017 (healthday news) - people who choose alternative medicine over traditional cancer treatments for curable cancers have a higher risk of dying early, researchers report.  A lot alternative medicine is flawed and potentially dangerous.  Alternative medicine is barbaric and evil among other issues.  The alternative medicine was not very effective).  Using alternative medicine to treat cancer which is curable without any conventional cancer therapy is associated with an increased risk for death.  Alternative medicine kills cancer patients.  Alternative medicine options and natural supplements can aggravate bleeding.  The most popular alternative medicines, such as fish oil and ginger, can actually pose a risk to cancer patients.  The new survey, which is based on the treatment and survival records, received from the us national cancer database revealed that going the alternative route of medicine for treating a form of curable cancer rather than opting for conventional treatment can double a patient's risk of dying from the disease.  Alternative therapies are ineffective.  Alternative or complementary therapies are not always safe and are not free of risks.  The study serves as a stark warning and may be a shock to anyone who mistakenly believes alternative remedies are somehow gentler and less harmful than conventional medicines.  These alternative treatments can potentially cause huge damage to patients.  Using alternative medicine in place of proven cancer therapies results in worse survival.  Patients who chose treatment alongside alternative medicine were more likely to die and urged for greater scrutiny of the use of alternative medicine for the initial treatment of cancer.  That alternative medicine is ineffective.  Alternative therapies may do harm.  Crystals and other alternative therapies could be harmful.  Some alternative medical practices may be harmful to patients in some situations.  Using alternative medicine in place of proven cancer therapies results in worse survival,"" said lead author skyler johnson, m. d.  Use of alternative medicine instead of proven cancer therapies can worsen survival chances.  Hundreds of scientific studies had concluded that alternative medicine is ineffective.  Yale university researchers warn in a new study alternative therapies as the treatment for curable cancers are at a significantly higher risk of death.  No proof that alternative medicines do us any good - and in some cases, they can do us serious harm.  Alternative medicine is ineffective.  There was a recent study demonstrating that cancer patients who used alternative medicine had a greater risk of death than those patients who chose conventional treatments.  The study appears in the journal of the national cancer institute patients who choose to receive alternative therapy as treatment for curable cancers instead of conventional cancer treatment have a higher risk of death, according to a recent study. ","[5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 45167145, 15448937, 45190571, 45181383, 45401087, 45181384, 30777913, 19838540, 28813722, 6340330, 45355658, 44044795, 34609243]"
5d957042-3eeb-4c0c-b68a-95ecc24daaf8,2483,We should ban anonymous posts,Arg-Human2,"Allowing anonymous posts hurt our communities and reduce civic involvement by many.  People behind anonymous posts can create this vacuum of mistrust.  Anonymous posts pull everyone to pieces - some of it so personal its disgusting.  All such sites to have to conform to strict new laws so anonymous posts are banned and all users must be registered so they can be traced.  Anonymous posts should just be discontinued.  Anonymous posts on the internet have contributed to problems with tsa's reputation.  The anonymous posts hurt.  To maintain the integrity of the conversation on the site, no anonymous posts are permitted.  The anonymous posts have cheapened and demeaned the entire newspaper reading experience.  With anonymous posts come bullying, harassment and inappropriate content being posted.  Anonymous posts on school performance could lead to vexatious complaints.  Couloute claimed that the anonymous posts damaged his professional image and made it difficult for him and his current wife to purchase a home.  People can anonymously post questions on the website - leading to constant streams of abuse and explicit language.  Halinski added that anonymous posts on the internet have contributed to problems with tsa's reputation.  Even an anonymous post in the comments section can do ruinous damage.  Anonymous posts on social media only intensified those tensions, as people traded opinions they might not share publicly - and, in some cases, made threats.  These anonymous posts are even more difficult to address because it's hard to trace who's doing these things and it causes disruption to school day.  Anonymous posts at the end of news stories allow for uncivil behavior.  Yik yak, an app that allows users to anonymously post and view messages within a certain geographic location, is a major problem.  Online, anonymous posts too often devolve into tedious and repetitious name-calling.  An anonymous post was crude, juvenile and offensive.  In a 2008 case, a california appeals court acknowledged that an anonymous post was crude, juvenile and offensive.  Anonymous posts include inappropriate language, personal attacks or insensitive statements that we would never allow in a letter to the editor in print or online.  Anonymous posts are inauthentic or fake. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 5, 5, 4]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 31948170, 45191882, 45336988, 45185975, 45189900, 45206691, 45336993, 45361788, 20512953, 45190823, 15448937, 30777913, 45185946]"
f60ae838-ce5d-4950-969b-f9453a3dce24,1161,We should ban cosmetic surgery,Arg-Human2,"Plastic surgery is against the principle of fairness and justice.  Cosmetic surgery to improve a person's appearance is forbidden because it plays with god's natural order.  Cosmetic surgery constitutes mutilation and is thus a crime.  Plastic surgery is hugely expensive and uncomfortable.  Plastic surgery is ""aggressive"" towards the feminine identity and can be linked to eating disorders and depression.  All plastic surgery is motivated by sinful desire.  Cosmetic surgeries have a negative effect on the skin.  A study on the effects of cosmetic surgery conducted in norway found that women who underwent cosmetic surgery were more likely to have poorer mental health, including depression and anxiety.  According to the medical sciences, repeated cosmetic surgery is not skin friendly and can cause blisters, lupus, dermatitis and other infections.  Cosmetic surgical procedures clearly carry greater risks.  Cosmetic surgery is a mistake.  All cosmetic surgery carries risks.  Plastic surgery doesn't work.  Utilizing cosmetic, or plastic surgery is damaging to emotional wellness.  Cosmetic surgery is detrimental to a woman's self-acceptance, saying that it ""can be aggressive toward the feminine identity, showing a refusal of the body.  Cosmetic surgery constitutes mutilation and is thus a crime' theresa may, home secretary.  Purely cosmetic surgery"" is a crime in the same way as female genital mutilation.  Plastic surgery is a bad idea.  Zuhair said that materials used for cosmetic procedures can cause allergies, headaches, sores and other skin disorders.  Cosmetic surgeries have certain health risks.  Bargain-basement cosmetic surgery carries a greater risk of something going wrong.  Plastic surgery is an extremely dangerous undertaking that poses an increase number of risks when compared to other surgeries.  Cosmetic surgery not only has physical risks, but psychological ones, too.  Cosmetic surgery has risks and limitations.  Cosmetic surgery involves a great risk of facial deformation who undergo it.  Cosmetic surgery is clearly potentially dangerous.  The new plastic surgery ""craze"" is dangerous.  The study indicated that cosmetic surgery often did not improve these conditions, and in some cases there were was evidence to suggest they had worsened following surgery.  Cosmetic surgery rarely improves the patient's self-esteem.  Cosmetic surgeries offer temporary solutions and may even be harmful.  When cosmetic surgery goes wrong, the psychological consequences can be catastrophic.  Some cosmetic surgeries may also result in autoimmune diseases.  Cosmetic surgery is risky and a distortion of values.  Plastic surgery is much more dangerous.  Cosmetic surgery makes people feel flawed.  Plastic and cosmetic surgery is somehow a bad thing.  Having plastic surgery can actually make matters worse.  Idea that plastic surgery can solve someone's problems easily becomes a detrimental psychological affliction.  Cosmetic surgery rarely improves the patient's self-esteem in the way they imagine.  Plastic surgery doesn't bring happiness.  In many cases cosmetic surgery did not solve the problems it was supposed to.  Aesthetic surgery creates unnecessary medical, social and behavioral risks.  Plastic surgery carries too much risks and is costly.  Cosmetic surgery often results in blunder and actually makes the person look even worse than before.  Read more: 'plastic surgery is bad.  Cosmetic surgery, however, has risks and limitations.  Purely cosmetic surgery constitutes mutilation and is therefore illegal.  Plastic surgery has risks and complications.  Plastic surgery can have negative side effects.  Negative psychological effects of cosmetic surgery include depression, self-destructive behavior, and adjustment difficulties.  Plastic surgery gone wrong causes bad scarring, loss of feeling, asymmetric breasts, skin loss, implant malposition and even tissue death.  Cosmetic surgery should be banned for the under-18s.  Each plastic surgery carries the potential of risk, for instance excessive blood loss, infection, or other complications that may be unforeseen or that can occur.  Cosmetic surgery is a fairly unnecessary procedure.  Cosmetic surgery is unethical.  Cosmetic surgery is unethical. ","[4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 45191873, 45183231, 45181152, 45272708, 7756990, 45282792, 45336991, 44044795, 34110399, 30398579, 45483811, 34609243, 44094031]"
5f342837-9296-4e22-a8be-ded5b8f0e037,2225,We should ban factory farming,Arg-Human2,"Factory farms continue to pollute and endanger our communities.  Factory farming violates basic ethical principles that extend beyond the boundary of our own species.  Factory farming is inefficient, being dependent on feeding cereals to animals.  Factory farms are cruel.  Packing chickens in factory farms would allow the evolution of lethal chicken viruses.  The livestock industry and factory farming are the top contributors to worldwide greenhouse gases.  The factory farm approach to food production puts our health in danger.  Factory farms of this size are potential polluters on a massive scale.  Factory farming would damage the clean green brand our dairy industry has traded on for years.  Factory farming is a top contributor to environmental degradation.  Factory farming is plain wrong - environmentally and ethically.  The conditions and treatment of animals that prevail in today's factory farms is simply wrong.  Factory farms produce huge amounts of waste, which can contaminate ground water.  Factory farming is the major cause of global warming.  The current system of factory farming inflicts gratuitous suffering on animals.  Factory farming is wrong.  The conditions that animals in factory farms are subject to are morally unjustified and are a violation of their rights.  Pig ""factory farms"" were cruel to the animals and that they would have health and environmental consequences for humans.  Factory farming is bad for the environment, bad for human health and bad for animals.  Factory-farmed livestock are responsible for 50per cent of man-made greenhouse gases around the globe.  Factory farms emit hazardous air pollutants on an industrial scale, yet have escaped regulation under the clean air act and pollution reporting laws.  Factory farming is environmentally damaging.  Large-scale factory farming does more harm than good and needs to be altered in a way that is far less harmful to the environment.  Factory farming was dangerous to human health and wellbeing.  Significant pollution from factory farms has damaged the state's waterways and killed millions of fish and other aquatic life.  Factory farming ranks among the top two causes of water pollution and climate change.  Industrial or factory farms are destroying rural communities.  The factory farming of animals is inhumane!).  Factory farms are monstrously abusive to animals.  Factory farms increase asthma in neighboring communities.  The burgeoning number of factory farms could greatly increase the risk of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria escaping and infecting people.  Factory farms are contributing to the ineffectiveness of antibiotics.  Factory farms are exposing nearby communities to dangerous fecal bacteria.  Many of the ""factory farming"" techniques of raising meat can wreak havoc with the local environment.  Factory farming is one of the biggest contributors to the most serious environmental problems.  Living near a factory farm is detrimental to human health.  Factory farms across europe disregard legal animal welfare standards, threaten human health by over- reliance on antibiotics and force traditional farmers out of business.  Factory farms pollute our waterways more than all other industrial sources combined.  Factory farms concentrate too many animals - and too much waste - in one place.  Intensive factory farming has done as much damage to the quality of the meat as it has to the welfare of the animals.  Inhumane factory farming practices simply aren t sustainable and should be banned.  Factory farming is one of the greatest evils of the contemporary world.  Pasteurized milk products from factory farms may cause hormone-dependent cancers.  Factory farming is the biggest cause of animal cruelty in the world.  Factory farming is inhumane.  Industrial agriculture and factory farms pose a terminal threat to the environment, biodiversity and climate stability.  Intensive animal farming only sustains animal suffering, destruction of the environment and corporate profits.  Factory farms are industrial-scale polluters. ","[4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 3, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 3, 2]",15,"[45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 45458968, 20512953, 45355658, 15448937, 28813722, 21017840, 34110399, 19838540, 6340330, 30777913, 27770607, 34609243]"
ac7460e7-2dc6-474c-99f1-7c17af96dad3,2539,We should ban genetically modified crops,Arg-Human2,"The crops can cause environmental damage and even be harmful to human health.  The gm crops are harmful for the human beings.  The genetically modified seeds might have adverse effects, leading to diseases like cancer.  Pollen from genetically modified crops is a threat to organic farmers, making their crops unmarketable and dealing a blow to the local agricultural economy.  The widespread use of genetically modified crops may lead to weeds and insects that are more resistant to pesticides.  The growth in genetically modified crops is not only a risk to food safety and food security, but causes a devastating impact.  To approve a measure that would temporarily ban the cultivation of genetically engineered crops until the practice is proven safe.  The introduction of gm crops would contaminate our natural soil and pose risk for the entire country.  The ban on planting gm crops, because it denies farmers access to technological advances.  Widespread planting of genetically modified crops could contaminate organic and traditional crops, destroying their value.  The company's genetically modified seeds and pesticides are detrimental to the environment and human health.  These genetically modified crops would do harm to plants and animals.  Research and planting of genetically modified crops is banned in those countries.  The spread of genetically modified crops hurts the environment, most notably by fostering herbicide-resistant weeds, and that food made with the crops can harm humans.  Growing gm crops leads to agricultural seeds and food supply chains being contaminated by gm.  The genetically modified crops could be an environmental disaster.  Overall, gm crops would have a negative impact on farmland, birds, wild flowers and other wildlife.  The genetically modified crops would wreak havoc on the health of consumers and the environment.  The use of gm crops is causing development of super-weeds and super-bugs which are resistance to gm innovations and pose a new environmental threat.  Some genetically engineered crops may also pose serious health and environmental risks.  Growing gm crops would damage the scottish brand in future.  Introducing gm crops would destroy scotland's reputation as a quality food producer.  The gm crops had put the nation at risk.  Introducing a gene into a plant may create a new allergen or cause an allergic reaction in susceptible individuals.  The bt toxin used in gm crops is actually detrimental to growth and development of transgenic plants.  Introducing foreign genes into food plants may have an unexpected and negative impact on human health.  Using gm crops could cause unforeseen damage to human health as well as the environment.  Introducing transgenic crops risks surrendering the country's food sovereignty to multinational seed companies which own gm technology.  Regular consumption of genetically-engineered crops can increase health risks for cancer, diabetes, early puberty, infertility, and obesity.  The gm crop is somehow dangerous and therefore must be removed from the ground.  The controversial gm crops pose significant threat to environment and may destroy the indigenous varieties of crops from many southern countries in the long run.  The genetically modified seeds will pose severe health hazards like male sterility and other problems to both people and the environment.  Using gm crops could cause unforeseen damage to the environment.  The gm crops in question were a risk to people or the environment.  The genetically modified plants may not be good for human consumption.  Hybrid vegetables and genetically modified crops are somehow intrinsically evil.  Surge in genetically modified crops is harmful to the environment, most notably by fostering herbicide-resistant weeds.  These genetically modified crops would do harm to plants and animals and moving with the scheme to put them to commercial production.  The gm crops are harmful to either man or environment. ","[5, 4, 5, 4, 3, 5, 2, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 2, 5]",15,"[45953041, 45191885, 45458968, 21017840, 20512953, 15448937, 34110399, 45355658, 19838540, 28813722, 45167145, 30777913, 6340330, 20043657, 20170210]"
3ca6dfa6-7735-4928-a28e-91b3f7dab612,2615,We should ban homeopathy,Arg-Human2,"Homeopathy is not an effective form of treatment.  Homeopathy is ineffective.  There is no good quality evidence to support the claim that homeopathy works better than a placebo. "".  Homeopathy is not good enough as a treatment for any medical condition.  Homeopathy is a ludicrous quack cure.  The axioms of homeopathy were implausible as its benefits did not outweigh its risks and its costs and opportunity costs were considerable.  There was 'no good quality evidence to support the claim that homeopathy is effective in treating health conditions. '.  The homeopathic products contained potentially harmful amounts of belladonna, a toxin from a poisonous plant called deadly nightshade.  There is no evidence that homeopathic remedies are effective at either treating or preventing the disease.  Homeopathy is a worthless placebo.  Homeopathy is not effective, and therefore that people should not be encouraged to use it as a treatment.  Homeopathy is not effective.  There is no evidence that homeopathic products are effective.  The ""promotion and use of homeopathic products risks significant harms.  Homeopathy is ""rubbish.  Homeopathy is ""useless, unethical and unreliable.  Homeopathy is rubbish.  Many homeopathic medicines contained heavy metals like mercury, which can cause other lasting health problems.  Homeopathy were one of the great plagues of our time, something which all right-thinking people should be out marching in the streets to have banned.  Homeopathy is a waste of money.  Homeopathy does not work.  There is no good quality evidence that homeopathy is an effective treatment"".  Homeopathy is at best useless, and at worst life-threatening.  Homeopathy is not effective for treating any health condition.  Homoeopathy is not effective.  There is no evidence that homeopathy is effective as a treatment for any health condition.  Homeopathy lacks scientific evidence was seen as its main legitimacy problem.  The medicines in homoeopathy are not reliable for treating patients with various health problems.  The basic premise of homeopathy is wrong.  Homeopathy was ineffective.  There is no reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective for treating health conditions"".  The snore remedy and homeopathy in general is ineffective.  There was no reliable evidence from research in humans that homeopathy was effective for treating the range of health conditions considered"".  Homeopathy produces no health benefits over and above that of a placebo.  The principles on which homeopathy is based are 'scientifically implausible.  Homeopathy was no more effective than a sugar pill in the treatment of common medical conditions.  There is 'no good quality evidence' that homeopathy is effective in treating health conditions.  Homoeopathy was no more effective than a placebo.  There is "" no good quality evidence to support the claim that homeopathy is effective in treating health conditions. "".  Homeopathy is no more effective when compared to a placebo.  The overall evidence-base of homeopathy is becoming more and more negative.  There is ""no reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective"".  Homeopathy was absurdly expensive, but ultimately useless water.  Homeopathy doesn't work.  Homeopathy is just useless.  Homeopathy doesn't work and is unsafe.  The use of homeopathy could lead to 'serious animal health and welfare detriment. '.  Use of homeopathy could lead to 'serious animal health and welfare detriment.  Opting homeopathy can increase the risk related to health.  Homeopathy is dangerous or should be avoided entirely.  Promoting homeopathy may pose harm to patients who delay medical treatment in favour of an alternative cure.  There is no reliable evidence homeopathy is effective.  Homeopathy is not an effective way to treat any health conditions.  Homeopathy should not be used to treat serious health conditions and could become serious.  Homeopathy is not effective for any condition.  Homeopathy is not effective for treating any medical condition.  Homeopathy is unscientific quackery, whether practised on people or plants. ","[4, 5, 5, 2, 1, 5, 2, 1, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[6432269, 45567220, 45567227, 13581319, 45538225, 45953041, 20225558, 45405037, 45336988, 45189900, 15448937, 45361788, 45336993, 45185975, 45185946]"
eab77103-b629-4d67-b6c8-0a933808944c,2125,We should ban organic food,Arg-Human2,"Sir - bjorn lomborg (comment, june 13) says that ""organic food is bad for your health and wealth"".  Eating organic food doesn't improve health.  By removing just one study from the group of those included, the researchers also found that organic foods carry a higher risk of e.  coli contamination than conventional foods.  To further refute winters' contention that only organic produce is safe to eat, the u. s.  department of agriculture has reported that contaminants such as insects, fresh manure and fungal spores are found in greater quantity in organic foods than in conventionally gown produce.  Assuming that eating organic food does increase breast cancer risk by 9%, if everyone in the us ate organic food the number of women diagnosed with breast cancer might increase by 20,865 per year.  Another recent study concluded that eating organic food could make us fat.  Organic food is an expensive joke.  In addition, an fsa-funded review in 2009 showed that organic food was no healthier than conventional produce.  Organic food is expensive with questionable benefits.  Organic food is a waste of money.  S tanford scientists recently reviewed a number of studies and concluded that organic foods may not be much healthier or more nutritious than their conventional counterparts.  Organic food is a scam and does nothing to improve a person's health.  Organic food production would cause environmental damage such as ghg emissions from tractor use, destruction of natural habitat from farming and emissions from shipping organic food to retail.  Organic products such as milk, cereals, and pork generate higher greenhouse gas emissions than their conventional counterparts.  Organic food offers no nutritional benefit.  Perhaps the most confusing aspect of the study, carried out by the london school of hygiene and tropical medicine, was the conclusion that organic food provides no significant nutritional benefit.  A study of organic and conventional farms in minnesota showed that organic produce is more likely than conventional produce to have fecal contamination from manure used as fertilizer.  A study by the american college of physicians released in 2012 ""lacked strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. "".  Organic food is a waste of money, and offers no nutritional benefits.  Now a study published in the most recent issue of pediatrics, the journal of the american academy of pediatrics, has found that organic foods are no more nutritious than conventional products.  Organic foods run a greater risk of being contaminated with pathogens.  New study from stanford university has found little evidence of health benefits from organic foods.  So a new study from stanford university shows that organic produce probably isn't any more nutritious than the conventional variety.  In a recent study conducted by stanford university and published in the annals of internal medicine, researchers concluded that there is little evidence that organic food is healthier for you.  The associated press reported that a team of doctors at stanford university found little evidence that an organic diet offers greater health benefits.  Also, there are many studies, which claim that organic food is not healthy as they contain harmful bacteria and viruses.  Consider these factors when deciding on organic food:    - nutrition: no conclusive evidence shows that organic food is more nutritious than is conventionally grown food.  Organic foods are unsafe.  A study reported by the new york times a couple of years ago, explained that stanford university researchers analyzed 237 studies of organic produce, meats and dairy foods and concluded that organic foods are no more nutritious than their conventional counterparts.  Organic farming methods can cause more harm to the environment than normal industry practices.  Organic food has almost no evidence showing health benefits.  Organic food offers no nutritive benefit.  Organic food offered no nutritional benefit. ","[5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 45567220, 45567227, 45206691, 28810858, 45336988, 45189900, 45336993, 45401087, 20225558, 45411178, 29155723, 44044795]"
57a6bee4-366e-4653-8e57-978ea9fee3a9,2480,We should ban racial profiling,Arg-Human2,"Racial profiling is wrong and there should be more education of police officers.  Racial profiling remains a widespread problem.  Racial profiling violates both equal protection and title vi of the civil rights act, which enforces the 14th amendment as applied to federal entities.  Racial profiling violates the 14th amendment right to equal protection under the law.  Racial profiling violates basic human rights to fair treatment and freedom from discrimination.  Racial profiling is ineffective in determining a person's immigration status.  The racial profiling provision is highly discriminatory and in contravention of the fourth amendment of the constitution.  Racial profiling violates the civil rights and civil liberties of americans.  Racial profiling would be an ineffective method to fight crime in eau claire.  Racial profiling was incompatible with the principles of equality and non-discrimination.  Racial profiling is problematic.  Racial profiling is not tolerated.  Racial profiling was an insidious and destructive form of racial stereotyping, and was perpetuating social division and distrust.  Racial profiling is strictly prohibited and not tolerated.  Racial profiling is not an effective means of law enforcement.  Racial profiling is not a useful law enforcement tool.  Racial profiling remains a serious nationwide problem.  Racial profiling is, quote, ""wrong.  Racial profiling is never acceptable and deeply regret how the circumstances unfolded.  Racial profiling is wrong and illegal.  Racial profiling is never acceptable.  Racial profiling is ineffective.  Racial profiling is not something that we would support or approve of it.  Racial profiling is not effective policing.  Racial profiling is un-american.  The racial profiling is wrong.  Racial profiling of pakhtuns could create a dangerous situation, recalling the circumstances that led to the country's dismemberment.  Such racial profiling can have ""deadly consequences.  Racial profiling should be illegal, and that drinking beer on a stoop should not be.  Racial profiling remains a problem on the streets.  The extreme extension of racial profiling is violence.  Racial profiling practices were ineffective and should no longer be used by law enforcement.  Racial profiling is not an effective means of law enforcement and in many cases only adds to the distrust of law enforcement.  Racial profiling of pakhtuns could create a dangerous situation and increased distances among masses of both the provinces.  Such racial profiling could spur lawsuits.  Racial profiling is wrong.  Racial profiling simply does not work.  Racial profiling is wrong and intolerable.  Racial profiling is wrong and will not be tolerated.  Racial profiling is unlawful and undermines public safety by alienating communities.  Racial profiling was a problem and enlisted the ontario human rights commission to help combat it.  Racial profiling kills kids.  Racial profiling is unconstitutional as well as devastating to communities of color.  Racial profiling is ineffective, both in general and at the border.  Racial profiling is not acceptable.  Racial profiling is unconstitutional as well as devastating.  Racial profiling is unconstitutional.  The use of racial profiling is harmful to police-civilian relationships.  Racial profiling isn't tolerated.  Strategies based on mass arrests and racial profiling are counterproductive and drive individuals to extremism.  Racial profiling is not only immoral but bad police work and a waste of manpower and resources.  Racial profiling is wrong and ineffective.  Racial profiling is un-american and wrong.  Racial profiling was wrong.  Racial profiling is ineffective and unproductive as a law enforcement tool.  Such profiling is ""a form of discrimination"" and is illegal.  Racial profiling is not merely wrong, but is also ineffective.  Racial profiling would not be tolerated.  Racial profiling is prohibited under the 14th amendment and it's unconstitutional.  Racial profiling violates constitutional provisions for equal protection under the law when it is a sole basis for a police stop.  Racial profiling is unlawful and discriminatory. ","[4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3, 2, 1, 1, 5, 4, 4]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 45567220, 45567227, 45538225, 21785776, 45411178, 20225558, 20512953, 29155723, 44044795, 38202325, 15448937, 45185975]"
9c56b3aa-630b-4cc3-b5bf-68b9fc217810,1661,We should ban school uniforms,Arg-Human2,"Sam royston, director of policy at the children's society, said: ""school uniform costs can be a millstone around the necks of poorer parents, contributing to a cycle of debt and damaging the opportunities and well-being of lower income pupils.  Tasmanian council of social service chief executive tony reidy said school uniforms, shoes and school levies put significant pressure on families after the expensive christmas period.  ""nasuwt research shows that parents are increasingly finding that the cost of school uniform is a huge financial burden.  School uniforms have become just another source of corruption.  Mandating uniforms could cause a financial hardship for some families.  The school uniform is a remnant of apartheid and an infringement of their human rights.  School uniforms don't represent good value for money.  School uniforms must be banned because they squash individuality and run roughshod over students' right to free speech.  School uniforms are prohibitively expensive.  School uniforms violate the student's rights of freedom of expression.  School uniforms restrict students' freedom of expression.  School dress codes violate students' first amendment rights.  Mandatory school uniform policies violate first amendment rights of free expression and individual liberty.  School uniforms are a remnant of apartheid and a violation of human rights.  School uniforms are not effective at raising academic performance or student self-esteem.  Ban school uniforms because they are not as comfortable as normal clothing.  Mandatory school uniforms work against learning.  Opponents have voiced concerns about limiting free expression and cite studies that say school uniforms are not effective at raising academic performance or student self-esteem.  School uniforms don't boost security.  The cost of school uniforms can place a burden on families in the current economic climate.  Young there are studies which have found that wearing school uniforms slows down the sexualisation of young people - another area that can be frightening and threatening to the vulnerable young.  A public school where children wear uniforms is an unsafe place to send their child.  Tony cooper, the former head of cottenham village college, suggested earlier this year that school uniform was more trouble than it is worth - providing headaches for headteachers and interfering with learning.  School uniforms represent an extremely costly ongoing outlay for many parents.  School uniforms have ""no effect on academic achievement in elementary school and a significant negative effect in high school.  School uniforms place an undue financial burden on poor students.  The idea of school uniforms is absolutely appalling.  Lack of school uniforms is a major barrier that prevents pupils from being in school.  Statistics show that mandatory school uniforms work against learning.  School uniforms can be expensive and children often outgrow them at a rapid pace.  School uniform is a constant source of anxiety.  Another positive of not wearing school uniforms is that students will be able to have the ability to express themselves through what they wear.  School uniform is totally unnecessary.  The cost of school uniform is a huge financial burden.  School uniform causes more problems than it solves.  The group cites studies by a virginia tech sociologist, david brunsma, whose research found that school uniforms fail to improve student behavior, self-esteem or academics, as proponents assert.  School uniforms do not improve school safety.  School uniforms do not improve school safety but in fact create a false sense of security.  School uniforms should be banned thus allowing students to wear civil clothes to schools.  School uniforms are difficult to police and take away a student's right to freedom of expression.  School uniforms suppress free speech and students' expression of their individuality.  Most school uniforms not only lack comfort, they lack functionality, too.  School uniforms in public schools were somehow racially discriminatory. ","[2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 2, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4]",15,"[45190823, 20225558, 28813722, 45405037, 45181383, 45191873, 45181152, 45272708, 20512953, 29155723, 6432269, 45411178, 15448937, 44044795, 22345789]"
92928c0b-7804-4fcf-85da-9ea6f2e74341,2747,We should ban telemarketing,Arg-Human2,"Telemarketing is wasted money.  Telemarketing was universally unpopular.  Unwanted telemarketing calls are intrusive and irritating.  Telemarketing all together should be illegal.  All telemarketing robocalls should be prohibited without consumer consent to the home phone or to the cellphone.  Telemarketing has become synonymous with really irritating.  Telemarketing doesn't have the best reputation in many circles.  Perino: telemarketing is one of the worst.  Dishonest telemarketing is a source of distress and annoyance to people as well as businesses.  Telemarketing has become outdated in the social media and digital age.  Unlawful telemarketing can have serious consequences.  Telemarketing is unwanted.  Telemarketing is a great tool for scammers.  Telemarketers are a blight and should be outlawed.  The fsc implemented the telemarketing ban as part of measures to prevent consumer data recently stolen from card firms and banks from being misused by scammers.  Telemarketing is not very effective.  Telemarketing is a blight of our times.  According to the government, telemarketing has caused significant problems as it it often difficult for consumers to understand all the terms of the contract on the phone.  Unsolicited telemarketing calls or robocalls to cellphones are illegal.  Unlicensed telemarketing activity is a threat to consumers.  Telemarketing is a common scamming tool.  Phone fraud according to fbi reports, there are around 14,000 illegal telemarketing operations that steal more than $40 billion from unsuspecting citizens each year - most of whom are over the age of 60.  All of these telemarketing calls were made in violation of the tcpa.  Telemarketing is less effective.  Telemarketing has been associated with various scams and frauds.  Telemarketing is very rude.  Telemarketing to cell phone numbers has always been illegal in most cases and will continue to be so.  The ags call on the ftc to adopt a similar prohibition to telemarketing, indeed a total ban on the use of preacquired account information.  At the very least, telemarketing has lost its effectiveness in its original form.  Telemarketing doesn't work.  Money lost in a telemarketing scam is not likely to be recovered.  Stopping incessant telemarketing calls and scam pitches is a priority.  Telemarketing is not necessarily the solution to a better experience.  That type of telemarketing often leads to ""outright deception"" and confusion.  Silver said aggressive telemarketing is the state's top consumer complaint.  Unwanted telemarketing can be a ""nuisance"" and ""an intrusive invasion of privacy.  Consistent telemarketing and robocalls can reduce revenue and increase expenses for small business.  Too-frequent mailings and aggressive telemarketing led to ''a high level of annoyance'' among donors.  New york secretary of the state rossana rosado said, ""unwanted telemarketing calls continue to be a nuisance to new yorkers and a wasted sales effort for businesses.  Other pernicious telemarketing schemes threaten the elderly.  ""more and more new yorkers are receiving unwanted phone calls from telemarketing companies, causing an unwanted and unnecessary disturbance,"" cuomo said.  Fraudulent telemarketing operations display an ugly underbelly of society.  Telemarketing doesn't seem to be a very healthy space to be in.  ""unwanted telemarketing calls are intrusive and irritating,"" cuomo said.  Telemarketing robocalls are still a problem that could cause consumers ""significant economic harm by peddling fraudulent goods and services.  According to telecom operator dna, telemarketing causes problems and weakens customer satisfaction.  Unlawful telemarketing could have serious consequences.  Unwanted calls from telemarketers cause widespread frustration.  Telemarketers and robocalls have been a nuisance for decades.  Telemarketers can be annoying under the best of circumstances.  Unwanted telemarketing calls are a disruptive and annoying invasion of privacy.  Illegal telemarketing is a serious crime - punishable by heavy fines and long prison sentences.  Unrestricted telemarketing could constitute an intrusive invasion.  Telemarketing is a growing harassment to cellphone users.  Telemarketers are scum.  The practice of direct telemarketing violates rera 's rules and regulations. ","[5, 2, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 15448937, 45190571, 45401087, 45181383, 45181384, 28813722, 6340330, 19838540, 45183231, 45272708, 45181152, 45282792, 45336991]"
93aa0bbb-2f8f-4707-8d0c-6b22209e7bba,2227,We should ban whaling,Arg-Human2,"Whaling is wrong, contrary to its international obligations and should stop,.  Whaling in australian waters is illegal.  Whaling could pose a threat to population of the marine creature.  Scientific whaling is illegal.  Whaling should not be tolerated.  Whaling was illegal because it was not being conducted for purposes of scientific research.  Whaling in the southern ocean is wrong and unlawful.  The ban on whaling would benefit the southern ocean and make it safer for whales.  Whaling is outdated, horrendously cruel and unnecessary.  Whaling is no longer a necessary economic activity.  Whaling is unprofitable and a bad policy for the japanese people as well as for whales.  Whaling harms endangered species.  Whaling is unnecessarily brutal.  Whaling is damaging the commercial and political interests.  Whaling is illegal, the whales still face challenges.  Whaling is pointless and offensive.  Whaling is inherently cruel.  Whaling should stop.  Whales should not be killed or caught.  Such scientific whaling is untenable.  Will continue our efforts in the international whaling commission to strongly oppose commercial and so-called 'scientific' whaling, uphold the global moratorium on commercial whaling, and promote whale conservation. "".  Whale hunting is cruel and inhumane.  Whaling is entirely unnecessary.  Whaling is not a good idea.  Rni r sigursson, chairman of the althingi's foreign affairs committee, said today on his facebook page that ""whaling is damaging the commercial and political interests of icel and.  Whaling would lead to a new decline in population.  Whaling is wrong.  Whaling is now banned in most countries.  Whaling is still a serious threat to endangered whales.  Whaling is illegal here.  Whaling should end, and that's our intention with international case.  Old whale hunt should stop as it was not scientific and produced little actual research.  The strongest and most practical argument against whaling is that not only is it cruel, unethical and ecologically damaging, it is also economically unsustainable.  Whaling is illegal in these waters.  The annual ""scientific"" whale hunt in the southern ocean sanctuary is illegal.  Whaling is neither sustainable or responsible.  Whaling is unsustainable.  Whaling is morally wrong.  Whaling is unnecessarily brutal.  Whaling may have been a leading cause of the decline of the californian condor.  Whaling is not necessary, it is cruel and it has nothing to do with science.  Whaling is morally wrong and only 'legal' because the japanese falsely claim they're doing it for research.  Whaling was an example of mass murder rather than a commercial operation.  Whaling activities undermine these worldwide efforts to conserve whales.  Whaling is inhumane.  Whaling is not a good thing.  Whaling is increasingly seen as unacceptable.  Whaling in the southern antarctic waters is ""pointless and offensive"" to many new zealanders and reiterated a call to end the practice.  Whaling was ""an extremely dangerous business.  Whaling is unnecessary and ""barbaric"" animal cruelty that also poisons consumers (via elevated mercury levels.  Unrestricted whaling could lead to extinction, and limits should be applied to ensure ""long-term continuity of the business.  The whaling must stop because it wasn't scientific.  That its whaling is unacceptable to the world community.  Whaling for food threatens endangered species.  The whaling carried out in the southern ocean is ``cruel and barbaric, a gross sadistic perversion.  Whaling was in ""flagrant violation"" of international law.  Whale hunting is abhorrent.  Whaling itself is unethical.  Whaling should be stopped.  Whaling was illegal because it was not conducted for research purposes.  Scientific whaling is merely commercial whaling by another name and opposes all commercial whaling as inherently cruel, unnecessary and unsustainable.  The whaling program in the southern ocean must end because it is not scientific.  Whale hunt was illegal under international law.  Whaling should end.  Whaling in the great southern ocean is unlawful.  Whaling in the southern ocean is illegal. ","[1, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2]",15,"[45538225, 44690955, 45183231, 45272708, 45181152, 45191873, 45191882, 45206691, 45189900, 45401087, 45181384, 45190571, 45181383, 34854490, 43877630]"
5f957e2e-1de0-4598-8330-8b846a9ab6bb,3232,We should cancel pride parades,Arg-Human2,"Thorn said the center acknowledges that the pride events can be a ""burden"" for neighborhood residents.  Istanbul's governor has banned a gay pride parade in the city for the second straight year, citing threats from conservative muslim groups.  ""gay pride parades were banned by the moscow administration under yury luzhkov,"" alekseyev said.  In february, the city's legislative assembly adopted a law that imposes large fines for ""the propaganda of homosexuality and pedophilia among minors"" and specifically bans gay pride parades.  Pride marches are an unnecessary and out-dated concept.  Moscow's city court ruled in favour of a 100- year- long ban on gay pride parades in the russian capital.  Holding a gay parade would break the law on protecting children from harmful information.  To host a gay pride parade brings shame on the city.  Moscow's city government reconfirmed on wednesday its decision to reject an application to hold a gay pride parade in the city.  According to the state-run all-russian center for the study of public opinion, almost 90 percent of russians support the law that prohibits gay pride parades, publicly supporting lgbt rights or equating gay and heterosexual marriages.  Gay pride marches are regularly banned in russia and this summer, moscow's highest court banned gay pride parades in the capital for 100 years.  In a similar poll in moscow, 69% of the respondents said that gay parades should be prohibited, 11% disagree and 20% have no ready answer.  Some lawmakers of the riga city council had called on the riga city executive director to ban the gay pride parade.  The gay parade must be forbidden as a mortal sin, leading to utter spiritual death, to everlasting death.  The moscow city government in 2012 issued a ban on pride parades for the next hundred years.  Pride events engender a ""high"" risk of transmisiion.  Last year, moscow courts enacted a 100-year ban on pride parades.  In many parts of the world, pride marches remain a target for violence and persecution, and a motivator for oppressive governments' anti-lgbt legislation.  The istanbul governor's office has banned the pride march since 2015, citing security concerns and the need to uphold public order.  Moscow mayor sergei sobyanin said recently that he did not support the idea of gay pride parades and similar events being held in the capital.  In 2012, moscow's highest court upheld a municipal government ban on gay pride parades for the next 100 years.  Over 80 percent oppose gay parades and gay marriage.  The eighth trans pride march would be banned, citing public order and the safety of participants and tourists.  A ban on a gay pride parade through the streets of belgrade is ""a victory for serbia,"" the country's prime minister said.  The government argued that holding a gay pride parade would risk provoking riots, seeing as most moscow residents do not support gay rights or events like a gay pride parade.  Rabbi zephaniah drori, the chief rabbi of kiryat shmona, warned in an interview with arutz sheva that lgbtq pride parades harm both the religious sector and secular israeli society.  The pride event was banned yesterday.  Moscow mayor sergei sobyanin said in an interview with the ekho moskvy radio station on wednesday that he does not support the idea of gay pride parades and similar events being held in the capital.  Belgrade, serbia, oct.  3 (upi) -- the spiritual leader of the serbian orthodox church has called for bans on a gay pride parade and a photo exhibit that shows christ in women's' clothing.  Since 2011 public authorities have banned pride marches on the basis of threats from homophobic groups.  A pride parade had been banned by the local authority.  Gay pride parade would disrupt city life. ","[4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 4]",15,"[45567227, 45567220, 31948170, 45185975, 45191882, 45336988, 45336993, 45206691, 45189900, 45361788, 20512953, 15448937, 45411178, 6340330, 45458968]"
0a172309-d271-43fc-9e80-0a677a215583,2402,We should close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp,Arg-Human2,"Admiral dennis blair, former director of national intelligence, has similarly called the guantanamo prison ""a damaging symbol to the world"" and ""a rallying cry for terrorist recruitment,"" adding that ""closing it is important for our national security. "".  Keeping the guantanamo prison open hurts us far more than it helps us, and we must take action to finally close it.  Closing the prison at guantanamo bay is an important thing to do because it's good for the country and good for our security.  The guantanamo bay detention center is too expensive for taxpayers.  Closing the facility at guantanamo bay is essential for reestablishing our nation's commitment to the rule of law and protecting our security.  United states president barack obama said on tuesday that the guantanamo bay detention camp threatened the country's values and he did not want to pass the problem on to the next president, as he announced a closure programme for the prison.  Continuing to operate the prison at guantanamo bay is a waste of taxpayer money.  The guantanamo bay prison is ""counterproductive to our fight against terror.  The u. s.  detention facility at guantanamo bay is a useful recruiting tool for terrorists the world over.  The us joint chiefs of staff chairman has said that the controversial guantanamo bay detention center is a psychological scar on the united states.  The detention facility at guantanamo is a blot on our national honor.  Guantanamo bay prison is a stain on our nation's history.  The opening of guantanamo prison represents the human rights violations, torture, detention without charge, unfair trials and impunity for crimes.  Guantanamo prison camp is the highest form of human rights abuse.  In wednesday's wide-ranging foreign policy speech, obama pledged that the united states would redouble efforts to close guantanamo bay prison in cuba and tackle the threat of climate change.  A few weeks ago president obama lamented in a speech that he wanted to close guantanamo prison.  Guantanamo bay harms our national security.  The security risks of keeping guantanamo open outweigh the security and legal risks of closing it.  The guantanamo prison is not necessary to keep america safe.  The closure of the guantanamo bay detention center has been a top priority for president barack obama.  The guantanamo prison must be closed as soon as possible.  In light of this new order, the commission reiterates its urgent call to the united states for the immediate closure of the guantanamo bay prison facilities.  Guantanamo prison is wasteful and un-american.  Closing guantanamo would eliminate a propaganda symbol for terrorists to use against the country.  The congressional progressive caucus once again calls for the immediate closure of the guantanamo bay detention center.  Un rights chief navi pillay is calling on the united states to close the guantanamo prison where terrorism suspects are kept.  Washington: president barack obama has pledged to make a new push to close the guantanamo detention camp, saying his administration would re-engage with congress to overcome obstacles.  Bloomberg news (1/12, gaouette) reports, ""us secretary of state hillary clinton said president barack obama remains committed to shutting the guantanamo bay prison camp, which holds terrorism suspects. "".  Keeping guantanamo open is itself a risk to our national security.  Geneva - the u. n.  human rights chief says the u. s.  government must close the guantanamo bay prison as president barack obamapromised a year ago.  The guantanamo prison was a clear proof of us brutality and anti-islam policies.  The non-closure of the guantanamo detention camp by the united states is ''shameful.  The prison at guantanamo bay should be closed down.  Keeping the guantanamo prison is a flagrant violation of a number of fundamental human-rights norms of international law. ","[3, 4, 3, 3, 5, 5, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 3, 5, 2]",15,"[13581319, 19838540, 20225558, 44044795, 45677971, 45567220, 45355658, 45190823, 28810858, 45405037, 28813722, 45458968, 45411178, 15448937, 28513847]"
f671ee33-71a4-415d-8673-10d0f3ba8f28,2679,We should disband UNESCO,Arg-Human2,"Unesco's move could even inspire and legitimize future terrorists.  Unesco promotes ""lies"" and ""fake history.  In fact, un watch recently sent out the sobering warning that even though the stated mission of unesco is supposedly to promote education, science and culture, it has become ""hijacked by dictatorships. "".  Unesco is simply the latest organization that has outlived its utility and now threatens more harm than good.  With this decision, unesco has done a disservice to the peace process and implicitly endorsed arab rejectionism.  Speaking at a parliamentary debate in ottawa, kent said that unesco is being used as a tool for hatred, adding that ""denying the existence of a jewish temple is a blood libel which is a small step toward denying the existence of the jewish people. "".  The statement added that the unesco ""harms the historical and religious rights of the palestinians and millions of muslims and christians"" by this sorting.  Bennett also said that unesco's move ""provides immediate support to islamic terror. "".  Unesco's decision is not in the best interests of peace in the middle east.  ""to say that israel has no link to the temple mount is like saying that china has no link to the great wall or that egypt has no connection to the pyramids,"" netanyahu said, adding that ""with this absurd decision unesco has lost what little legitimacy it still had. "".  For israeli defense minister avigdor lieberman, the committee's decision provided all the evidence he needed to conclude that unesco is a ""politically slanted organization, disgraceful and anti-semitic, whose decisions are scandalous,"" while maintaining that ""no decision by this irrelevant organization will undermine our historic right over the tomb of the patriarchs, or our right over the country. "".  Unesco has become a ""theater of the absurd because instead of preserving history, it distorts it.  The unesco tag will destroy the livelihood of the people.  Unesco promotes 'lies' and 'fake history.  The unesco ""harms the historical and religious rights of the palestinians and millions of muslims and christians"" by this sorting.  Unesco is a very expensive and inefficient organization with huge administrative costs and lowering effectiveness.  Unesco has been distorting history and deceiving the international community on so many occasions.  Unesco's organizational structure and culture hinder its ability to fulfill its objectives.  Unesco has a long history of making outrageous and nonsensical decisions. ","[4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 2, 5, 3, 4]",15,"[21017840, 6432269, 45953041, 45538225, 6340330, 20312760, 44690955, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 44094031, 45206691, 34609243, 34854490]"
8baf9915-00c8-493d-bd03-e38e4eb5e855,2621,We should disband the United Nations,Arg-Human2,"The u. n.  is failing its mission to make the world a better and safer place.  The un has become the paramount threat to world peace, not the bringer of peace its promoters promised.  Today the united nations is inefficient.  The united nations has been worse than ineffective.  The united nations had become an ineffective world body, as it was unable to implement its own charter of human rights.  The united nations is a cesspool.  The united nations is flawed and incomplete.  Ros-lehtinen's bill cites a 2011 gallup poll that ""revealed that 62 percent of americans believe that the united nations is doing a poor job"" and a 2006 poll by another firm that found 71 percent of americans ""think that the united nations is 'no longer effective. '''.  The united nations is obsolete.  The united nations is ineffective.  The united nations is useless.  Critics such as the heritage foundation point out that the u. n.  is a waste of taxpayer money.  The united nations has gotten ineffective.  The united nations has failed to protect civilians under its care.  The united nations is hopelessly dysfunctional.  U. n.  is useless.  Gallup's study found that for the last 14 years, most americans think the un isn't doing a good job.  The american public generally shares those anti-un sentiments, with a 2014 gallup poll showing that a staggering 57 percent of americans believed the un was doing a ""bad job,"" versus 37 percent who thought it was doing a ""good job. "".  The united nations has also been unsuccessful in combating poverty, fighting fatal diseases, delivering timely disaster relief and humanitarian aid-not to discuss its human development undertakings.  The united nations has become an absolute joke.  The un is ineffective and unable to enforce the rules.  The united nations is effectively broken.  The united nations is a useless organization.  The united nations (u. n. ) has proven to be an ineffective and wasteful bureaucracy.  The united nations has become ineffectiveand unwieldy in the face of increasing global challenges and responsibilities.  The u. n.  is a waste of precious taxpayer money.  The un has failed humanity and should be disbanded and reconstituted again.  The un is impotent and effectively moribund.  The un has itself failed miserably and inexcusably in this respect.  The un has failed to protect vulnerable people, including children, from sexual abuse.  The united nations has failed to resolve the issues of international community.  The united nations is raping children.  The united nations is 'no longer effective.  Unfortunately, the united nations is totally ineffective.  The un is corrupt, and a venue for corruption.  The united nations is failing some of the most vulnerable children it is supposed to protect.  The un is failing its mission to make the world a better and safer place, and continues to lose credibility.  The u. n.  is a massively corrupt and hopelessly broken institution.  According to gallup, 60% of americans think the united nations is doing a poor job.  The united nations often fails, and it also achieves far less than the visions of its founders would lead us to expect. 5.  Washington and the united nations had been laughably ineffective.  The us ambassador to the un, nikki haley, said that the united nations has done much more harm to peace in the middle east than progress in any settlement.  The united nations is doing a poor job.  The united nations is failing in its responsibility to ensure global peace.  A 2015 gallup poll revealed that 57 percent of americans believe that the united nations is doing a poor job.  The un is incorrigibly corrupt.  The un has been ineffective in dealing with the crises in the middle east.  The united nations has failed in its mandate.  The united nations provides ineffective peacekeepers.  The united nations is irredeemable. ","[2, 2, 2, 2, 5, 2, 2, 4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 4]",15,"[45185975, 45191882, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 45190823, 13581319, 20312760, 45411178, 34110399, 20512953, 29155723, 45405037, 27770607, 19838540]"
f5dbf0f2-c4f7-4e22-a121-7e729774bd0c,3581,We should end cheerleading,Arg-Human2,"Cheerleaders or shriners aren't good for the economy.  Difficult, cheerleading has become more dangerous.  Cheerleading doesn't work.  In 2012, the american academy of pediatrics noted that as the physical rigors of cheerleading have increased ""the number and severity of injuries from cheerleading has also surged. "".  Cheerleading is also responsible for 66 percent of disastrous sports injuries, including the ones that shorten lives, result in permanent disability or cause long-term medical conditions, among girls, the study noted.  Cheerleading is the most risky sport for female athletes, as girls, who suffer concussions, often don't give importance to, or knowingly neglect, their injuries.  A new research has revealed that cheerleading is the most risky sport for female athletes, as girls, who suffer concussions, often don't give importance to, or knowingly neglect, their injuries.  Cheerleading isn't just pointless - it's also extremely dangerous.  Cheerleading stunts have also proven dangerous, more so than football when it comes to catastrophic injury.  Cheerleading is a dangerous sport.  Cheerleading is an unsafe sport.  Cheerleading was a dangerous sport.  The kernel of truth stems from a 2012 study by the american academy of pediatrics, which found that cheerleading has accounted for about 66 percent of all catastrophic injuries in high-school female athletes over the past 25 years.  Cheerleading is a dangerous sport, with a high risk of injury.  Cheerleading has a high incidence of injury and concussion and should be included in the law.  Cheerleading was outdated.  Cheerleading is one of the most dangerous sports for children, particularly because of the stunts involved.  Cheerleading can be dangerous.  Cheerleading is the nation's most dangerous sport.  Cheerleading has become a sport that poses risk factors including death.  Cheerleading is the most dangerous sport for young women.  Cheerleading poses more risk than playing football.  Cheerleading can also be dangerous.  The study noted that cheerleading accounts for 66 percent of catastrophic sports injuries - the kind that shorten lives or result in permanent disability or long-term medical conditions - among girls.  Cheerleading has become the leading cause of catastrophic sport.  Fun fact: cheerleading is the most dangerous sport for females, even more than soccer (which usually has the highest rate of head injuries.  One recent study indicates that cheerleading now ranks second in catastrophic sports injuries in the united states.  Cheerleading has become the leading cause of catastrophic sport-related injuries.  Cheerleading is the most dangerous sport out there.  According to a 2013 study published in the journal of pediatrics, cheerleading causes the highest rate of catastrophic injury (severe injury to the spine, spinal cord or brain) in sports for females, accounting for 66 percent of all such injuries.  Cheerleading has been unfairly deemed a dangerous sport.  Cheerleading is so dangerous.  Cheerleading is not a safe activity.  Cheerleaders face a greater risk of injury than their football playing contemporaries.  The paper also notes that cheerleading is one of the highest-risk sporting events for direct catastrophic injuries that can result in permanent brain injury, paralysis or death, especially at the college level.  . ' between 1982 and 2008, cheerleading accounted for 66 percent of all catastrophic injuries among females in high school and college sports.  Even cheerleading is dangerous.  Cheerleading has become the most dangerous female sport with regardto catastrophic injuries (mueller.  Cheerleading was more dangerous than the public perceived, but records were poorly kept until recently.  A report from the national center for catastrophic injuries said that, statistically speaking, cheerleading is the most dangerous sport -- even more so than football.  Cheerleading is one of the highest risk sporting events for direct catastrophic injuries that can result in permanent brain injury, paralysis or death.  Cheerleading is probably the highest risk sport for a catastrophic head and neck injury. ","[2, 4, 3, 5, 5, 2, 4, 3, 4, 4, 1, 5, 1, 2, 5]",15,"[13581319, 19838540, 20225558, 45677971, 45567220, 45355658, 44044795, 45190823, 45405037, 28810858, 28813722, 15448937, 45411178, 21785776, 45458968]"
0894d31a-ec71-4944-94af-552df093ecd8,3170,We should end mandatory retirement,Arg-Human2,"The mandatory retirement rule ""has the lamentable effect of perpetuating these pernicious stereotypes,"" the judges claim.  Scientific evidence suggests this mandatory retirement age isn't a good idea.  The mandatory retirement for state jurists is a ""very bad idea.  The mandatory retirement age is useless and amounts to age discrimination.  The mandatory retirement age is unnecessary.  Mandatory retirement ages be abolished entirely.  A mandatory retirement age is a mistake.  The mandatory retirement age amounts to age discrimination and violates the equal protection clause.  Mandatory retirement age is discriminatory.  Abolishing a compulsory retirement age should form part of a multi-pronged approach to tackling ireland's 'pensions time-bomb'.  The order of compulsory retirement is illegal and invalid.  The committee's recommendation followed research from the citizens' assembly, a group representing the irish public, which said 86% of its members supported scrapping mandatory retirement.  The order of compulsory retirement was bad.  Mandatory retirement is unlawful in most canadian jurisdictions.  The state's mandatory retirement is unconstitutional.  The mandatory retirement age amounts to age discrimination and violates the equal protection clause under the 14th amendment of the u. s.  constitution.  The mandatory retirement age violates constitutionally protected rights against discrimination.  The mandatory retirement policy was unconstitutional.  The order of compulsory retirement was bad and thereupon the state of gujarat filed an appeal.  The suit, which names gov.  tom corbett and other state administrators, claims that the mandatory retirement age is discriminatory and violates constitutional rights to equal protection and due process of the law.  Mandatory retirement provision is age discrimination.  The mandatory retirement age law is unconstitutional.  The mandatory retirement age should be scrapped.  The compulsory retirement age has been abolished.  Compulsory retirement, whether negotiated or required by law, stigmatizes aging and perpetuates inequality.  Mandatory retirement is unnecessary and discriminatory.  Mr seldon then launched employment tribunal proceedings arguing that his mandatory retirement was direct age discrimination.  The mandatory retirement age is causing major problems for fire services across the country.  Wyandotte complained to the equal employment opportunity commission that the mandatory retirement rule ""constitutes age discrimination on its face. "".  Mandatory retirement is a needless waste of knowledge and experience.  Mandatory retirement age is unjust.  Mandatory retirement policy was unconstitutional.  Mandatory retirement should be scrapped from the chra.  Mandatory retirement at upei is discriminatory.  Judge galen vaa claims the mandatory retirement age for district court judges is discriminatory and unconstitutional.  Literature evidence suggest that in many cases voluntary retirement has positive or neutral effects, whereas mandatory retirement may lead to negative health and social effects. 9-11.  The judges contend the mandatory retirement provision is age discrimination that violates their constitutional rights.  Mandatory retirement is being described as ""age discrimination"" by age action.  The mandatory retirement age should be abandoned.  The firm's compulsory retirement age constituted age discrimination.  Mandatory retirement due to age breaches the constitutional right to dignity and equality.  Pennsylvania judges are so sure that the state's mandatory retirement age is discriminatory they're suing in state and federal court.  The mandatory retirement provision violates similar protections.  Mandatory retirement ages be abolished and it's time the government now acted to make it a reality.  The aaup-advocated removal of mandatory retirement was particularly important for women.  Mandatory retirement can have a seriously detrimental effect on individuals, both from an economic and a social exclusion point of view.  The state's mandatory retirement age is discriminatory and violates the pennsylvania constitution.  The mandatory retirement age is discriminatory and violates constitutional rights to equal protection and due process of the law.  The mandatory retirement age is discriminatory and violates the federal constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process.  Mandatory retirement violates the equal protection clause of the federal constitution. ","[5, 4, 4, 2, 5, 2, 3, 3, 4, 3, 1, 4, 4, 3, 4]",15,"[45185975, 45191882, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 13581319, 20312760, 28813722, 45411178, 15448937, 29155723, 45355658, 30777913, 30783876, 6340330]"
61cb049c-63c6-4c3a-90bf-018bf4604446,3197,We should end progressive taxation,Arg-Human2,"A progressive tax in many cases isn't progressive, it's just a way for the state to grab more money from taxpayers.  Progressive taxes were unfair, a symbol of big government, and lowering them was the most effective way to put a stake in the heart of big government liberalism.  The progressive income tax is and always has been illegal and immoral.  The progressive income tax is among the greatest affronts to individual liberty in american history.  Progressive taxation is so destructive.  The report confirms the long-standing consensus of tax economists that high, progressive income taxes contribute to revenue volatility, and also confirms the growing chorus of experts who argue that the current sales tax structure has failed to keep up with fundamental economic changes.  Progressive taxation is an unconstitutional violation of the uniformity clause.  Three state supreme court decisions have called the progressive income tax a violation of washington's state constitution.  Progressive taxation in europe distorts the incentives to invest in human capital.  The progressive income tax is unfair only because all income tax is unfair.  Progressive tax on the exports of crude palm oil (cpo) is illogical and irrelevant.  Progressivity in taxation - the notion that people should pay proportionally more as their incomes rise - is counterproductive.  A progressive tax system is the biggest obstacle to wealth generation.  Progressive taxation is unconstitutional and impedes the growth of the economy in an emergency situation.  A progressive income tax is unconstitutional.  Steeply progressive taxes reduce incentives for workers to be more productive.  A progressive tax would be a burden for middle-income families.  Progressive taxation is a moral abomination.  The progressive taxation may be antithetical to growth.  High taxes negatively impact economic growth, especially highly progressive taxes.  The progressive income tax is unfair and should be abolished.  A progressive tax would entail large tax hikes on the middle class, leading to severe economic damage.  More progressive tax structures reduce economic growth.  Progressive taxes are wrong.  Claim that a progressive tax would benefit illinois' long-term economic growth is also false.  Progressive taxes and generous social welfare spending are bad for the overall economy.  The implementation of a progressive tax in developing and transition economies did not bring good results in the past.  Highly progressive income taxes are associated with higher inequality, while states with no income taxes have lower inequality.  Progressive taxation reduces the returns to entrepreneurship and induces entrepreneurial moral hazard.  The letter writer's claim that a progressive tax would benefit illinois' long-term economic growth is also false.  The research estimates that under low and high scenarios, $500 million in progressive income taxes will cost the alaska economy between 2,720 and 3,930 full-time-equivalent jobs; by contrast, permanent fund dividend cuts cost between 2,790 and 4,460 jobs, and broad-based state budget cuts take out 4,900 to 6,300 jobs.  Progressive taxes restrain the profit motive, resulting in less incentive to take the risk to create a new or expand an existing business.  A progressive tax system somehow restricts growth and innovation.  Twice, the state supreme court has held that a graduated income tax is unconstitutional.  The planned progressive tax may do more harm than benefit.  A progressive tax would be bad for the state.  A progressive tax system punishes people for hard work and success.  High, progressive taxes destroy productivity.  The downside of a progressive tax structure is that it discourages investment and risk taking, a principle acknowledged by economists of all stripes.  Progressive taxation would not reduce social inequality, given the large share of shadow economy.  Progressive taxation is thus both morally wrong.  Progressive taxation is unconstitutional.  The progressive income tax - is a violation of the equal protection clause. ","[4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 2, 2]",15,"[45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 45181384, 45401087, 45190571, 45181383, 45191882, 45189900, 45206691, 6367365, 45483811, 29155723, 43877630]"
30736838-13d5-4023-86ba-0571898cf7da,3263,We should end the use of economic sanctions,Arg-Human2,"Lifting the embargo is the right thing.  Further economic sanctions could ""undermine already weakening growth prospects.  Further economic sanctions could harm bp's income, production and reputation.  Tough economic sanctions are a blunt instrument of power that harms a wide swath of ordinary iranians without punishing those whose political decisions are the target of the penalties.  The use of unilateral economic sanctions could be proscribed as an internally illegal act of aggression.  The economic sanctions imposed on syrian people are unacceptable.  The global economic sanctions against the islamic republic will not be effective to hinder the country's oil industry progress.  The embargo is a violation of human rights.  Economic sanctions represent a threat to peace and social security and leads to escalation and prolongation of the conflicts.  Economic sanctions would harm the syrian people directly.  Economic sanctions targeted at depriving people of food and other essentials are illegal and prohibited by international law.  Economic sanctions, like a siege, intend harm to civilians and therefore cannot be justified as a tool of warfare.  Economic sanctions, historically, have always hurt people and there is no justification to approve of them.  The imposition of economic sanctions would have a negative impact on human rights in the country.  Lifting economic sanctions will help expand economic cooperation.  Further economic sanctions on the north are unlikely to deter its pursuit of nuclear weapons.  The nuclear deal and the relief from economic sanctions has had a positive impact on their lives.  Lifting economic sanctions will further support trade and economic growth.  Ending financial sanctions will fuel economic cooperation and trade.  The disproportionate use of economic sanctions will undermine diplomacy as an effective tool in international relations.  The embargo no longer serves a useful purpose.  Economic sanctions therefore undermine employment, the creation of wealth and stability.  Normally economic sanctions have left behind undesirable consequences but their political success has not been remarkable.  The western economic sanctions are counterproductive.  The economic sanctions are totally ineffective.  Imposing economic sanctions as a tool of intimidation and political pressure would seriously undermine the legitimacy of the international system arising from the un charter.  Economic sanctions would harm ordinary syrian civilians while leaving assad largely unscathed.  Imposing a financial sanction on the university could be ""illegal, inappropriate and discriminatory.  Most economic sanctions have been ineffective.  The economic sanctions failed to spur significant political change.  Economic sanctions would damage both british interests and the black population.  The economic sanctions were ""unconstitutional.  The introduction of economic sanctions is an unacceptable way to influence these or those countries, the public opinion foundation (fom) said citing a poll held.  The lifting of economic sanctions will have a beneficial multiplier effect on the human rights situation in the country, especially on the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights.  Economic sanctions would be harmful because they would ultimately backfire.  Lifting the embargo would benefit the economies of both countries.  Economic sanctions will ultimately fail.  The path of pressure and economic sanctions is a wrong path  and will be detrimental to all.  The excessive use of economic sanctions could weaken the role of the united states and the dollar on global markets.  The costs of trade sanctions imply damage to a world with worrying threats of recession.  The financial sanctions would be ineffective.  Economic sanctions will have a negative impact on a german economy determining to a large extent the eurozone's welfare.  Unilateral economic sanctions trample the fundamental rights of people in the targeted countries.  The eu economic sanctions against it are not only unacceptable, but also unproductive.  Unilateral economic sanctions aren't effective.  The economic sanctions threaten international peace and security.  Economic sanctions would be mutually destructive in the modern, interconnected global economy. ","[3, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 3, 5, 5]",15,"[13581319, 20225558, 45677971, 45567220, 19838540, 45405037, 45355658, 28810858, 28813722, 44044795, 45569485, 45567227, 21785776, 15448937, 45458968]"
2b300de9-bb10-450b-9f6b-f371e6107339,3205,We should end water fluoridation,Arg-Human2,"Putting fluoride in the water supply might increase the risk of things like bone disease.  Mandatory fluoridation of public water is unlawful and may contribute to long-term detrimental health effects when ingested by humans.  The risk of harm posed by water fluoridation greatly exceeds its speculative benefits.  Public fluoridation can have harmful effects.  Water fluoridation poses ethical and health problems.  State water fluoridation is hazardous to human health.  Water fluoridation can be linked to serious health problems.  Optimal drinking water fluoridation is dangerous for human consumption.  Water fluoridation is too great a risk to general health let's have an open discussion about what causes dental disease.  The purposeful fluoridation of drinking water presents an unreasonable risk to human health from neurotoxicity.  Water fluoridation is detrimental.  There is no good evidence to show that water fluoridation reduces the number of tooth extractions for dental decay.  The fluoridation of drinking water confers little benefit to public health, relative to the alleged neurotoxic risks.  Water fluoridation was linked to lower iqs and adversely effected cognitive development in children.  Water fluoridation is poison and it's neurotoxic.  Putting fluoride in the water system is a violation of the right of citizens for consent to medication.  Water fluoridation imposes ethical issues, may cause serious health problems, is not effective enough to justify the costs, and has a dosage that cannot be precisely controlled.  Water fluoridation is far more harmful than its purported benefits.  Water fluoridation imposes ethical issues, may cause serious health problems.  Water fluoridation is unnecessary and inappropriate because fluoride is now found in many foods, drinks and dental products such as toothpaste.  Water fluoridation is unsafe.  Water fluoridation violates civil rights that fluoride is the nerve poison, and that fluoride is unwanted compulsory medication that can have danger side effects.  Water fluoridation can potentially cause harm including bone cancer.  The fluoridation of drinking water is dangerous and not recommended.  Water fluoridation causes cancer.  Water fluoridation also may cause damage to the liver, kidneys, thyroid, bones, brain and the human fetus.  Showing fluoridation is potentially harmful and ineffective at reducing tooth decay.  Water fluoridation is not effective, or that more research is needed, or that it is linked to serious diseases.  Water fluoridation does not reduce dental decay but increases the risk of many other medical complaints.  Water fluoridation could lead to cancer.  Fluoride in the water supply is useless at reducing tooth decay.  Fluoride in water supplies is harmful to public health.  The fluoride in water is unsafe and doesn't work.  Water fluoridation could lead to detrimental health effects.  Water fluoridation significantly lowers iq in children and may be a neuro-oxidant that affects brain development.  Water fluoridation increases cavities, bone fractures, behavioral problems and cancer death rates.  The risks of fluoridation outweigh the benefits.  Fluoride in water is ineffective at fighting cavities and causes various health problems.  Water fluoridation can increase the risk of some cancers, hip fractures and down's syndrome.  Water fluoridation causes cancer and lowers iq.  Fluoride in water is a ""toxic poison.  Water fluoridation was detrimental to public health.  Water fluoridation is not only ineffective at reducing tooth decay, but is also harmful to health.  Government fluoridation of public drinking water is wrong because it removes an individual's right to choose what to consume.  Water fluoridation causes harm to humans and animals.  Water fluoridation is an evil plan devised by the government to control the population for their financial gains.  Water fluoridation is both unconstitutional and a violation of the ontario safe drinking water act.  Forced fluoridation is unethical mass medication.  Water fluoridation violates both the canadian charter of rights and freedoms and the ontario safe drinking water act. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 1, 2, 4, 4, 4, 2, 1]",15,"[45181384, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45191882, 45189900, 45206691, 45483811, 29155723, 43877630, 45361788, 45336993, 45336988, 44094031, 32850083]"
eacd7747-2cfd-42b2-8169-72f4575c45b9,3223,We should fight global warming,Arg-Human2,"Man-made climate change will lead to negative outcomes for the planet.  The climate crisis already threatens the health of our planet and the viability of our economy.  The climate crisis is an existential threat to our planet.  On top of this we must fight global warming too, because a warmer world will be a wetter one.  Man-made climate change is a dangerous reality. ).  Man-made climate change is our greatest threat.  Tackling global warming also presents the greatest global opportunity to improve people's health in the 21st century.  The best approach to the problem of global warming continues to be reductions of greenhouse gases.  Inaction on global warming represents a major risk to businesses that should be clearly articulated to policymakers, the american public and investors.  Man-made ""climate change"" causes coastal erosion.  The global warming ultimately resulted in the massive erosion of the land due to the deterioration of protective coastal sea ice.  Manmade global warming is destroying the planet, with average temperatures increasing every year at an alarming rate.  Threat from global warming poses a national risk rivalling that of terrorism, and should be seen as a top security priority.  Man-made climate change is one of the ""greatest threats"" to the country.  The impacts of human-caused climate change are intensifying across the country and are already compromising americans' well-being.  The globe's climate crisis threatens to transform the earth into a planet fundamentally hostile to people.  Manmade global warming imperiled our society's wellbeing.  Man-made climate change is dangerous.  Unchecked global warming will have a huge negative effect on the economy, dwarfing the costs of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels.  Increase in global warming is also posing increased threat to renewable water sources.  The climate crisis is the greatest public health threat of our time.  Unmitigated man-made climate change could likely pose significant problems for humanity as the 21st century unfolds.  Said global warming is a ""very serious"" problem.  Man-made climate change is happening and is a threat to public health and our environment.  Large consumers of fossil fuels, which accelerate global warming, increase world instability and lead to a real death spiral of more war and conflict.  Reducing greenhouse gases and fighting global warming are a moral obligation.  Tackling the global climate crisis was a viable solution to both economic and social issues, and advocated for unity among climate-change activists.  This global warming is behind every destructive weather event.  Increasing global warming will lead to more severe weather and rising oceans.  The risks of human-caused climate change are now the greatest threat in the fight to tackle global poverty.  Man-made climate change is real and a danger to our planet.  Man-made climate change is an imminent threat to society.  Rising sea levels through global warming can have catastrophic effects on many areas across the globe.  Risks and damages of global warming far outweigh possible benefits.  Man-made climate change is a reality that is threatening our planet.  The climate crisis is the greatest threat we face as a nation.  Man-made climate change is significant and dangerous.  The climate crisis threatens the global economy.  The climate crisis is a real, human-caused threat.  Mechanisms to fight global warming can help foster peace.  Man-made climate changes are real and they pose a great threat to the planet and its inhabitants.  The fight against global warming is becoming increasingly urgent.  Unmitigated global warming poses unacceptable risks to human welfare.  Manmade global warming is causing a range of problems, including extreme weather conditions such as hurricanes and drought, across the world.  Human-induced global warming holds significant consequences for life on earth.  Manmade global warming poses a major threat. ","[4, 5, 2, 4, 5, 2, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 31948170, 45411178, 45405037, 45189900, 45185975, 45185946, 45190823, 45336988, 20512953, 45191882, 19838540, 15448937, 30777913]"
3fc0adfb-e8f9-454f-a6a7-c8691346d0fe,3193,We should fight nationalism,Arg-Human2,"All nationalisms display obsession, instability and indifference to reality.  Nationalism has produced the most brutal and cruel wars in history.  Nationalism is the chief cause of war in europe.  Nationalism can be as divisive as racism and religious bigotry.  Nationalism is as divisive as racism.  Nationalism is the preserve of bullying bigots.  Nationalism is a threat to the stability of the entire western world.  The rise of ultra-nationalism threatens the very foundations of liberal societies.  Nationalism is a failed experiment.  Nationalism only leads to war.  All nationalism leads inevitably to bloodshed and violence.  Nationalism is the negative and extreme part.  Extreme nationalism is dangerous.  This form of nationalism can be very dangerous as its boastful and mushrooming with a lot of pride.  Nationalism is a very harmful and destructive phenomenon for integrity of the russian state as it originally was forming as a multiethnic and multi-faith country. "".  Nationalism can become divisive, chauvinistic, aggressive and expansionist.  Nationalism is a dangerous political philosophy.  Nationalism is a false promise.  Nationalism is a bad thing, nation states worse.  Isolation and nationalism are not a path to a peaceful and secure future.  Nationalism is 'the worst enemy of peace'.  Nationalism is the worst enemy of peace.  The writer victor erofeyev believes that ""extreme nationalism is the germ that could lead to the country's disintegration. "".  An excessive nationalism cuts us off from our patrimony, and so is self-defeating.  Too much nationalism is very bad for business.  Nationalism and patriotism were pernicious and usually led to war and conflict.  Nationalism can be as divisive as racism and religious hatred.  Nationalism is an infantile disease and it is the measles of mankind.  Nationalism is always very negative, very pernicious.  Nationalism is evil and the primary cause of global conflict.  The letter argues that, ""u. s.  nationalism, often contributes to racism and xenophobia, and that the paraphernalia of nationalism is in fact often used to intimidate. "".  Nationalism has never been successful in shaping a peaceful world order that is sustainable.  Nationalism is ""dangerous.  Nationalism is a very harmful, destructive thing for the integrity of the russian state because it initially developed as a multinational country where many religions are represented.  Nationalism tends to undermine the autonomy of intellectuals.  Nationalism in its narrow form can also be extremely oppressive.  Nationalism is divisive and therefore dangerous.  Nationalism is dangerous and out of date.  Traditional, narrow nationalism is wrong.  All forms of nationalism were ""dangerous, and should be treated with caution.  Nationalism is dangerous because it leads to war.  Nationalism frequently facilitates belligerence and intolerance.  Extreme nationalism is harmful.  Nationalism is somehow bad.  Faith based extremist nationalism can destroy peace and incite conflict and rejects all political violence that causes physical and mental insecurity among the people.  Today nationalism rather harms us than contributes to development.  Nationalism (in the hands of fanatics) is very dangerous.  This second form of nationalism is the most dangerous.  A nationalism built on narrow-mindedness would pose a threat to the country and its people.  The nationalists are consistently negative and will consistently do anything to shout down anyone who speaks out against them.  Unbridled nationalism is a menace; it leads to trade wars and, all too often, real wars.  Nationalism is dangerous.  Nationalism is reactionary, narrow, xenophobic and outdated in any country and can tip over all too easily into fascism.  Nationalism itself had become dangerously oppressive.  Growing nationalism is the biggest threat to modern europe.  The rise of nationalism is undermining international courts and agreements.  Nationalism causes war.  Nationalism is a detriment to the development of modern nations and economies.  Nationalism has often been associated with violence and militarization in modern history.  Nationalism is inherently divisive. ","[3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4]",15,"[20225558, 45190823, 29155723, 13581319, 20512953, 45181383, 45191873, 45181152, 45272708, 45411178, 45405037, 45355658, 45189900, 45191882, 45206691]"
a17631e8-1be3-4cea-b83d-d61baa0be4c2,3199,We should fight urbanization,Arg-Human2,"Urbanisation increases the risk of major depression in elderly nigerians.  The urbanisation that is taking place is menacing to the balanced development.  Urbanization contributes to a loss of global biodiversity.  The process of urbanization has led to unplanned growth and disruption of the natural contours and impeded the paths on which waters flow.  Urbanization is a threat.  Rapid urbanisation poses particular risks.  Upstream urbanization can have an adverse impact on weather and air quality over cities downstream.  Urbanization is a major driving force of inequality.  Rapid urbanization -- including deforestation, air pollution, and increasing energy demand -- has had damaging effects on the planet.  The rapid urbanization poses serious implications.  Urbanization is a leading cause of decline in the diversity and abundance of indigenous arthropods.  Urbanisation is a big problem.  Rapid urbanisation will create a host of challenges like pollution, lack of civic amenities like drinking water, sewage, and electricity.  Urbanization had a negative effect on the birth rate.  Unsustainable urbanization breeds economic and social inequality and attendant surge in crime, disease and disenfranchisement.  Urbanization could make the flooding impacts of hurricanes worse, and in multiple different ways.  Rapid, unplanned, urbanisation is the greatest enemy of sustainable development.  Rapid urbanisation leads to encroachment into the hinterland and causes loss of agricultural land, flooding and traffic congestion.  Such explosive urbanisation carries huge risks as resources and infrastructure are stretched to the limit.  Rapid urbanisation poses particular risks that affect sustainable livelihoods of millions of people.  The growing urbanisation is one of the main causes of increase in prevalence of asthma.  Urbanization is associated with ""increased levels of mental illness, including depression.  Unplanned and rapid urbanisation can lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions, urban poverty, and inequality.  Urbanization would lead to the extinction of ethnic folk dance and music.  Urbanization has led to a loss of potentially beneficial bacteria and an increase of potential pathogenic bacteria or genes.  Urbanisation leads to rape.  Urbanization will be detrimental to developing chicks.  Rapid urbanization and deforestation has led to tigers and leopards being pushed into human habitats.  Rapid urbanisation is threatening the future of the planet because people living in towns and cities have lost touch with the natural world.  When unplanned and unmanaged, urbanisation can lead to increased inequality, the growth of slums and disastrous impacts on climate.  Urbanization could be considered a risk factor for hardening of the arteries, as modern people leave behind lives of struggle for a more cushy existence.  Urbanization was more deadly to forests than human vandalism.  The accelerating global urbanisation is a threat to food security.  Urbanization, modernization and socioeconomic gains can lead to increased social alienation and a higher suicide rate.  Technology, trade and urbanization destroy jobs.  The urbanisation drive was depriving the rural folks of their rights of ownership and destroying their economic resources.  The effects of urbanisation and climate change were converging in dangerous ways which threatened to have unprecedented negative impact on quality of life and economic and social stability.  Urbanization has brought in destruction of environment, increase in poverty, unemployment and crime rate.  Rapid urbanization had put a serious strain on infrastructure, with service delivery standards also very poor.  Urbanisation is a key driver of unsustainable resource demands.  Rapid urbanisation poses grave challenges for sustainability of the human race.  The current urbanization model is costly and unsustainable.  Speculative urbanization is a dangerous instrument.  Urbanization can make the flooding impacts of hurricanes worse, and in multiple dissimilar ways.  Urbanization has greater adverse effects than agriculture on invertebrate assemblages in the midwest.  Urbanization worsen the living standards of poor.  Urbanization is causing damage to the forests. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[21017840, 45191873, 45183231, 45181152, 45272708, 45336991, 45282792, 7756990, 45483811, 44690955, 45167145, 45355658, 26649250, 33708599, 34854490]"
a5c445df-f6cf-40c5-a44c-9f99f0ed366a,2122,We should further exploit green technology,Arg-Human2,"The people, industry and environment can benefit from green technology.  The adoption of new green technology could be a boost for the economy as well as the environment.  Use of the latest technology, including green technology, could increase infrastructure quality, cut costs and reduce carbon dioxide emissions.  The so-called ""green solution"" is an acceptable alternative to adding additional underground storage capacity for the sewer system.  The ""shift to a green economy may be a pathway to sustainable development.  The development of green technologies is one of the major targets for the whole world.  The use of green technology will contribute to sustainable development where economic growth and the development of the country can be attained without destroying the environment.  The green technology is considered an essential part of any repitable networking solution.  The implementation of green technology will be the best way to affect change.  The need to switch to green technology should be seen as an opportunity and not as a burden.  That green technologies will deliver a mix of economic, social and environmental benefits to the country.  The benefits of implementing green technology into architecture extend beyond the environment and outweigh the higher initial operating costs.  The rising awareness among malaysians for green technology is a promising development to promoting the sector as an engine for economic growth.  Use using green technology is a good idea.  The increased demand for green technologies will provide new business opportunities for local suppliers and contractors working in the green energy sector.  The development of ""green technologies"" is a healthy future for the country and people.  Solar, wind and emerging green technologies have to impact people's quality of life in a positive way immediately and for the long-term health of the planet.  Sustainable development and green technology are the key for a better future.  The companies that are moving towards green technology can perform better both locally and abroad.  The ability to leverage on the opportunities in green technology financing will accelerate the growth of the green technology sector.  Robust transfer of green technologies across borders will spur economic growth and job creation.  That green technology is a good investment.  The promotion of green technologies leads to the improvement of the livelihoods of our people.  Recycling and ""green"" technology could provide a massive boost to the uk economy.  The green technologies really do create net jobs and economic growth.  Using green technology would be beneficial to the economy.  Savings derived from green technology can potentially lead to job creation.  That developing green technologies would create jobs and businesses.  Using green technologies could save lives and radically improve living standards for the world's most vulnerable people.  Using green technology will help them reduce their carbon footprints and minimise waste.  Sustainable green technology is our future.  Retrofitting old schools with green technologies can save taxpayer money and help students study science.  So-called green technology leads to both long-term environmental benefits and long-term financial benefits.  The adoption and application of green technology was crucial as it was the only way forward for sustainable growth and development.  The development of ""green technologies"" is one of the main tasks for the whole world.  Transient devices are a ""green technology"" that would help reduce much of the medical waste that currently goes to landfills.  These type of [green technology] designs actually cost less than traditional engineering solutions.  The proliferation and growth of green technology is a global trend with tremendous potential.  The development of green technology is part of the government's efforts.  The realization of environmental technology fairs have the clear intention of promoting and encouraging the application of clean technologies and good environmental practices in the production processes. ","[3, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 3, 3, 5, 4, 5, 3, 4]",15,"[13581319, 20225558, 45677971, 45567220, 19838540, 45405037, 45567227, 45569485, 28813722, 45190823, 45411178, 44044795, 15448937, 34609243, 45355658]"
4df954f2-5b57-4e8c-8ff8-5f55c3a41ad9,3492,We should further exploit natural gas,Arg-Human2,"Using new sources of natural gas will help britain bridge the gap between our current polluting oil-based economy and a future economy more reliant on renewables.  Replacing coal-fired power plants with gas-fired ones would be a cheaper and faster way of reducing co2 emissions than building wind farms. -jaime.  Replacing coal with natural gas in fact reduces greenhouse gas emissions that lead to global warming.  Using natural gas to replace coal is an improvement as it will reduce.  Picture, natural gas is going to offer the cheapest way to produce electricity: cheaper than nuclear energy and massively cheaper than renewables.  Switching from coal-fired power to natural gas has helped reduce emissions and protect the environment.  Using natural gas is the key to lowering carbon emissions.  Rich natural gas) is positive and bodes well for improved well productivity.  The use of natural gas is beneficial to the environment, given the associated reduction in pollution.  The burning of natural gas is considered less harmful to the environment than coal and oil.  Use of natural gas will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  The electricity sector (along with natural gas systems) is the source of some of the most cost-effective ways to reduce ghg emissions.  The use of natural gas as a propulsion fuel can reduce air quality pollutants and reduce major greenhouse gas emissions when compared to conventional fuels.  The direct use of natural gas reduces emissions and can make a huge impact on the bottom line of a home, business or government.  The increasing discoveries of natural gas in the eastern mediterranean enhanced the ability of the region to contribute to the energy supply of the eu.  When compared to oil, natural gas ""decreases the level of harmful air pollution.  This natural gas is a clean source of energy.  The increase production of natural gas will play a crucial role within the energy sector of helping us become more competitive and energy independent.  The expanded use of natural gas offers significant opportunities to address global climate change and help grow the economy.  Replacing coal-fired power plants with gas-fired ones would be a cheaper and faster way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions than building wind farms.  Producing and exporting natural gas for use in power generation leads to lower greenhouse gas emissions and, in the long run, helps lower our trade deficit.  The natural-gas supply is needed for continued economic development in the region.  While natural gas would play an important role in the nation's energy mix.  The economic benefits of drilling for natural gas outweigh the environmental concerns.  The reliance on natural gas is a important step to clean up the air with respect to criteria pollutants.  The advantages of using natural gas outweigh any problems.  Wider use of natural gas is significant for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and will also assist in fulfilling provisions of the paris agreement on climate change.  The use of natural gas will reduce dependency on charcoal and firewood.  Using natural gas is much more cost effective.  Using natural gas to generate electricity can significantly reduce the nation's carbon footprint.  The availability of natural gas would dramatically enhance industrial activity as well as provide a better source for heating residences.  The benefits of natural-gas development outweigh the risks.  The expanded use of natural gas offers significant opportunities to help address climate change.  The natural gas drilling boom has led to more high-wage jobs, more secure energy supplies and lower manufacturing costs.  Natural gas-fired electricity generation produces fewer carbon dioxide emissions than coal-fired generation.  The natural gas transported by the pipelines will serve important markets and emerging needs for natural gas for power generation and manufacturing. ","[5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 2, 1, 2, 5]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 45458968, 20225558, 45405037, 45190571, 45181383, 45181384, 45401087, 45538225, 45411178, 45190823, 29155723, 21785776, 44044795]"
e51474bb-3271-4dad-8090-f7b731622313,2465,We should further exploit small modular reactors,Arg-Human2,"The small modular reactor approach will really reduce costs.  The small modular reactors could offer a new paradigm for nuclear power.  Small modular reactors, or smrs, could revolutionize the future of nuclear power through their potentially simpler, cheaper and more portable modules.  The development of small modular reactors could present a significant economic and export opportunity.  The company's small modular reactor technology holds strong potential for canadian electricity users.  The companys small modular reactor technology holds strong potential for canadian electricity users.  The small modular reactors may be very interesting.  The smrs are generally superior on safety, provide efficiency and price competitiveness with respect to other technologies.  The country should lead when it comes to small modular reactors, because it is indeed the future of nuclear power.  The small modular reactor (smr) technology was the answer to power and electricity problems as it was matured and viable.  The new generation of small modular nuclear reactors could offer the perfect solution.  The prospect of smrs, small modular reactors could give a very positive stimulus to the industry because it would be cheaper, shorter construction times.  The smaller reactors would be able to produce electricity at a competitive cost, especially with low natural gas prices.  The small modular reactor is good for the american economy.  Small reactors could significantly mitigate the financial risk associated with full-scale plants, potentially allowing small reactors to compete effectively with other energy sources.  The ""scalability"" of small modular reactors meant that smrs could be an answer to the decline in construction of large nuclear plants in the eu.  The prospect of smrs, small modular reactors could give a very positive stimulus to the industry.  Small modular reactors, the next generation of nuclear reactors, will eventually play a role in future power generation in washington and the northwest.  Using a small modular reactor for doe needs in the tri-city area would save money.  The small modular reactors are cheaper and quicker to build than traditional large nuclear reactors and will help reduce reliance on fossil fuels.  Small modular reactors, or smr, could be a good fit.  Technology like small modular nuclear reactors make the energy source attractive.  The westinghouse small modular reactor design offers yet another option for providing a safe, affordable and secure source of clean-air energy.  The advent of the small modular reactor ""offers the promise of factory construction efficiencies and a much shorter timeline.  The new small, modular reactors, or smrs, are cost-effective for companies that must fund the cost of building their own plants.  The development of a new generation of small modular reactors has the potential to make a significant contribution to our long-term energy, economic, and national security.  The small modular reactor (smr) is an environmentally friendly and cost-effective way to help meet growing demand for electricity.  The developing small modular reactor (smr) technology has a role in helping to provide the uk's low-carbon energy supply.  The uniform design of the smaller modular reactors holds vast potential to produce clean energy at a fraction of the cost of building large commercial reactors.  Unique benefits that small modular reactor technology can present to the nuclear industry in the areas of economics and safety.  Small modular reactors would solve some of the problems of fukushima.  The birth of small, modular nuclear reactors - which can be built at lower cost and produce no greenhouse gas emissions.  The development of small modular reactors must be one of the central goals of government energy policy.  The developing technology of small modular nuclear reactors makes plants easier to site, build and operate, and involves less financial risk.  Technology likesmall nuclear reactors(smr) represent a strong future for nuclear. ","[4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 15448937, 45190571, 45401087, 45181383, 45181384, 30777913, 28813722, 6340330, 19838540, 45272708, 45191873, 45183231, 45181152]"
5382d84d-8aa6-4db6-a595-1d8be7a55959,3758,We should further exploit sustainable energies,Arg-Human2,"Using clean energy could also create new jobs and help boost the economy.  These clean energy ventures have created jobs and expanded the tax base in struggling rural communities.  Sustainable energy would provide new opportunities for growth during the current global economic downturn.  The agreement relating to support clean energy activities is important in helping the country reduce its dependence on fossil fuels and help combat the threats from global climate change.  Sustainable energy is the base for the sustainable life style.  Sustainable energy was critical for all aspects of human progress.  The clean energy revolution is the economic engine of the future.  The continued development of clean-energy sources is both an economic driver and a sound environmental policy.  Sustainable energy must be cleaner, accessible and affordable for all, which makes renewable energy suppliers a key player in the country's energy transition.  The move to clean energy would benefit the environment while creating jobs for the area and lowering residents' utility bills.  Sustainable energy is the key to achieving ""peace.  The usage of sustainable energy can overcome the rising energy requirements.  The combination of forward-thinking clean energy policies and a strong innovation economy is the right model for sustainable economic growth.  The clean energy business is a perfect fit for the country.  The clean energy sector is growing and is a vibrant contributor to the economy.  The shift to clean energy can lead to jobs and improvements in the environment at the same time.  The conversion to more sustainable energy represents huge benefits for our world.  The demand for clean and sustainable green energy will continue to increase.  The development of indigenous sources of sustainable energy was absolutely critical for the development of the economy as the oil-based alternative cost billions of dollars.  The transition to clean energy, to energy efficiency actually could be a huge economic driver and a way to revitalize our economy.  The shift to renewable and sustainable energy provides a great opportunity in the developing world to 'stimulate economic diversification.  The harnessing of clean energy does not impact on the environment and reduces carbon emission resultant from fossil fuel exploration.  Sustainable energy technologies are viable, cost-effective and good for the environment and our economy.  Sustainable energy is the most important environmental issue that we face today.  Sustainable energy should be available worldwide, regardless of income level.  Sustainable energy is the base for the sustainable lifestyle.  The renewable and sustainable energy resources are the best substitute to the conventional fuels and energy sources.  The sustainable energy future is a feasible goal if we work together and intensify our efforts for its achievement.  Sustainable energy services is crucial to achieving sustainable, transformative and inclusive development.  The clean energy standard is driving ohio's economic growth.  The use of green power will protect the environment.  Sustainable energy is the key to a sustainable future.  Sustainable energy was the golden thread that connected economic growth, social equity, a stable climate and a healthy environment.  The clean energy goal is achievable.  Sustainable energy production is essential to overcome the major challenges the world faces today.  The international transition towards clean energy has only positive environmental, social, and economic effects.  Sustainable energy may well be one of the most promising solutions to many of today s global challenges, from climate change to geopolitics and the economy.  The shift to clean energy sources is urgent if the world is to maintain a sustainable environment and reduce dependence on traditional energy sources that greatly harm the environment.  Sustainable energy was the passport to economic development.  The sustainable energy unit primarily aims to promote investment in renewable power production and the manufacturing of solar panels. ","[4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 2, 4, 3, 3, 5, 2, 5, 3, 4, 4]",15,"[28813722, 45567220, 45677971, 6432269, 45569485, 13581319, 6340330, 45181262, 21785776, 45206691, 45181256, 45191882, 43877630, 45355658, 19838540]"
ace53012-9f6e-44a5-a6b2-c2207e1cd8bf,2401,We should increase fuel tax,Arg-Human2,"Raising the fuel tax is the right thing to do.  Increasing fuel taxes would encourage a green shift that would be good for not just the environment, but the economy too.  Raising the gas tax significantly could provide a major new revenue source that would make tax reform compromise easier.  Raising the gas tax is the most logical avenue to making a dent in the funding needed to get started repairing our roads.  Raising the state gasoline tax is the ""most reliable"" way to do so.  The increased gas tax revenue will give states' greater capacity to issue debt for capital projects.  The fuel tax was the best way to generate needed funding.  The need to boost the fuel tax is real.  Increasing the gas tax is the most effective way to cut gasoline usage.  The gas tax is a critical funding source.  Increasing the fuel tax is the most equitable way to generate additional revenue.  Raising the gasoline tax is the best way to pay for roads.  The fuel tax is still the most equitable means of funding for highways.  The gas tax increase is an immediate long-term solution.  The fuel tax is the quickest and cheapest way to raise finance to combat auckland's congestion.  Raising the gas tax is inevitable.  The increase in gas tax revenue would spur construction-related economic activity, create thousands of jobs and make roads and bridges safer.  Like others, the gas tax increase is the best way to raise revenue because it is a use tax.  The gas tax increase is essential to maintaining repairs on potholes and paving.  The fuel tax is the fairest, most efficient method of funding our highway system.  The gas tax hike ""will help avoid future fare increases.  The gas tax is the answer.  The mooted increase to fuel excise could be positive because more expensive petrol would push people toward lpg, which would boost his business.  The fuel tax is the ""most transparent and effective way"" of providing revenue for the fund.  Some form of an increase in the gas tax dedicated strictly to funding the ttf is essential to maintaining our transportation system.  Increasing and indexing the federal fuel tax is the most efficient revenue source.  Raising the gas tax is the simplest and most sustainable solution.  Increasing the gas tax alone is the solution to the state's road problems.  Raising the fuel tax is the best option for generating critical transportation revenues.  The gas tax is the way to go.  Raising the fuel tax was a good idea.  Increasing the state's fuel taxes is ""the right thing to do"" for tennessee's transportation needs.  The benefits of the increased fuel tax will outweigh the costs.  The money raised from the gas tax will actually be used for the betterment of public transportation.  Supporting an increase in gas tax because of what it does is not a bad answer.  Raising the gas tax is the fairest option.  The gas tax might provide a revenue solution.  Increasing the fuel tax is the only way to overcome the united states' ""infrastructure deficit.  Raising the gasoline tax has many potential benefits beyond extra money and perhaps cleaner air.  The fuel tax is a time-tested solution to a growing problem.  Increasing the gas tax is one of the most effective ways for a state to generate transportation revenue.  The increase in fuel tax is going to make a big difference in terms of available highway funding.  High gas taxes are an effective and easy way of increasing state revenue.  Raising the fuel tax would be vital to promote new-energy vehicles and encourage purchases of small-engine vehicles to reduce emission. ","[4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 2, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 1, 5, 5, 5]",15,"[21017840, 6432269, 45953041, 45538225, 6340330, 20312760, 44690955, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 43984981, 45206691, 45189900, 45191882]"
01b2e244-1d45-4945-919d-d814e8f80435,3196,We should increase immigration to the United States,Arg-Human2,"New immigrants are contributing to nashville's growing economy and vibrant cultural life.  New immigrants, with their frequent entrepreneurial spirit, are helping to revitalize our downtown areas.  Immigrants, especially new immigrants, are highly productive and if we decrease that number, that will harm economic growth in the short and long run.  Immigration to the united states increases innovation, slows the aging of the work force and opens new opportunities for some domestic workers.  A reduction of immigration to the united states will affect the growth of the economy.  A report by the american immigration council demonstrates that increased immigration to the united states has in fact coincided with a significant decrease in both violent and property crimes nationwide.  Increased immigration to the united states has in fact coincided with a significant decrease in both violent and property crimes nationwide.  Immigrants to the united states contribute greatly to advances in technology and sciences.  The contributions of immigrants to the united states go beyond the economic benefits.  Reducing immigration to the united states will reduce economic growth.  Immigration to the united states is a positive thing.  Reducing immigration to the united states is a terrible idea.  New immigrants help strengthen the economy.  The new immigrants have contributed to ""a positive new atmosphere. "".  New immigrants are an important source of skilled and experienced workers.  Gallup also noted that three-fourths of us citizens believe immigration to the united states is a positive thing.  New immigrants actually fuel growth and create more jobs.  Kirch further warned that impeding u. s.  immigration pathways ""jeopardizes critical access to high-quality physician care for our nation's most vulnerable populations. "".  New immigrants can maximize their full potentials while contributing to the economic and social well-being of our community.  Speaking to religious conservatives friday, former florida governor jeb bush said that welcoming immigrants to the united states will be an economic boon because they are hard-working, family-oriented and ""more fertile. "".  New immigrants are essential for the state's continued economic growth.  Most immigrants to the united states have a positive impact on our country.  Toronto, nov.  30, 2012 /cnw/ - a recent conference board of canada report found that properly integrating new immigrants boosts innovation and canada's global competitiveness.  According to the american immigration council, based in washington d. c. , as immigration rates increase, crime rates have decreased.  ""the.  Promoting immigration to america will attract the world's most talented and aspirational.  For instance, jean and jimenez argue that irrespective of their skill levels, new immigrants generate additional product demand and thereby raise profitability in the short-run and the capital stock in the long-run, with a positive impact on the demand for all types of labor.  A 2010 study by giovanni peri, a professor at the university of california at davis, found that ""when the economy is growing, new immigration creates jobs in sufficient numbers to leave native employment unharmed, even in the relatively short run and even for less-educated native workers. "".  ""immigration into the united states is tremendously important to science,"" said soumya raychaudhuri, a harvard medical school professor whose iranian postdoctoral researcher, samira asgari, was barred on saturday from boarding a flight to begin her job in his laboratory at brigham and women's hospital in boston.  New americans and immigrants are a largely untapped pool of talent that can play an essential role in the economic growth of their cities.  As director of immigration and cross-border policy at the bipartisan policy center, theresa cardinal brown said in a statement on wednesday that immigration in the united states is actually ""a national imperative for the united states, fueling economic growth and supporting our nation's retirees. "".  New immigrants encourage business creation, increase employment, innovation and consumption and contribute tax payments.  Immigration to the united states is beneficial to the nation's economy. ","[4, 4, 5, 2, 3, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 2, 4, 4, 3, 4]",15,"[45567227, 45569485, 45458968, 45411178, 21785776, 34110399, 20512953, 30777913, 21017840, 45953041, 33708599, 6340330, 27770607, 34609243, 45355658]"
155fdfc3-d5a6-4b60-9685-5677f79f4eaa,3180,We should introduce goal line technology,Arg-Human2,"The use of goal-line technology to eradicate such errors is a sensible move.  The introduction of some form of goal-line technology is inevitable.  ``goal-line technology is fine.  Goal-line technology would help.  Goal-line technology is very important.  Goal-line technology is important.  Goal-line technology was a necessity.  Innovations like goal line technology are a better starting point to improve the game at the top level.  The football association subsequently issued a statement reiterating their ``strong desire to see goal-line technology introduced as soon as possible''.  Goal-line technology is effective as it gives a swift, definitive answer to something that cannot be debated.  The goal-line technology has been a great innovation because without it.  Goal-line technology was ""no longer an alternative but a necessity.  Using goal line technology is not a probability but a necessity.  Himself convinced that ""goal-line technology"" is necessary.  Goal-line technology is ""no longer an alternative but a necessity.  Goal-line technology is an absolute necessity.  Ukraine skipper andriy shevchenko, who has announced his international retirement, has said that he supports the idea of introducing goal-line technology.  The introduction of goal-line technology had become necessary.  ``the ifab (international football association board) decision to allow goal-line technology is a welcome move towards eliminating obvious errors in football,'' kyle patterson, ffa head of corporate affairs and communications, said.  Goal- line technology would help.  Goal line technology is fantastic.  Goal-line technology was the way forward.  Goal-line technology should be introduced in europe as it has been a huge success in the premier league.  Goal-line technology is a ``necessity.  Goal line technology (glt) is no longer an alternative but a necessity.  Shaun harvey, the efl chief executive, said: ""the introduction of goalline technology is a significant step forward for championship clubs and reflects the importance of the outcome of every single game in the division.  Barring any catastrophic computer errors, goal-line technology will eventually become the norm.  The goal-line technology was a brilliant idea and something everyone has been calling for.  Goal line technology is a great thing.  That goal-line technology was essential and without it the game was being starved of natural justice.  Using goal line technology is a necessity.  Goal-line technology is a necessity now.  The goal-line technology is something that could be used quite quickly and easily. "".  Tavecchio said they thinkthat goal line technology will be beneficial and will be used in matches next season.  Introducing goal-line technology is a positive move for football.  Goal-line technology is a good situation.  Steve komphela believes the introduction of goal-line technology in south african football could help save the jobs of coaches in the psl.  Goal-line technology would be handy.  Goal line technology will be beneficial and will be used in matches next season.  Goal-line technology will end all controversy on certain incidents, but believes the time has come to give it a try.  Goal-line technology was needed, took swipes at fifa boss sepp blatter for resisting it and likened technophobes to dinosaurs.  Sepp blatter, the head of fifa and the most powerful man in football, has now called in favour of goal line technology.  Goal-line technology systems will be mandatory in its clubs' stadiums from as early as next season.  Goal-line technology must be introduced to ensure teams aren't unjustly wronged in such high-stakes occasions.  The introduction of goal-line technology into football is a ""no-brainer.  The introduction of goal-line technology in football will lead to fewer controversies.  The introduction of goal-line technology is a significant step forward for championship clubs and reflects the importance of the outcome of every single game played in the division.  Goal line technology should be brought into the game.  Goal-line technology should be brought in. ","[4, 5, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 20225558, 45458968, 45181383, 45181384, 45401087, 45190571, 45538225, 45405037, 6432269, 13581319, 45189900, 45191882, 45206691]"
46843932-708a-4fd0-a96b-71e23becd0e0,3191,We should introduce recall elections,Arg-Human2,"A recall election could solve that problem.  Opposing the idea of a recall election goes against our constitution and the wishes of our state's founding fathers.  The recall process is a statutory right provided to citizens by our great state.  A recall election is a way for the voters to provide a job review of their elected officials.  Wisconsin's recall elections are shining examples of the rule of law to limit unfair governmental actions.  Recall elections are a fundamental right and legal interpretations must be liberally construed to protect that right.  The recall election is very important with national implications.  The recall election is important enough to participate in.  The power of recall is a powerful tool of direct democracy.  Recall election is connected to the right of suffrage, which is a fundamental right.  The report added that the senator pointed out that recall election is connected to the right of suffrage, which is a fundamental right.  A recall is usually the best way for people to call out officials they don't agree with on issues.  A recall election might be desirable.  A lot more recall elections are needed.  A recall election is a wonderful exercise in democracy and should be respected.  The recall election would not harm the city.  A recall election of newman is exactly what the voters want.  The recall election is not only necessary, it is imperative if the electorate is to maintain control over the body politic.  A recall election will be the most effective means of seeking persky's removal.  A recall election is the most democratic and cost-effective way to remove the mayor from office.  A recall election actually brings a community together.  Hamilton said recall elections are designed to remove officials for criminal behavior, malfeasance or gross neglect.  Recall election is inevitable.  Jerry thomas, who voted this morning at webster stanley elementary school, said the recall election is very important with national implications.  Yes, the power of recall is an important tool for voters.  The recall elections might actually benefit the community.  The money we spend on recall petitions and recall elections is well worth it.  Introducing the power of recall will help reverse this and reengage people in democracy.  If the recall election will satisfy some of the critics, then they should pursue it.  Fred joseph, a frequent house candidate from charleston, said he would support a recall election, stating, ""it's a simple matter of accountability. "".  In other words, allowing recall elections will help to restore faith in politics and encourage active citizenship.  A recall election is the ultimate measure of accountability, and it forces politicians to be honest and up front with the voters.  Recall elections demonstrate the will of the people and provide for a swift, decisive remedy when corruption rears its ugly head.  The recent recall election may have helped to energize both local voters and candidates.  The recall election is perfectly legal.  A recall election is the proper avenue for voters.  A recall election would be good for the city and its residents.  A recall election can be a positive event.  A recall petition is an important democratic tool, a way for voters to remove local politicians who have proven themselves indifferent, incompetent, or worse.  The recall elections are necessary to right wrongs that weren't campaigned on in the first place.  The power of recall is a constitutional right retained by the voters to remind their representatives that they are accountable to the people at all times and not special interest.  Recall elections are appropriate for removing those that have violated a code of ethics or criminal laws.  Recall elections are a tool voters can use to kick bad officials out of office. ","[5, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 1, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 45458968, 13581319, 31948170, 45190571, 45181383, 45401087, 45181384, 20225558, 45538225, 29155723, 28810858, 45405037]"
d7467076-f911-4ea8-b027-01ececf386e3,3168,We should introduce year round schooling,Arg-Human2,"Year-round school also provides students with a safe and productive environment, ""something working families especially appreciate.  Year-round school is a benefit for disadvantaged students who may have fewer opportunities over the summer.  Year-round schools would work better.  Year-round schooling would provide a more effective platform for learning.  Year-round schooling may improve academic performance.  Year-round schools often have better student performance.  Year-round school programs can improve student achievement.  Year-round schools will help boost academic achievement.  Year-round schooling is better than a traditional schedule.  Year-round schools benefit children academically.  Year-round school calendars were best for students.  Year-round schooling is beneficial to students because the children do not forget what they learned over the summer.  Year-round school is a resounding success.  Year-round schooling helps kids retain their learning.  Year-round schooling would be more beneficial because our schedules would be more flexible, and we wouldn't have to worry about forgetting important information during summer vacation.  Year-round school would produce more academic success.  The year-round schools initiative was a step in the right direction.  Year-round school is an effective strategy for helping students learn.  Year-round school is effective and feasible.  Year-round school improves retention.  Year-round school remains the best path for improved learning.  Year-round school is the best thing for kids.  Students in year-round school districts have better attendance in school and enjoy greater academic achievement.  Year-round school improves academic achievement.  Year-round schools are wise and judicious solutions that handle the needs of today without overbuilding for tomorrow.  Year-round school is beneficial to students.  Year-round schooling improves learning.  Year-round school programs can improve academic performance.  Year-round schooling can result in lower rates of burnout for students and teachers, better attendance and fewer disciplinary problems.  Year-round schooling lessens teacher burnout.  Year-round schooling can serve as a springboard for high teacher pay, due in part to more efficient use of school facilities.  Year-round school can improve students.  Year-round school is a better option.  Year-round school would solve the overcrowding problems for a while.  Year-round school remains the best path for improved learning,"" as stated in last sunday's editorial.  Year-round school improves student achievement.  For low-income schools, year-round schooling can lead to improved test scores.  Year-round school boosted academic achievement, increased attendance, and provided better opportunities for struggling students to catch up during breaks.  Year-round school could offer some unique benefits.  Year-round schooling is a good idea.  The year-round school schedule can help with overcrowding.  Year-round schooling has academic benefits as well.  Year-round schooling improves student achievement or offers other advantages.  Year-round school offers a solution that's consistent with the state's economy.  Year-round school can improve students' ability to take high-stakes standardized.  Year-round schooling is extremely beneficial.  Test scores of students who are enrolled in year-round schooling are better than those who don't attend year round.  Year-round schooling has a pretty nice instructional benefit.  The year-round schooling aims to improve test scores and the academic performance of students.  Year-round schooling improves achievement.  The benefits of year-round schools are greater in school districts with high poverty levels and low student achievement.  Students in year-round schools learn more over the summer than do their counterparts.  Installing a year-round school schedule could provide teachers with a more consistent salary.  The year-round school system is effective at improving sol test scores for some students.  Year-round schooling will produce better students, and the generous philanthropists are willing to fund the effort.  The u. s.  education secretary argues year-round schooling is necessary because children lose important knowledge during the long summer months.  Balanced or year-round school calendars do benefit students with academic problems and those believed to be ""at risk.  The year-round schooling can improve staff and student attendance, which should help the schools do better.  Year-round schooling has its good points. ","[5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 2, 4, 1, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 45336993, 45567220, 45567227, 45411178, 45190823, 45538225, 29155723, 45336988, 45206691, 45189900, 45361788, 6340330]"
ccfddccb-8fab-4efa-bec0-c33c1ce70bd4,1902,We should legalize ivory trade,Arg-Human2,"Finance minister patrick chinamasa said the ivory trade ban had stifled the country's economic recovery programmes.  Southern african countries argue their elephants are well managed and that they deserve cash for their ivory stocks.  The ivory trade was ""good"" for elephants.  Advocates for ivory trade legalization argue it would help abolish the thriving black market.  The ban in ivory trade will seriously erode the revenue base for wildlife conservation.  China and japan have ied to legalize the ivory trade in order to flood the market and decrease value of ivory and profitability for poachers.  Ivory trade bans don't work.  The 1990 international ban on ivory trade has served only to limit the supply of legally traded ivory thereby enhancing its value and encouraging poaching.  Legalizing the ivory trade within reason bestows upon the animals a monetary worth that encourages humans to value their survival.  Legal ivory trade can generate funds to protect elephants.  The legal ivory trade has stimulated consumer desire to covet ivory carvings for decorating, collecting, speculating and gift-giving.  Legal ivory trade offers a means to better protect african elephants rather than a laundering route for smuggled tusks from poached animals.  The ban on the ivory trade should be lifted, arguing that selling national stockpiles will release much-needed conservation funds and thwart illegal poaching.  South africa, namibia and zimbabwe favour the reintroduction of a legalised ivory trade.  The booming ivory trade is a very important source of funding.  Shifeta said although namibia currently does not participate in any domestic trade in ivory, despite having all the necessary regulations in place for such trade, they did not support its ban, arguing that domestic ivory markets should be left open as long as they are regulated.  The ivory trade was crucial to the survival of this norse colony.  Zimbabwe, namibia and south africa are proposing that the ban on the ivory trade should be lifted, arguing that selling national stockpiles will release much-needed conservation funds and thwart illegal poaching.  A legal trade in rhino horn and ivory would reduce poaching and save animals ignored historical evidence that the approach did not work.  A limited legal ivory trade is needed to satiate demand.  Permitting a legal ivory trade would allow for more effective control, noting that prohibition and the war on drugs drove demand underground, benefiting criminals in the process.  An expansion of the legal ivory trade might be the only way to ensure a well-regulated and sustainable trade.  Banning the ivory trade is not the answer.  Namibia will continue advocating for the legalising of ivory trade, the minister of environment and tourism pohamba shifeta has said.  In august 2017, zimbabwe's environment minister oppah muchinguri-kashiri was quoted as saying that zimbabwe would be putting up a ""strong fight"" to lift the international ivory trade ban, with the claimed support of several other african countries including south africa, namibia, malawi, mozambique and tanzania.  (edited) windhoek - namibia will continue advocating for the legalising of ivory trade, the minister of environment and tourism pohamba shifeta has said.  Pro-ivory trade african elephant range states, together with ngos worldwide that support the need for ivory trade to stop elephant poaching continue to argue that the ban in ivory trade does not stop poaching, but ironically increases it.  The only salvation for elephants is to institute a legal trade.  In july a position paper by the european commission opposed a total ban the ivory trade, arguing that it would better for countries with growing elephant numbers to ""sustainably manage"" populations.  A regulated ivory market could be successful.  The ivory trade can be an important source of income to support local communities and conservation initiatives.  Legal trade would help reduce ivory prices.  The ivory trade was more acceptable. ","[4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 45191873, 45183231, 45272708, 45181152, 7756990, 45282792, 45336991, 44044795, 45483811, 43984981, 20170210, 34609243, 34854490]"
2e92e1a3-a882-4b52-b44f-2a70e3058b5e,2083,We should legalize organ trade,Arg-Human2,"A managed program that would allow organ sales, especially kidneys, could save thousands of lives because of the current shortage of organs.  Mr berger suggests lifting the ban on organ sales, a solution that assaults the moral senses of many americans.  Thus, in singer's view, both markets, kidney sale and sex work, could be legitimate pillars in the foundation our society is building to alleviate poverty.  Allowing organ sales can be welfare-enhancing for both would-be sellers and recipients.  ""because of the scarcity of organs, they become more valuable and therefore more lucrative to trade,"" ambagtsheer said.  ""i don't know,"" says raid.  abu hussein says everyone benefits from the organ trade.  Making organ trade a criminal offence punishes people for trying to sell their organs which infringes on a right to decide what to do with one's own body.  The government legalises the organ trade, which would be a win-win situation for donors and recipients.  Controversial or not, the legalization of kidney sales is a step that needs to be taken in order to save real lives.  Legalised organ sales is a panacea for transplantation. ","[4, 1, 5, 5, 5, 5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 2, 2, 2, 3, 5]",15,"[20225558, 45190823, 45181383, 45272708, 45181152, 45191873, 29155723, 28813722, 20512953, 45189900, 45181253, 45181243, 45181256, 45181262, 15448937]"
afca3ec1-1348-4d52-bfb4-81c12c58f473,2184,We should legalize public nudity,Arg-Human2,"Public nudity is not sexual, it's liberation.  Toronto - canadian laws prohibiting public nudity are an infringement of constitutional rights, an ontario court north of toronto will hear tuesday.  Public nudity is allowed as a freedom of speech.  Pornography and public nudity are protected as freedoms of expression.  Nudity is one of the tenets of body freedom.  Being nude in public is an act of freedom of expression, which is protected under the charter of rights and freedoms.  The city's ordinance banning public nudity violated the first amendment and equal protection clause of the u. s.  constitution.  Laws that make it a criminal offence to be nude in public are unconstitutional and should be struck down.  Being naked in public should not be a criminal offence.  Public nudity is an example of free speech and should be considered defensible under the first amendment.  Indiana's ban on public nudity violated exotic dancers' first amendment rights.  Public nudity is not illegal under vermont state law.  Women should be able to be nude in public.  Mitch hightower and several other plaintiffs filed a class action against the city alleging that san francisco police code 154, which bans public nudity, violated their constitutional rights.  The case? barnes v.  glen theatre (l99l), in which erotic dancers in south bend, indiana, claimed the state's ban on public nudity violated their first amendment right to freedom of expression.  Laws that make it a crime to be nude in public are unconstitutional.  The activists argue that the ban on public nudity violates their first amendment freedom of speech rights because their nudity is a political statement.  Public nudity was fine.  Acceptance of simple public nakedness would be beneficial to society.  There is no harm from people simply being naked where it is a sensible mode of dress.  Nudity does not harm anyone, especially children who are natural nudists.  Public nudity is not a crime.  According to city and police officials, simple public nudity is not a crime.  Public nudity shouldn't be a crime.  Being naked in public is not a crime - even if bystanders are alarmed.  Public nudity helps many nudists help accept themselves the way they are.  Going nude in public makes us happier.  Children growing up in societies with an open healthy attitude to naked bodies have lower rates of teen pregnancies and sexual diseases.  Being naked in public is not a crime.  Public nudity is a good option.  Dr west argues that although more research is needed, the findings show public nudity is beneficial for our well-being.  Public nudity could benefit our overall wellbeing.  Public nudity really helps.  Public nudity is beneficial for our well-being.  That public nudity was legal statewide.  Public nudity as a cultural practice could help elevate us beyond base carnal desires.  Public nudity is legal as long as others are not ""harassed, alarmed or distressed"".  According to 2017 study by goldsmiths, university of london, being nude in public fosters feelings of satisfaction and improves body-image as well as self-esteem.  Public nudity continue to be legal, but it also should be respected and embraced.  Public nudity should not be banned in the city/county.  Blanket bans on public nudity restrict personal liberties, allow the majority to impose its aesthetic and moral preferences on a minority, and deprive the fully clothed of a liberating reminder of what real bodies look like, says conor friedersdorf in the atlantic.  Davis spoke out against a 2013 san francisco public nudity ban introduced by his opponent, scott wiener.  he says nudity is a form of expression.  An ordinance generally barring public nudity violates first amendment speech protections.  Public nudity is legal in the state of california. ","[4, 2, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 15448937, 45190571, 45181383, 45401087, 45181384, 28813722, 6340330, 19838540, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45336991, 44044795]"
87f0d7b0-2086-4298-a157-57af9f3ee64d,2166,We should legalize sex selection,Arg-Human2,"Bans on the use of sex-selection technology might actually worsen the status for girls, it finds, and legal reforms aimed at improving gender equity might be a more fruitful approach.  Also, as fetal sex determination via a maternal blood test in very early pregnancy has become privately accessible online, critics argue that banning 'social' sex selection methods prior to pregnancy might inadvertently be pushing some women towards an early abortion.  Banning 'social' sex selection methods prior to pregnancy might inadvertently be pushing some women towards an early abortion.  A leading medical ethicist said there was no evidence that the sex selection of embryos would harm children born from the procedure.  Sex selection is permitted in order to avoid an inheritable disease, while genetic pathways can only be selected for preventing or treating possible genetic illnesses.  Gender selection is important for patients that carry certain genetic mutations that can affect an embryo of a certain gender, and that is primarily why this technology is available.  Sex selection abortions are not illegal.  Sex selection should be allowed for family -balancing.  On may 31, president obama opposed the ban on sex selection.  Any attempt to restrict gender selection would undermine a woman's right to choice.  The mail reports savage is urging the government to get rid of the law that prohibits sex-selection abortions.  Sex selection might benefit children with autism.  Legal bans on sex selection do not seem to be effective, and are often harmful to girls and the mothers.  Sex selection allows such families who are prevalent to such disease conditions to decide the gender that suits their family.  The illegality of gender selection is ridiculous.  Cooper explained that sex selection can be beneficial because some diseases are more common in a particular gender, such as haemophilia and muscular dystrophy.  Sex selection may benefit children with autism.  The ""sex-selection"" ban is unconstitutional.  Opponents of the bill argue the ""sex-selection"" ban is unconstitutional.  Sex selection might benefit children with autism, if their parents were able to have a second child that did not have similar high-care needs.  Sex selection will not lead to gender imbalance in the population.  Ironically, conyers once said a ban on conyers sex-selection abortions ""tramples the rights of women. "".  Prien said sex selection could dramatically increase the profitability of dairies and beef cattle feeder operations by producing a higher percentage of male or female animals as desired.  Dr haroon said that with the same technique, gender selection is also possible for family balance.  The chairman of ivf directors group, david molloy, yesterday said that some doctors, himself -included, believed sex selection should be allowed for family -balancing.  The law prohibiting sex selection has hampered access to ultrasound technology for rural patients, a group of doctors argue in a new study published in the indian journal of medical ethics.  ""sex selection techniques may be used to reduce the risk of transmission of a genetic condition, disease or abnormality that would severely limit the quality of life of the person who would be born, when there is evidence to support,"" the guidelines state.  Sex selection, in societies that value sexual equality, could have beneficial effects on curbing overpopulation,"" in that it ""could help provide parents.  Gender selection is a tested, trusted resource available to families.  Preconception sex selection helps to avoid genetic diseases.  Sex selection is legal.  Sex-selection abortions are not illegal.  Sex-selection abortions are legal in the wide-open ""right"" to abortion declared by the court.  On may 31, 2012, michaud voted to oppose a ban on sex-selection abortions.  Sex selection should be permissible for couples.  Sex-selection abortions are not only legally acceptable but should even be encouraged. ","[5, 5, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 3, 3, 2, 4, 4, 3, 4, 1]",15,"[45567227, 45567220, 45191882, 45191885, 45185975, 45185946, 45411178, 20312760, 13581319, 45190823, 31948170, 20512953, 29155723, 38202325, 45405037]"
27e809e9-a049-4e34-b427-0579d3b1a824,3198,We should limit the right of self-defense,Arg-Human2,"Reducing the inalienable right of self-defense will make children safer.  Of note, new york senator chuck schumer has been one of the leading opponents of concealed carry reciprocity and has long supported restricting americans' right to self-defense.  A person using ""defensive force"" must have ""reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.  Your right to self-defense is limited to the use of weapons less effective than those used in the most notorious massacres.  In such matter right of self-defence cannot be extended to causing such injuries that may cause death.  The right of self-defense may only be exercised against a significant attack.  A right to self-defense is not unlimited.  The right to self-defense should be exercised within a reasonably necessary range.  The right of self-defense does not exist.  The right to self-defense has traditionally been wielded by the most privileged against the most vulnerable.  Person's right to self-defense would be restricted.  The right of self-defense is limited to situations where a state has suffered an armed attack. ","[4, 1, 2, 5, 3, 3, 3, 3, 1, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2]",15,"[6432269, 45538225, 20312760, 44690955, 45183231, 45272708, 45181152, 45191873, 43984981, 9559045, 45206691, 34854490, 45189900, 45191882, 34609243]"
f4ff8a10-2c80-4181-8f1b-a2e1b5c77ada,2482,We should limit the use of birth control,Arg-Human2,"Using birth control is immoral).  Smoking and oral birth control can lead to blood clots and other cardiovascular disease.  Birth control promotes irresponsible behavior.  Using any form of contraception is morally wrong.  Widespread use of contraception would lead to marital infidelity and the general lowering of morality.  Contraceptive use is a sin.  Sterilizations, abortifacient chemical birth control and artificial contraception are all immoral.  Birth control promotes sexual promiscuity.  Contraception is wrong and poses a threat to the united states.  Contraception is a sin.  Contraception was immoral and promoted prostitution.  Contraception is immoral.  Contraception and sterilization are immoral and interfere with the creation of life.  Contraceptive use is morally wrong.  Contraception is ""harmful to women. "".  Certain birth control methods are linked to a slight increase of developing breast cancer.  Using birth control increases breast cancer and cervical cancer risks, which can be passed from mother to children in utero.  The use of artificial contraception is evil, because it slams a door on the openness to life that is an essential part of every marriage.  Contraception is immoral.  Contraception is not effective at preventing pregnancy.  Contraception is intrinsically evil.  Use of contraception is morally wrong.  Birth control would encourage promiscuity.  Contraception is intrinsically evil, regardless of the consequences.  Contraception is immoral).  Contraception increases the risk of breast cancer, heart attack, stroke, cervical cancer, and liver cancer (among other threats.  Contraception was morally wrong.  Sterilization and contraception are immoral.  Contraception is associated with negative health effects.  The contraceptive device can cause chronic pain, allergies, perforation and unwanted pregnancy.  Oral contraceptives are correlated with increased risk for multiple sclerosis.  Contraception increases the risk of pre-menopausal breast cancer.  Expanded access to contraception could lead to an increase in sex trafficking.  Contraceptive use somehow leads to more abortions.  Certain forms of birth control create increased health risks for women.  New contraceptive drugs may pose a greater risk of blood clots.  To use any contraceptive is immoral and an affront to god's will.  The hormones in birth control could raise the risk of breast cancer.  Taking contraception increases the risk of breast cancer.  Use of contraceptives may lead to riskier sexual behavior.  Not only is manning convinced that birth control is ineffective, she also believes that it increases the rate at which women get abortions.  Use of some of the contraceptives does produce side effects and become reasons for health hazards.  Using contraceptives is morally wrong.  The use of birth control is morally wrong.  Using contraceptives was morally wrong.  The higher use of birth control raises the bacteria, which leads to spreading of the infection.  Birth control may be dangerous for a women's health, contradicting the beliefs held by the country's top ob-gyn doctors.  Using contraception is morally wrong.  Contraception is ""harmful to women and society.  Easier access to birth control will promote ""risky sexual behavior"" among women.  Increasing access to birth control will encourage young people to engage in risky sexual behavior.  This availability of birth control could lead to a lot more unsafe sex.  Taking birth control before pregnancy can lead to miscarriages and infertility.  Giving girls access to birth control - including emergency contraception - leads to risky sexual behavior.  Increasing contraceptive usage leads to increased abortions.  Birth control was morally wrong.  Contraception is wrong because it leads to sexual permissiveness, family breakdown and demographic collapse.  Contraception remains illegal in most states.  Contraception is dangerous.  Contraception was intrinsically wrong.  Contraception is wrong.  Contraception is dangerous and harmful to women.  The use of modern contraceptives leads to deformed children and bareness.  Contraception is ineffective and dangerous.  Use of contraception is morally wrong, covered by the mandate. ","[4, 5, 4, 4, 2, 1, 5, 2, 1, 2, 1, 4, 4, 4, 2]",15,"[6432269, 45567220, 45567227, 45953041, 13581319, 45538225, 31948170, 45411178, 45190823, 20225558, 29155723, 30777913, 45361788, 45336988, 44044795]"
3eaf1117-40e3-4fe4-bac0-dfcc8be2e169,2110,We should lower the age of consent,Arg-Human2,"Lowering the age of consent will ultimately help confused teenagers.  A blanket reduction in the age of consent is the answer to this difficult dilemma.  Professor john ashton, president of the faculty of public health, had called for a lowering of the age of consent to make it easier for 15-year-olds to seek contraception and sexual health advice from the nhs.  The age of consent could, or should be lowered.  The age of consent should be lowered to four.  Patricia hewitt in her reply in april 1976 our proposal that the age of consent be reduced is based on the belief that neither the police nor the criminal courts should have the power to intervene in a consenting sexual activity between two young people.  The age of consent should be lowered.  Lowering the age of consent was the solution.  The age of consent in this country at the moment is too high.  Some ministers endorsed the view that lowering the age of consent will stop criminalisation of teen sex and prevent the police and parents abusing the law to harass young couples who decide to marry against their wishes.  Three years later, professor john spencer, a law fellow at selwyn college, cambridge, argued on bbc radio that the age of consent should be reduced to 13.  A lower age of consent will bring our laws into line with other eu countries and provide the legal recognition that people are having sex at a younger age.  Lowering the age of consent will stop the criminalisation of teen sex and prevent the police and parents abusing the law to harass young couples.  Lowering the age of consent could also ultimately mean that young people have better access to health and medical services and contraception.  The human rights activist peter tatchell still advocates reducing the age of sexual consent to 14.  mr tatchell maintains that young people of 14 are entitled to a sexual relationship.  Lowering the age of consent will stop the criminalisation of teen sex.  Lowering the age of consent would make it easier for teenagers to access contraception and reduce unwanted pregnancies.  ""a lower age of consent will bring our laws into line with other eu countries and provide the legal recognition that people are having sex at a younger age,"" the organisation's president dale mcdermott said yesterday.  A lower age limit would help teens get sexual health advice [pa.  The age should be lowered to prevent young teenagers from being criminalised for acting on ""youthful natural instinct.  About a third of 15-year-olds are sexually active, according to official figures the government should consider lowering the age of sexual consent to 15, a leading public health expert has said.  The document argued that it was logical' but not politically possible' that the age of consent be abolished altogether, and said therefore that the age of consent should be lowered to 14 or ten provided it is demonstrated that consent was clearly given by the child'.  Council member doreen cassar explained that the medical council was in favour of lowering the age of consent as long as the necessary structures were in place and medical support was readily available.  The national commission for protection of child rights had, in fact, recommended that the age of consent be lowered to 12 years.  The government should consider lowering the age of sexual consent to 15, a leading public health expert has said.  The global rights organization has supported the idea of lowering the age of consent to 16 years.  The ministry of home affairs has suggested lowering the age of consent for sex from 18 to 16 in the proposed criminal law amendment bill, 2013.  The nccl submitted a document to parliament's criminal law commission in 1976 arguing for the lowering of the age of consent potentially to as young as 10 and for incest to be legalised. ","[4, 5, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 3, 1, 4, 4, 2, 4]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 45185946, 45185975, 45191885, 45191882, 45411178, 45189900, 31948170, 45206691, 29155723, 44044795, 19838540, 33708599, 45355658]"
244193f4-eee8-428c-b3fc-f4325052e658,3208,We should prohibit slum tourism,Arg-Human2,"Residents have raised resistance to the trade of poverty tourism and said their plight should not be used by the rich for fun.  Slum tourism is just another example of tourism finding a new niche to exploit.  Campaigners have condemned the ""slum hotel"" as poverty tourism, saying it treats the local people like ""animals in a zoo"".  The eerie allure of slum tourism also popularly known as ""ghetto tourism"", has been argued to be cynically exploitative towards the less fortunate.  The idea of slum tourism is morally unappealing.  Slum tourism often evokes moral outrage.  Slum tourism is similar to a kind of voyeurism where people who are less fortunate are exploited for those who have plenty.  Poverty tourism or slum tourism is a clear invasion of somebody's privacy but that appears not to bother those seeking this kind of 'experience.  Slum tourism is merely some cynical form of entertainment.  Slum tourism is exploitative, rather than leading to real benefits for the poor citizens of developing countries.  Slum tourism without a doubt is controversial and this kind of travel is intrusive.  Slum tourism"" is a growing problem in africa.  That ""poverty tourism"", is exploitative and demeaning.  Slum tourism does more harm than good.  Slum tourism"" is a growing problem in africa, as highlighted by a fake shanty resort in south africa that led to global outrage last year.  Slum tourism,' essentially treats the poorest people like zoo animals for outsiders to visit and admire, but not necessarily to care about.  Slum tourism is generally dismissed by critics as a form of voyeurism. ","[4, 5, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 2, 4, 3, 5, 4, 4]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 45191882, 45185975, 45191885, 45185946, 13581319, 45190823, 45953041, 20312760, 31948170, 34110399, 45411178, 29155723, 6340330]"
5e6c29cd-f13c-405a-860e-64e7f1b7a424,3237,We should prohibit unisex bathrooms,Arg-Human2,"Unisex bathrooms would become a hunting ground for paedophiles and flashers but countering arguments say that the presence of other men in the bathroom would help curb such dysfunctional behaviour.  Implementing co-ed dorms and unisex bathrooms is never healthy for students who are already going through significant life changes and making important decisions.  Unisex bathrooms will lead to orgies and rape.  Gender-neutral bathrooms create their own problems.  Concerned that unisex toilets could expose pupils to heightened risk of abuse and premature sexualisation, a petition was delivered to the buxton school's headteacher containing more than 700 signatures.  Unisex toilets will just lead to children becoming sexually active even earlier.  Spread the love new research has shown that over half of british people would say ""no"" to gender-neutral toilets.  Gender-neutral toilets put women at risk.  Gender neutral toilets put women and children at risk.  Unisex toilets will attract rapists, paedophiles, perverts and predators.  Unisex toilets in subway and train stations in the metropolitan area are discriminatory against disabled people as they fail to offer due convenient measures to them.  Using a unisex bathroom is humiliating.  Michael silverman of the transgender legal defense points out that gender-neutral bathrooms are not the perfect solution for every student.  Last year the mp intervened in a debate about transgender issuesin parliament , suggesting that gender-neutral toilets leave women at risk of sexual assault.  Gender neutral toilets increase the risk to women of male violence.  Unisex toilets is definitely a bad idea.  A new poll of brits found that 73 per cent disagreed with unisex toilets.  Coed bathrooms are the worst of the lot.  Gender-neutral bathrooms have the potential to make women uncomfortable.  The gender-neutral bathrooms are small and inconvenient and none of them have access to menstrual supplies.  Unisex toilets could pose a danger to pupils and be a 'green light for abuse.  Unisex toilets can make the disabled feel a sense of shame.  James hood's eloquently written may 20 commentary amounts to the sentiment that unisex bathrooms will lead to orgies and rape.  Unisex toilets could put children at risk of sexual assault.  Unisex toilets will lead to children becoming sexually active even earlier.  Unisex toilets could lead to longer queues.  Gender-neutral bathrooms would lead to ""public moral issues,"" including rape, on school campuses, drawing the ire of lgbtq rights advocates.  Hannah cuthbertson, who signed the petition, wrote: ""unisex toilets will just lead to children becoming sexually active even earlier. "".  Having the unisex toilets will allow nothing but more mischievous behaviour.  Introducing gender neutral toilets would lead to more cases of women being harassed.  The right wing, dr.  scout said, is spreading rumors that gender-neutral bathrooms will lead to violent sexual behavior.  Mrs singleton suggested that some women may not want to use a toilet cubicle directly after a man and warned that unisex toilets could lead to longer queues.  Gender-neutral toilets take away safe spaces for women.  Moving to gender neutral toilets is clearly unpopular with pupils.  Students have also discovered that ""gender-neutral"" bathrooms violate one's privacy, especially girls' privacy in changing tampons or pads.  Unisex toilets could expose pupils to heightened risk of abuse and premature sexualisation.  Gender-neutral bathrooms will lead to boys lying about being girls to gain access to their toilets.  The unisex toilets could potentially increase bullying.  Gender-neutral bathrooms will lead to violent sexual behavior.  Parents have raised ""serious concerns"" over plans to introduce unisex toilets at new schools in a bid to help pupils confused about their gender.  Gender-neutral toilets leave women at risk of sexual assault.  The nhrc said it reached the decision on the grounds that the non-disabled use separated toilets and unisex toilets can make the disabled feel a sense of shame.  Unisex restrooms will encourage sexual activity among students. ","[5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 5, 4, 4, 2, 2]",15,"[45181384, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45191882, 45189900, 45206691, 45483811, 29155723, 43877630, 45361788, 45336993, 45336988, 44094031, 27934334]"
7a622359-7fd8-4ebf-b6ec-390abc56cefc,802,We should protect Antarctica,Arg-Human2,"An untouched antarctica has benefits for us all.  Antarctica is melting and that does not bode well for the future of humanity.  Madrid protocol') - the whole of antarctica is designated a natural reserve, where protection of the environment is fundamental to all activities.  The conservation charity is working to help create marine protected areas (mpas) around antarctica which will protect the feeding grounds of penguins, seals and whales, and help to conserve one of the world's last great wildernesses.  Australia has pledged its support for an international treaty to protect antarctica from damaging oil spills.  Antarctica will be preserved and free of exploitation.  By any measure, antarctic biodiversity is poorly protected by reserves, and those reserves are threatened.  Australia and other antarctic nations have today reaffirmed their commitment to protect and preserve antarctica as a natural reserve devoted to peace and science.  Antarctica is protected by a treaty that preserves it for scientific research and wildlife.  Antarctica is such an important place politically, scientifically and historically.  A huge swath of the waters off antarctica must be protected from fishing and other industries, environmental groups said on monday.  Antarctica is such an important part of our history.  ""ccamlr members have a clear task to complete: to work together to create the marine protected areas that antarctica's waters and wildlife need,"" antarctic and southern ocean coalition executive director mark epstein told the hobart mercury on monday.  The continent of antarctica would be protected from human contamination and left pristine for future generations.  Antarctica is vital for us.  Antarctica is a crucial location for climate change research.  Antarctica needs to be better protected from human visitors, including tourists and researchers, a leading australian environmental scientist says.  Antarctica plays a critical role in many aspects of earth's climate system.  Any kind of drilling or exploitation of antarctica will impact the whole world and the continent has to be protected at all costs.  Antarctica is too important in the global scene to lose to mining or pollution.  Antarctica's fragile wilderness values and unique ecosystems are under threat as the continent and its oceans become more accessible and world demands for natural resources increase.  Antarctica is a preserve for peace and science, so we have to take responsibility for preserving that biodiversity and take action on climate change.  The environmental protection of the antarctic, above all else, was in the best interests of mankind.  Frederick says antarctica has a significant role in understanding climate change.  Antarctica is worth protecting.  That antarctica is worth protecting.  Why antarctica needs to be protected so societies the world over can benefit for years to come.  Antarctica offers a remarkable educational experience for travelers, promoting greater awareness to protect it.  A new coalition of environmental and conservation groups is calling for a massive area surrounding antarctica to be protected in marine reserves.  Antarctica is this planet's only continent wholly protected from mining and other economic activity, save tourism -- a place where nature, not commerce, rules.  Antarctica should be conserved for future generations.  Antarctica's suite of protected areas should be expanded to ensure it safeguards the continent's unique biodiversity, according to new australian research.  Antarctica must be preserved as a common heritage of mankind.  Antarctica wildlife is rigorously protected.  The continent has long been protected by multilateral agreements as a natural reserve where military activity is banned and scientific exploration is the major pursuit.  Antarctica should be conserved as it is: a pristine and relatively untouched part of the world.  The antarctic has been well protected largely due to the antarctic treaty.  Australia is signing up to an international treaty to protect antarctica from damaging oil spills.  The antarctic treaty system protects antarctica as a natural reserve devoted to peace and science. ","[2, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 2, 5, 4, 4]",15,"[45538225, 44690955, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 43984981, 45191882, 45206691, 45189900, 34854490, 44094031, 45401087, 45181384, 29155723]"
5b59cecb-c3fe-4cd3-8bda-dacfb78bdc56,2654,We should protect whistleblowers,Arg-Human2,"Whistle-blowers have a critical role to play in the protection of the public interest.  Whistleblowers are crucial to the exposure of waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government.  Whistle blowers' protection was essential to encourage the reporting of misconduct, fraud and corruption.  Whistleblowers play a significant role in democratic societies by helping to uncover unlawful conduct related to corruption and fraud.  Whistleblowers should be supported, rather than punished.  Whistleblowers are protected when they pass along information about abuse and mismanagement.  Whistleblowers deserve protection in law.  Whistleblowers are a very valuable part of our democracy.  Whistleblowers are a very important part of government operations.  Whistleblowers should be protected from retaliation, including prosecution.  Whistleblowers are necessary, need protections, and should be honored for their courage.  Whistleblowers have saved countless lives and billions of taxpayer dollars.  Whistle-blowers make incredibly important contributions to democracy.  Whistleblowers were the key to fraud detection.  Whistleblowers play a critical role in protecting investors.  Whistleblowers increase our efficiency and conserve our scarce resources.  Whistleblowers provide an important service and are a vital part of ensuring good government and stopping waste, fraud, and abuse.  Whistleblowers have an important role to play in ensuring problems in our public services are identified and put right.  Whistleblowers are the most useful and consistent means of unearthing fraud and other improprieties in the financial world.  Whistleblowers are an incredibly valuable source of information.  Whistleblowers serve as the single most important corporate resource for detecting and preventing fraud.  Whistleblowers are crucial in helping to expose waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement and threats to public health and safety across the federal government.  The protections offered to whistleblowers are the most important component of an effective whistleblower program.  Whistleblowers ""provide an invaluable public service.  Whistleblowers deserve protection against retaliatory actions by their employer.  Whistleblowers are essential to ensuring that government is functioning properly and efficiently.  Whistle-blowers are essential to justice.  Whistleblowers that report wrongdoing - whether they are employed within government or the private sector, can and should be protected by law.  Whistleblowers are necessary to protect the country from tyranny.  Whistleblowers play an important role in policing fraud in federal programs.  Whistleblowers are adequately protected.  Whistleblowers deserve nothing more than full protection as this will further encourage accountability and enrich the right of the public to know.  Whistle blowing against corruption is encouraging sign and good omen for the future of the country.  Whistle-blowing against corruption was an encouraging sign and a good omen for the future of the country.  Whistleblowers are important and retaliation is not tolerated.  Whistleblowers with insider information are the key to fraud detection.  Whistleblowers are crucial to keeping firms healthy.  Whistleblowers with genuine concerns play an important role in the workplace.  Whistleblowers provide a useful service to our society.  Whistleblowers will be protected, while wrong doers will be punished.  Whistle-blowers are essential to a healthy institution.  Whistleblowers are a vital tool in rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse in the government, and have helped save hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.  Whistleblowers play a valued service in our democracy.  Whistleblowers are keys in unearthing corruption and need to be protected through proper mechanism.  Whistleblowers play essential role in exposing corruption, fraud, mismanagement and other wrongdoing that threaten public health and safety, financial integrity, human rights, the environment and the rule of law.  Whistleblowers play an important check on illegal, unethical business practices.  Whistleblowers can play an important role in uncovering unlawful activities that damage the public interest.  Whistleblowers play an essential role in providing transparency and accountability in the federal government.  Whistleblowers are protected for challenging the consequences of government policy decisions.  Whistle-blowers are protected by law. ","[3, 4, 5, 1, 5, 4, 2, 3, 3, 2, 5, 4, 4, 2, 2]",15,"[45677971, 45567220, 45569485, 45538225, 45567227, 45458968, 21785776, 45181253, 45181243, 19838540, 45401087, 45183231, 45190571, 34609243, 44044795]"
60d773a4-1010-4b97-b92d-4b5baea98710,3052,We should raise the corporate tax,Arg-Human2,"Finance minister taro aso has expressed fear that aggressive corporate tax cuts may hamper efforts to restore the country's fiscal health, the worst among industrialized economies.  Among tories, 62 per cent supported raising corporate tax rates.  Last week, josh bivens and hunter blair of the liberal economic policy institute took aim at the claim that corporate tax cuts will lead to more jobs, writing that ""corporate tax cuts are about the worst fiscal tool we have for boosting job growth. "".  The survey, conducted by environics research group, found that a majority of conservative voters support higher corporate taxes.  The corporate tax is an important component of our tax system.  The corporate income tax reduces the tax burden of individual taxpayers.  The corporate income tax makes our tax system more progressive.  House republicans, including speaker paul ryan, have argued that the border-adjusted corporate tax, which would effectively raise taxes on imports, would not hurt domestic industries or consumers because the dollar would strengthen as a result.  Reducing corporate tax rates might lead to lower wages, a notion at odds with most conventional literature on corporate incidence.  Mr swinney said corporation tax was ""one of the chief levers that government can use to promote growth, investment and jobs"".  Increasing the corporate tax rate is a viable revenue-generating option.  The minister believes that corporation tax ""is one of the key levers that government can use to promote growth, investment and jobs"".  There's no evidence suggesting that higher corporate tax rates lower economic growth and instead companies that pay the highest rates actually create the most jobs. "".  Higher corporate taxes would not severely hamper economic growth.  On the left, jim stanford of the canadian auto workers argues that cutting corporate taxes would actually destroy jobs.  Raising the corporate tax may relieve the country's aging population of financial pressures and narrow the growing income gap.  Funds raised by corporate taxes can pay for many creative programs that would increase florida's economic activity and foster a competitive work environment.  S&p global ratings, moody's investors service and fitch ratings have warned that lower u. s.  corporate taxes could exert near-term pressure on credit quality across the electric utility sector as regulators move to cut rates to compensate for the fiscal windfall.  Raising the corporate tax level is a good initiative, as taxes on firms are relatively low and the social reforms need financing.  Perhaps it's because a national bureau of economic research study published in 2014 found ""little evidence that corporate tax cuts boost economic activity. "".  Over 10 years, the 22 percent corporate tax would provide $200 billion more revenue than a 20 percent rate, experts say.  There is economic literature disputing the assertion that reducing the corporate tax burden helps the middle class.  The corporate tax punishes the rich and powerful and is an indispensable weapon in reducing inequality and redistributing wealth.  The dp has argued that an increase in corporate tax and tax for the rich is inevitable in order to secure revenue for the pledges.  Corporation tax would provide a significant fiscal lever to provide necessary incentives providing a major boost for the scottish economy at a critical time.  Revenue statistics in asian countries 2016 shows that corporate income taxes are a significant source of tax revenue in all six countries.  Reducing corporate tax entails negative implications for the economy, including discrimination against other businesses.  A corporate tax hike is the best idea.  Corporation tax would provide a significant fiscal lever to provide necessary incentives for a major boost for the scottish economy.  *the evidence that a corporate income tax will boost wages and grow the economy is abundant. ","[2, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 1, 2]",15,"[28813722, 45411178, 45405037, 6432269, 45567220, 45677971, 45569485, 45191882, 45189900, 45206691, 19838540, 45355658, 15448937, 43877630, 45181262]"
4edb6187-723a-489a-9415-2d8063559c03,2689,We should subsidize Wikipedia,Arg-Human2,"Wikipedia is a very fertile ground for the creation of innovative projects related to the digital humanities.  Wikipedia is both ubiquitous and irreplaceable, the go-to source for quick information on almost every topic imaginable.  Wikipedia is an informative knowledge resource, which matches a number of well-known offline encyclopedias.  Wikipedia is an effective source of information since it is put together by reliable sources and people from around the world.  Wikipedia is a phenomenon that helps casual web surfers and students alike.  Wikipedia searches can help people to predict outbreaks of deadly diseases around the world.  Wikipedia is a space that promotes the development of collective intelligence and participatory culture.  Wikipedia is often a large part of students' lives.  Wikipedia is a great source.  Wikipedia is a reputable source.  Wikipedia does more good than harm.  Wikipedia is a rich and valuable source of neutral, reliable information in hundreds of languages, written by volunteers around the world.  Wikipedia is a ``fabulous'' resource.  Wikipedia is such a great democratic resource,.  Wikipedia is an immensely valuable and in some ways astonishing resource; and if the goal is to measure what interests people, it is hardly senseless to consult it.  Wikipedia is a great resource.  Wikipedia can be a powerful platform.  Wikipedia is a good source of current information on politics.  Wikipedia is an effective source of knowledge.  Wikipedia is a reliable, up to date source of information, and often a first place that a doctor goes to get information.  Wikipedia has become an indispensable part of the world's information infrastructure.  Wikipedia has great potential as a venue for academic publishing.  Wikipedia is a great source of inspiration and information for our projects.  Wikipedia is reliable.  Wikipedia is a marvellous resource.  Wikipedia can be a useful resource.  Wikipedia has lead to countless ideas.  Wikipedia is an incredible resource.  Wikipedia is terrific (and free.  Wikipedia is a valuable resource, and is greatly increasing the accessibility of human knowledge.  Wikipedia is a valuable online tool.  Wikipedia is the best thing ever.  Wikipedia is incredibly useful for economic growth.  Wikipedia is this amazing global cultural phenomena that has transformed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.  Wikipedia is an important service.  Folks, wikipedia can be useful and fun.  Worldwide, wikipedia is recognized as an important learning resource, but it also offers a platform toshare knowledge with the world.  Wikipedia could be one of the most promising ways to help address the critical imbalance in the availability of factual information about africa's past and present.  Wikipedia is a credible source.  Wikipedia is a fantastic resource and because it is created by normal people its sheer breadth is amazing.  Wikipedia is a glorious resource and one of the most dazzling accomplishments of the internet age.  Wikipedia can return to serving as a valuable, free educational resource on a wide range of topics, including science, engineering, art, and culture.  Wikipedia is an important service, a public good.  Josie fraser, who leads for the council, said: ""wikipedia is a really important and useful source of information.  Wikipedia shows a hopeful set of possibilities for the future.  Wikipedia is a really important and useful source of information for everyone, especially pupils.  Wikipedia is a useful resource for learning.  A leicester city council spokesman said: wikipedia is a really important and useful source of information for everyone, especially pupils.  Wikipedia was a very good resource.  Wikipedia can be a great teaching tool, not just a great reference.  Wikipedia is a rich and valuable source of neutral, reliable information.  Wikipedia is an invaluable source of information for tv viewers.  Wikipedia is both ubiquitous and irreplaceable. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 3, 3, 3, 2, 4, 1, 5]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 6432269, 45569485, 45567227, 45677971, 45567220, 44094031, 45411178, 6340330, 15448937, 20512953, 45355658, 44044795, 30777913]"
a7214b03-5a69-4a48-84eb-5e6ea8f20a39,2678,We should subsidize distance education,Arg-Human2,"Online education really is a good option for some students and one that can deliver the right kind of educational outcome.  Open and distance learning remained a critical strategy of addressing the challenge of well-trained teachers in the country.  The distance education had evolved as an alternative to the formal education to meet the demands of increasing population.  Online education is crucial to promoting fair education across the board by creating more equal access to educational resources.  Open and distance learning had a long history of using technology to offer better education to millions of people through space and time at lower cost.  The distance learning programmes would help students to continue their studies who cannot take regular admission because of their jobs and other factors.  Online education is rated best for value and options.  Online education modules are effective in reducing harm and temporarily modifying behavior.  The development of online education programs can be a significant component of an institutions sustainability strategy based on greater socio-economic impact for a smaller environmental footprint per degree.  The distance-learning is meant to upgrade the skills of those students who want to upgrade their professional degrees to get a better job while doing their job.  Online university programs promote flexibility and other pathways to higher education.  The distance education option has provided higher education opportunities to many from backward communities in the hyderabad-karnataka region.  Open and distance learning is the most effective tool for making higher education accessible to everyone while laying stress on increasing enrolment.  Online education solutions are central to providing rapidly emerging economies with the skills and knowledge-base necessary to compete in a competitive global environment.  Online education represents a remarkable opportunity for the future of education.  The significant investments made to deliver leading edge distance learning options in our mba program enable us to provide a powerful and affordable education for high potential working adults.  The distance-learning approach to teaching and learning will build strong relationships across the ctw colleges and will prosper if fully implemented.  Online education modules helped nurses communicate to patients the need for vte prophylaxis and therefore improved rates of use.  The distance learning system is getting popular worldwide and it has provided a strong mechanism of educating people of all ages at their homes and workplaces.  The opportunities presented through distance learning make higher education more accessible and achievable for students in the u. s.  and globally.  The distance learning programmes will help the students continue their studies who cannot take regular classes because of their jobs and other factors.  Open and distance learning can aid in enhancing the reach of higher education.  Online education is an opportunity and not a threat for residential colleges.  The distance education centres will help the students especially in rural and interior areas.  Online education will play a key role in the future of high school students' education.  Providing high quality online education is an effective way to attract potential cyber security experts to the field.  The dubbo school of distance education fulfils a very important role for isolated children who don't have access to a local school.  Online education is appropriate as a supplement to education.  Open and distance learning is a very important part of unesco's work, since it's a proven mechanism for increasing the number of students with access to higher education.  Open and distance learning system was a proven alternative way of bridging knowledge and information to a vast majority of a geographically dispersed population.  Online education is effective.  Online education is an important and impactful extension of our academic offering.  Online education is just as fair and effective as traditional education. ","[5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 2, 5, 4, 4, 4, 2, 3, 4]",15,"[28813722, 45411178, 45405037, 6432269, 45567220, 45677971, 45181256, 45181243, 15448937, 21785776, 45355658, 19838540, 45181253, 45181262, 34609243]"
e50b3c79-4f24-43b1-920b-45ee2f6f0df2,3201,We should subsidize embryonic stem cell research,Arg-Human2,"Replacing damaged brain cells with those derived from human embryonic stem cells might lead to an effective treatment for parkinsons disease.  With some diseases, such as parkinson's disease and diabetes, or in treating some types of severe injuries, embryonic stem cells have proven more effective in research.  Substantial government funding of embryonic stem cell research would lead to cures.  Embryonic stem cells could help treat many diseases and disabilities because of their potential to develop into many different cell types in the body.  The law ""permits federal funding of research projects that utilize already-derived"" embryonic stem cells because no ""human embryo or embryos are destroyed.  Embryonic stem cells could help treat many diseases and disabilities.  Embryonic stem cells have proven more effective in research.  Human embryonic stem cells have restored the sight of several nearly blind patients -.  Embryonic stem cells could be used to treat patients with dry age-related macular degeneration (amd.  Human embryonic stem cells could be a major source of cells to treat degenerative diseases.  Embryonic stem cells, from which all the body's mature cells are made, is a powerful research tool that provides better predictability.  Embryonic stem cells therapy is helpful in treating many life threatening diseases.  This technology, like cloning and embryonic stem-cell research, has huge potential to help people.  Embryonic stem cells show potential for transforming into other cells that might repair tissue damaged by disease or injury.  The treatment, which is derived from human embryonic stem cells, helps heal patients with a different kind of spinal cord injury.  Embryonic stem cells were also useful in research that tested the causes of disease.  Human embryonic stem cells may be utilized to develop bone tissue grafts for application in investigation and promising therapies.  Research into medical use of embryonic stem cells would eventually lead to important health breakthroughs.  Transplantation of retinal pigment epithelium derived from human embryonic stem cells could be used to treat macular degeneration.  Limiting embryonic stem cell research would have a negative impact on the hope to find cures for devastating afflictions such as diabetes, alzheimers disease.  Some scientists believe embryonic stem cells could help treat many diseases and disabilities.  Evidence that embryonic stem cells will lead to a viable clinical treatment or regenerative medicine treatment.  Embryonic stem cells may one day lead to treatment for eye diseases sush retinitis pigmentosa, macular degeneration or other degenerative conditions that can cause loss of vision.  Substantial government funding of embryonic stem cell research would lead to cures for dozens of deadly chronic diseases within 10 years.  Embryonic stem cells from umbilical cords may hold the key to alleviating the number of surgeries necessary to treat children born with certain types of congenital heart disease (chd.  The embryonic stem cells could transform medicine, providing treatments for blindness, juvenile diabetes or severe injuries.  Such embryonic stem cells have been shown capable of helping grow compact bone tissues large enough to repair defects of centimeter-size proportions.  Human embryonic stem cells improve heart function in smaller animals such as mice, rats and guinea pigs.  Embryonic stem cells could help treat disease and disabilities.  Hescs are a potential tool for clinical application and pharmaceutical research.  Embryonic stem cells could represent one of the most important advances in medicine.  Federal funding for research involving human embryonic stem cells in hopes that it would lead to cures for diseases.  Human embryonic stem cells were extremely important as basic research tools.  Embryonic-stem-cell research is vital.  Human embryonic stem cell research offers real promise in enhancing understanding of a wide variety of human diseases.  Federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, calling it an important advancement in the cause of science. ","[4, 5, 5, 1, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4]",15,"[21017840, 6432269, 45953041, 45538225, 6340330, 20312760, 44690955, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 44094031, 43984981, 45189900, 45191882]"
5e8cda0b-128c-4399-928d-8d9bfd117548,2124,We should subsidize higher education,Arg-Human2,"The higher education was a vehicle for economic development and progress of any country.  Post-secondary education is very important.  Postsecondary education has great potential to support reentry success.  University education is essential to success.  Tuition free higher education is a panacea that will solve problems such as socioeconomic stratification and the stratification of higher education.  Partnerships between public higher education and economic development are key to the nation's economic future or to a region.  Promoting higher education is the top priority of the government.  The higher education in any society is a merit good, and its acquisition is fruitful to the whole of society.  The effectiveness of higher education has always been a fundamental component of national competitiveness.  Postsecondary education is a viable pathway to employment.  Primary and higher education are important to improve living.  The higher education is a significant component of solving the urgent problems for the country.  People with post-secondary education tend to have healthier lifestyles than the average high school dropout.  The university education is a critical component of human development world-wide.  Post-secondary education has become an important factor in our children's future success.  Supporting higher education is an essential investment in the youth of our community.  The expansion of higher education will contribute to growth.  University education leads to rewarding careers and helps strengthen communities.  The higher education sector has a key role to play in fostering innovation systems and providing a highly skilled workforce.  Post-secondary education leads to positive economic factors - the kinds of factors that reshape communities.  Targeted investments in research and higher education should be made regardless of overall funding levels because they would be key sources of long-term economic growth and fiscal stability.  Postsecondary education is important to achieving success in the workplace.  Spending on higher education is a good investment.  Promoting higher education is the main pillar of development of a society.  The government funding of higher education is essential for the inclusive growth of the state.  University education is crucial to national prosperity and progress.  The higher education sector will be promoted as a strong pillar for a robust growth of the mauritian economy.  Public higher education is important to the future of new hampshire.  Robust funding of public schools and higher education is essential to maintaining an educated workforce and a vibrant state.  Pumping money back into higher education helps the state by producing a better-educated workforce and research that fuels economic development.  Receiving higher education is important for a better life.  The role of higher education is recognized as a key factor for the creation of new knowledge and its ""spillover"" in the economy.  Providing higher education for free will be a great advancement to the country's education sector.  Role of higher education is very important for producing skilled workforce.  University education is an important base for future taxpayers.  The taxpayers should subsidize higher education.  University education leads to higher paid and higher skilled jobs.  Postsecondary education tends to lead to better economic well-being, a higher chance of good health and a more stable family environment.  Some form of higher education is becoming more important.  Spending state dollars in support of higher education is a good investment.  The benefits of a college education are numerous.  Postsecondary education is key to success in today's economy.  Post-secondary education is essential for most students.  Providing a college education serves a greater good, and must be facilitated.  Postsecondary education leads to higher employment rates, greater lifetime earnings, and improved career opportunities.  Postsecondary education is a good investment in time and dollars.  The choice made to pursue higher education would set a path towards greater social and economic mobility. ","[5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 2, 4, 2, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[45185975, 45191885, 45191882, 45185946, 45953041, 15448937, 20512953, 45355658, 34110399, 45405037, 19838540, 30777913, 6340330, 30398579, 38202325]"
cc38abce-43b1-4215-99bf-0415ad9a8dc2,2767,We should subsidize investigative journalism,Arg-Human2,"Strengthening local and investigative journalism is critical to a healthy democracy.  Investigative reporting is beneficial for welfare of the society.  The jordan news agency, petra, quoted his majesty as saying, correctly, that investigative journalism is an important tool for monitoring and accountability.  Investigative journalism was key to the media watchdog role needed for good governance and development.  Investigative journalism remains an important endeavor.  Washington:ebay founder pierre omidyar's philanthropic foundation pledged wednesday to donate $100 million over three years to support ""independent media and investigative journalism"" worldwide while tackling ""misinformation and hate speech.  Investigative journalism is an important institution of democracy, playing an especially vital role when other institutions like the courts prove incapable of delivering justice.  Investigative journalism is critical to our democracy.  Investigative journalism was ``a vital constituent of the uk's system of democratic governance and accountability.  Proper investigative journalism is vital in a democracy.  The tradition of watchdog journalism and investigative reporting is a cornerstone of american democracy.  Investigative journalism was central to socio-economic and political progress of any nation.  Professional investigative journalism is key and indispensable in an open society.  Visiting chief of transparency international (ti) jose carlos ugaz sanchez sunday said investigative journalism, as an effective tool, has helped surface many corruptions and unmasked the corrupts worldwide.  Peacock quotes nz on air chief executive jane wrightson saying: ""investigative journalism is fundamental to a strong democracy and national debate.  Investigative journalism is needed for a lively and healthy democratic society and must be protected by the courts.  Panellists at a roundtable on media and corruption in ghana have called for the establishment of a media fund to support investigative journalism.  Investigative reporting should be our top priority.  The bureau has argued that there is a strong public benefit to investigative journalism and that it has a clear charitable purpose in promoting citizenship and democracy.  The role of investigative journalists is as important as ever.  Investigative journalism in the public interest plays a vital role in a democratic society.  Properly funded, investigative journalism has a vital role to play.  Investigative journalism is of crucial importance in the digital era; a powerful form of oversight for our democracy.  Investigative journalists had the most important roles in society.  Investigative reporting would help the media to understand deeper issues underlying some crises, with a view to enriching its reportage.  Traditional investigative journalism is so important and so valuable.  Quality investigative journalism plays a vital role in strengthening the business environment by encouraging greater openness, accountability and transparency.  Strong and robust investigative journalism is absolutely essential.  Investigative journalism, particularly competitive, does lead to a more transparent and open society, inconvenient though that may be to many people.  True investigative journalism gives voice to those oppressed by war, poverty and inequity -- and that such journalism is essential to our freedom.  The role of investigative journalism is so important - there is incredible potential to change people's lives.  Public protector advocate thuli madonselaon saturday affirmed investigative journalism as one of the many important accountability mechanisms that helps to strengthen south africa's democracy.  At its best, investigative journalism can be a powerful force for good.  Investigative journalism was good for development.  Investigative journalism plays an important role in fighting corruption.  Investigative journalism plays a key role in fostering the necessary level of transparency in the eu and the member states.  Investigative journalism is very much alive and even essential in today's rapidly changing media world.  Investigative journalism is critical to a democracy.  Investigative journalism would help in giving a balanced, objective and fair representation of both sides of a report to the general public.  Investigative journalism is essential to the first amendment, freedom of the press, and of speech. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 5, 5, 4, 2, 5, 5]",15,"[13581319, 20225558, 19838540, 45567220, 45677971, 45355658, 44044795, 45190823, 45405037, 45411178, 28813722, 28810858, 21785776, 15448937, 45458968]"
f5f8d74b-eea0-4961-8827-376c75eb8f3f,2588,Assisted suicide should be a criminal offence,Arg-Human1,"Assisted suicide blurs too many lines with murder - even if the patient ""consents"".  Helping someone to commit suicide is murder and should be criminalized.  In some cases we can't be certain if the person truly wanted to die.  some people could use assisted suicide as a way to remove someone they believe is burden.  It is possible that this could be used as a murder in some cases.  Helping people die because of tough times in their life is not right.    there are many tools to help people get through bad times and helping them die is like pulling the trigger.  Assisted suicide should be a criminal offence as if the person cannot make their own decisions and actions then it would be impossible to know if the person helping wasn't just murdering them.  Suicide is a form of murder and those who attempt it can be convicted.   assisting someone to commit suicide can therefore be considered an accomplice.  Assisted suicide is not only immoral but is also a form of murder and should be a criminal offence.  The hippocratic oath states, ""first, do no harm"" -- assisted suicide violates a doctor's duty not to do harm to a patient.  There is no difference between assisted suicide and being an accessory to murder.   suicide is immoral and those that help should be punished.  Suicide is a criminal offense, thus assisting in suicide would be acting as an accomplice to murder.  Assisted suicide is just another form of murder.   murder is illegal so assisted suicide must be illegal as well.  Suicide should never be allowed and helping a person should be treated as murder.  no person has the right to take a life.  each person should be treated humanely and  encouraged to live their natural life span.  We cannot allow people to assist suicide because there is a fine line between assistance and murder and to have to differentiate is complex ground.  Assisted suicide is another type of murder.  Assisting with suicide is helping kill someone, and should be treated as such.  the intent of the victim doesn't matter, murder is murder.  Helping someone to commit suicide is no different than murder and needs to be a criminal offence.  life is sacred and must always be seen as such.  Suicide has never been legal.  it is still killing, even if one is taking ones own life.  If not a criminal offence it could encourage murder under the guise of assisted suicide that would be difficult to prove.  It should be a criminal offense to assist in a suicide because that is murder.  Assisted suicide should be a criminal offence as it is another form of murder.  Families could take advantage of assisted suicide in order to collect insurance or inheritance money, even if the individual is not past the point of no return health-wise.  Assisted suicide involves murdering someone which is illegal and should be treated as such.  Asisted suicide can be abused by those who want to benefit from taking advantage of a sick or ill relative and thus should not be allowed.  Assisted suicide should be a criminal offence as it is essentially helping to kill someone, manslaughter rules should apply.  Assisted suicide should be a criminal offence because it would be very easy  to murder a vulnerable relative in order to get an inheritance.  Assisted suicide should be a criminal offence because the person is basically killing the other person.  Assisted suicide should be a criminal offence because we cannot kill human beings simply because they have problems.  Assisted suicide should be a criminal offence because it is the killing of a living human being the same as from poison or from a gun.  Assisted suicide is a form of murder and should never be allowed. ","[4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 3, 5]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 15448937, 19838540, 6340330, 45191873, 7756990, 45183231, 45272708, 45181152, 44044795, 45336991, 45282792, 34609243, 45483811]"
44b49500-3fb1-4071-a3ad-84de9b8002ca,3279,Blockade of the Gaza Strip should be ended,Arg-Human1,"Killing innocent people, including kids for years must be stopped and all world should be ashamed to watch and to know that and do nothing.  The blockade makes it harder for the people in that area to make money, and their economy is on the verge of collapse according to world bank.  The gaza blockade is only making the people suffer.  it doesn't do anything to hurt the ones in power.  The palestinian people have a right to self determination and free trade with the rest of the world, the blockade prevents this.  The blockade only hurts the common man, has no effect on the governmental willing to let their people suffer.  The blockade actually strengthens hamas grip on the economy and on gaza.  The blockade prevents free access to the citizens, preventing necessary aid to the people, causing dire living conditions and severe economic detriments.  The blockade is hurting free trade.  The blockade has left a majority of the population unemployed, humanitarian assistance has been unable to reach the people and resources like fuel have been decreased to a dire level.  People in the gaza strip are suffering from the blockade because they cannot get the food, clothing and medicine they need, for the sake of their human rights we must stop this.  The people living there are living in inhumane conditions very few have adequate sewage and water facilities and its overpopulated.  The blockade has continued for far too long, and is preventing innocent people from obtaining the aid that they desperately need.  The blockade hurts free trade and people's incomes.  The blockade  has failed to overthrow hamas and only provides an excuse for its governmental inefficiencies.  The blockade of the gaza strip should be ended so that food and supplies may flow to the people and citizens that desperately need them.  The blockade of the gaza strip precludes the country from economic growth and causes a humanitarian collapse.  the blockade must end to help save lives.  The blockade of the gaza strip prevents basic necessities from reaching the poorest citizens.  The blockade of gaza must end because it has resulted in a humanitarian crisis because the country can not develop freely.  The blockade of the gaza strip only serves to harm innocents who happen to live in the area.  The gaza strip blockade hurts people from going about their daily life.   it stops people from making a good living.  it has been going on for years and has accomplished nothing.  The blockade is a draconian measure that inhibits economic development.  The blockade of the gaza strip is hurting innocent people.  The blockade of the gaza strip has done irreparable harm to the reputation of israel while doing little to increase security.  The blockade of the gaza strip is causing over a million people to go hungry for no reason.  The gaza strip blockade unfairly effects the women and children of the area and causes many hardships to noncombatants.  The blockade of the gaza strip is bullying by a powerful state against a poorer one.  The blockade of the gaza strip has a harmful effect on the innocent civilians carrying out their lives within it, and has not been of any proven value in encouraging a peaceful resolution to the conflict.  The blockade of the gaza strip should be ended as it has caused unnecessary suffering to those who live there.  The blockade of the gaza strip should be ended and those involved need to accept what is theirs and not try to take more from others.  The blockade of the gaza strip is a humanitarian crisis, with severe economic impacts. ","[2, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 5, 5, 4]",15,"[13581319, 19838540, 20225558, 45677971, 45567220, 44044795, 45355658, 45190823, 28810858, 45405037, 28813722, 45411178, 45458968, 15448937, 20512953]"
cd1e1933-cca2-4a83-aded-cb9b53dd1bb1,2108,Surrogacy should be banned,Arg-Human1,"Surrogacy harms the poor because desperate women will use their body to earn a living.  Surrogacy creates a host of complicated issues around parental rights.  Surrogacy should be banned because there are many children who could be adopted without surrogacy.  Surrogacy is an artificial means of creating more children.   if a person can not have children then they should adopt since there are many children that need parents.  Surrogacy should be banned as women are being paid to produce a baby and it is not regulated as stringently as it needs to be.  Surrogacy is basically exploitation of economically disadvantaged women, forced into emotional and physical trauma for money.  Surrogacy is making a contract with a human life and is therefore immoral.  Surrogacy should be banned because the relationship between a biological mother and child is precious.  we should end these types of pregnancies because they are immoral.  Surrogacy should be banned because it is just a scheme to make money for the surrogate and too often it's the poor doing it for the financial gain.  Surrogacy should be banned because too it is often impossible for the surrogate to separate herself from the newborn.  Surrogacy should be banned because you are essentially selling your womb or selling a baby.  the surrogate mother may changer her mind and the legal issues can be very complicated.  When surrogacy is done as a private agreement it is the same as buying a child.  Surrogacy contributes to emotional issues such as having to part with a child carried for nine months and then the possibility of post-partum depression enhanced with not having the child with them.  Surrogacy can lead to the exploitation of poor women for the benefit of the rich.  Surrogacy is unnatural, and it may injure the surrogate herself; she may develop bonds with her unborn child that she could never further explore after giving birth.  There are already too many children awaiting adoption.  if people can't have children naturally they should adopt.  Surrogacy dehumanizes the baby by making children commodities instead of human.  Surrogacy puts a strain on women's bodies and it is often the poorest women in society who undergo surrogacy in order to earn money.  The emotional implication of the surrogate mother, including post partum pregnancy cause severe trauma that had lifelong implications, therefore surrogacy should be banned.  The emotional stress can create issues for the woman carrying the child, forming a natural bond that will be dire when the separate of the child is taken from her and never to be returned.  Surrogate mothers can become too attached to the babies and suffer emotionally.  Young desperate women can easily be coerced into surrogacy without fully understanding the impact on their health.  Surrogacy will eventually and inevitably become commercialised, with mothers ""hiring out"" their wombs to the highest bidder.  Surrogacy turns women and children into commodities and should be banned.  The commodification of another person's body is often coercive and unethical.  Surrogacy is not regulated and can have unforeseen negative outcomes.  The attachment that a mother has for her unborn child  can cause a surrogate to change her mind and  will cause years of law suits.  Surrogacy should not be allowed, it is unnatural and creates a market for women to rent their womb to the highest bidder.   it is a procedure for the wealthy who use poor women to risk their health for a price.  Surrogacy is emotionally crippling to the birth mother, and is generally an exchange only entered into out of financial desperation.  Surrogacy should be banned because the surrogate parent becomes attached to the child during the normal course of the pregnancy. ","[4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 2, 5, 2, 4, 4, 4, 3]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 20225558, 45181383, 45401087, 45190571, 45181384, 6432269, 21785776, 45458968, 45538225, 45206691, 45361788, 45191882, 13581319]"
ecc9a6b4-4723-42d7-8b52-ba4996c644be,3207,We should abandon social media,Arg-Human1,"It gives people a platform to pretend, show off and to bully others.  it also makes people believe that everyone else has everything they want and that their lives are perfect, leading to mental health issues.  The real world and real relationships are neglected for empty online gratification.  eventually this leads to lack of fulfillment, depression and social anxiety.  Social media definitely brings more harm than good.  it can lead to cyberbullying, lowered self esteem, an increase in suicides, and less physical interaction which reduces a person's communication skills.  Social media causes people to feel sad about their own lives.  Social media allows disinformation to spread at an alarming speed, with serious consequences.  Online bullying and trolling is prevalent on social media, greatly harming affected individuals.  Social media risk to diminish the value of friendship, by presenting friendship only with its utility meaning.  Social media allows people to bully and harass otherwise with anonymity, as they can easily hide behind a keyboard, vpn, etc.  Social media is used for bullying by many children.  There are studies that show social media is a very common cause of depression in adolescents.  Social media encourages people to overshare their lives which compromises security.  Studies have shown that social media geared towards young people have caused suicide to go up.  Social media is exploited by criminals trying to impersonate others.  Social media can cause relationship breakdowns and people feeling inadequate when they see and hear what other people have.  People use social media to bully, harass, and otherwise annoy individuals and companies, and do so without fear of retribution or consequences due to the anonymity of social media.  Social networks isolate people and submerge them in solitary lives.  Social media allows people to bully others, usually behind a veil of anonymity.  Social media makes it easy for uninformed people to spread dangerous misinformation about medical topics to a great number of people.  Social media is addictive.  people are spending more time in virtual worlds and less time experiencing  personal human interactions.  Social media promotes hatred and allows people to hide while being outright mean.  Social media promotes bullying and adds to depression.  People spend so much time on social media that they neglect real life obligations and relationships.  Social media causes inactivity, social isolation, problems with self-esteem and focus, and, in extreme cases, suicide.  Social media makes it too easy to bully other people.  Social media can be addicting, and since it is so easily accessible from a variety of devices, it can distract people from more important aspects of life.  Social media brings more harm than good because social media is a brainwashing of some sort it makes people go against each other and create hatred if they do not share same ideas.  People who use social media too frequently lose the ability to communicate effectively in person.  Social media has made bullying worse,.  Social media is known for damaging the self esteem of adolescents and young adults due to how easy it is to compare yourself and your life to your friends or acquaintances.  Social media poses a threat to children, as they may talk to unscrupulous people online and become susceptible to grooming.  Social media has given rise to cyber bulling and people having a platform for hate speech.  Social media can alienate users from real personal contact.  Social media is an outlet for bullying.  Social media provides an unregulated platform for extremist and hate-fuelled rhetoric.  Bullying is rampant on social media because people can hide behind false names and personas and remain anonymous.  users can make threats against other people and no one knows who they are.  Social media companies are not transparent about their data collection and usage. ","[3, 5, 4, 1, 4, 4, 5, 2, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 2, 4]",15,"[21017840, 6432269, 45953041, 45538225, 6340330, 20312760, 44690955, 13581319, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 34609243, 43984981, 33708599]"
562f9265-e95b-4f8d-968f-a93c2a57349a,3194,We should abandon television,Arg-Human1,"We should get rid of television because it is a distraction to most, is not cost efficient, and is a monopoly.  Television is a major part of the sedentary lifestyle that is the leading cause of disease in the world.  We should abandon television because it promotes obesity and it keeps kids from playing outdoors and getting exercise.  Television is an out-dated form of entertainment long left behind by technology that uses the internet to provide cutting edge entertainment.  Television is an outdated source of news and entertainment and should be abandoned.  Television should be abandoned because we are becoming addicted to it and it is nothing but trash and smut all the time.  Watching television leads to a sedentary and unhealthy lifestyle.  Television has become just a means of mindless entertainment for young children.  Television programs are full of sex and violence and are not educational nor beneficial to children or adults.  Television encourages people to be lazy and as a consequence they put on weight.  We should abandon television because it can lead to addictions of screens and missing out on time spent on other priorities like spending time with family and housework etc.  Television wastes millions of hours of peoples lives that could be spent working and helping the economy.  We need to abandon television and do other activities like reading, spending time with family or sports.  Technology and society are moving away from modern television.  almost no one subscribes to cable anymore when there are dozens of other ways to consume media.  Television exposes children to violence, adults to fake news and prevents people from getting up and integrating with the real, active world.  People would exercise more and be more productive.  Too many people sit in front of the television instead of doing physical activity, which is a factor in the increase of obesity.  Television has expanded into our lives far too much.   children do not go outside to play as much, but instead spend their time in front of a screen.   we should try to get tv out of our lives.  We should abandon television as it has lead to a decrease in outdoor activities and overall fitness and health.  it is also detrimental to quality family time and community.  Television has become a cesspool for trash reality shows and fake news - it is time to let it phase out since it is not doing us much good as a culture.  People spend too much time watching television at the cost of more active pursuits.  Television is a waste of time; people spend hours looking at the box when they could be doing something more worthwhile with their time.  People are already starting to cut the cord.  television is largely being replaced by other forms of entertainment and should be abandoned before it's too late.  Abandoning television would encourage people to do other more beneficial activies such as reading, socialising, being outdoors and otherwise healthier pursuits.  Television is no longer needed when there are so many other devices to get entertainment through.  laptops, smartphones and tablets are all that is needed.  Television contributes to the obesity epidemic because people spend far too much time inside in front of  the tv being inactive.  Television has led to the laziness of people mentally and physically.  Television perpetuates an inactive lifestyle, exacberting modern problems of heart disease and obesity, costing health care systems billions annually.  Television encourages unhealthy sedentary behavior.  People can get all of the same information on the internet that they get on tv so there's no need for television.  Television is an outdated modality that lures people into inactive passivity, it is dangerous to well-being and should be banned. ","[4, 4, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 3, 3]",15,"[20225558, 45190823, 29155723, 20512953, 13581319, 45181383, 45191873, 45272708, 45181152, 45411178, 45191882, 45189900, 45206691, 45181262, 45181256]"
fa4937db-60e6-4650-a968-8d70e565d643,3227,We should abolish capital punishment,Arg-Human1,"Too many innocent persons have been discovered on death row, so we should just abolish capital punishment so that we do not punish an innocent person in such a way as can not be reversed.  Several people have been found not guilty after they had already been put to death.  There are too many historical cases where innocent people have been put to death.  Only god decides who lives and who dies, capital punishment should not exist.  It doesn't deter crime and it's simply about revenge.  the innocence project has exonerated twenty people on death row, and with their limited resources i have no doubt the number is higher.  The wrong person has been executed many times and therefore this should be stopped.  There are better ways of punishing criminals nowadays and some can be rehabilitated.  Too many people have been executed with false or inadequate evidence of guilt, or because they have mental health issues.  Many people have been wrongly executed for crimes that dna has proven they didn���t commit, and therefore capital punishment should be abolished.  Recent dna evidence have proved that some death penalty inmates to be innocent.  executing one innocent person is an enough proof that the capital punishment should be abolished.  It's not fool proof enough.  the system already mistakenly punishes innocent people at an alarming rate.  the risk of an innocent person being put to death is too great.  The risk of executing an innocent person, especially in a criminal justice system as flawed as our own, is too high.  To provide  an example of acting as we wish others to act, we should not kill those who commit serious crimes.  doing so puts humanity on their level and excuses their behaviour on an existential level.  Nobody has the right to take another person's life no matter how evil that person may be.  The risk of killing even one wrongly accused person is enough to warrant abolishing capital punishment.  No one has the right to take a life and capital punishment is simply murder in a different form.  The criminal justice system is too flawed to render such a permanent punishment.  Many innocents have been killed as a result of capital punishment.   even one innocent killed is one too many.  There is a possibility that an innocent person will be put to death.  There is no credible evidence that capital punishment acts as a deterrent.  There is no evidence that capital punishment stops crimes.  The death penalty has never been proven as a detterent to crime.  The death penalty is outdated and immoral - there is no justification for taking a person's life.  It is inhumane to decide whether or not another person should be killed.  We cannot always be sure that the correct verdict has been achieved as has been shown in previous cases, thus depriving a person of their life.   it should be abolished to prevent  loss of innocent life.  We should abolish capital punishment as innocent people have been previously sentenced to death.  The death penalty is a setback to civility and human rights.  We should abolish capital punishment because all life is valuable and taking it from anyone is wrong.  We should abolish capital punishment because there is no evidence that it has any effect in detering criminals.  We should abolish capital punishment because in term of religious view, god is the author of life and death so only god can decide who die and who lives when times comes.  We should abolish capital punishment because there is no possibility of correcting a miscarriage of justice where people have died for crimes they did not commit. ","[5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 5, 3, 2, 5, 4, 2]",15,"[45458968, 45677971, 45569485, 20225558, 45405037, 45538225, 45181383, 45181384, 45401087, 45190571, 45190823, 29155723, 44044795, 45336988, 21785776]"
a6a27070-6c60-4604-b0df-1f60e5b23263,3661,We should abolish foster care,Arg-Human1,"There have been too many cases of people fostering just for the money rather than the wellbeing of the child so time to think of a better solution.  Many get into foster care for the wrong reasons, the money.    in order to make said money people often treat the children in their care in a neglectful way.  Foster care parents are only in it for the money.  they don't care about the children so they arent invested in providing the loving and caring environment the children need.  It was found that 80% of adults who had been placed in foster care as children, were doing poorly, with a quarter to one third becoming homeless or living below the poverty level.  Foster care tends to move children from home to home and lacks stability.  Foster care creates environments for child abuse.  Foster families may be malicious and abuse foster children or only participate for monetary gain.  Foster care takes a child away from it's family damaging the bonds that a child has with their natural parents.  the bonds may never recover.  Foster care systems are often poorly supervised and allow vulnerable kids to receive continued abuse and neglect.  Foster care puts already vulnerable kids in to the hands of those who might abuse them further.  Foster care is often detrimental to children as they are passed through many families and a stable home is often not provided.  Foster care is often not monitored closely enough putting children���s safety at risk.  Statistics show that 1 in 3 children are abused in foster care, this number is far too high.  abuse in foster care is rampant and hardly anything is ever done.   foster care is simply too abusive and dangerous.  Once a child is placed in foster care there is a danger that he or she gets stuck in the system and is subjected to multiple changes in placements with consequent damage to the child's wellbeing.  Foster care often takes children away only to give them back to the parents, which gives children an even more unstable environment.  The lack of stability for children can lead to behavioural problems.  Foster parents and the children they keep grow to love each other, then they are taken away which hurts the children.  Some foster carers are doing it just for the money and don't really care about the children.  Foster care just passes children around like they are a burden instead of finding a home for them.  The lack of stability and continuity that comes with transferring a child from one foster home to another undermines proper social development.  Foster care simply transfers kids from home to home and robs them of crucial stability in their formative years.  Many children in foster care are not adequately supervised by social services, and thus are often mistreated.  Foster care homes do not provide the bonding experience that children need because they are often moved from one house to another.  Foster care strips kids of a sense of stability.  Foster care families don't really take care of the children and instead use them to earn extra income.  Foster care is disruptive to children because they are placed in an artificial family like setting only to be removed again.  it does not allow children the time to learn to trust and love parental figures.  Foster care is a temporary place where troubled kids from troubled families get placed.   the very temporary nature of the situation means the kids get passed around without developing needed relationships.  Foster care is often a temporary, emergency measure, leaving the child feeling even more dislocated and insecure. ","[4, 3, 3, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 2, 4, 4, 5, 4]",15,"[45953041, 20512953, 21017840, 6432269, 45411178, 30777913, 45569485, 45567227, 6340330, 45458968, 44094031, 44044795, 19838540, 44690955, 45355658]"
9c776669-25d4-4a50-a717-b8aa31a9b4a0,2694,We should abolish intelligence tests,Arg-Human1,"It gives people a feeling of superiority over others.  some people are just not good test takers, it doesn't mean they aren't intelligent.  The stress of testing and then the increased expectations heaped on those who do well in these tests is detrimental to their mental health, also those who score lower have pressure to improve.  Some people just don't test well and scoring badly on intelligence tests can have profound impacts that are not deserved.  People who score poorly may feel they have no chance in life.  Some smart students are simply bad test takers, so intelligence tests are not always the best indicator.  Intelligence tests serve no purpose and discriminate against some pupils.  Intelligence tests aren't accurate measures of intelligence, because some people are known to not be able to do well on a standardized test.  Intelligence tests are unscientific and only give a narrow, limited view of ones skills and abilities.  Intelligence tests can do more harm than good because it labels the takers as gifted or failure and don't cover other forms of intelligence.  Intelligence tests give an inaccurate and flawed picture of an individual's capabilities since it measures one style of learning and one type of intelligence only.  Intelligence tests focus on a very narrow definition of the word, and can have the effect of labelling a child a failure early in life, with potentially severe consequences.  Intelligence tests can make those who perform poorly on them lose confidence in their abilities.  Intelligence tests do not accurately measure intelligence and tend to biased towards ethnic minorities.  Intelligence tests put the focus at that immediate time of taking the test of whether a person can cope with being under pressure while taking a test, therefore, detrimental.  Intelligence tests shouldn't be used because they fail to measure other important types of intelligence.  Intelligence tests seek to rank people based on an arbitrary test.   it hurts the self esteem of people that probably have proficiency in a different type of intelligence that the test tests.  Intelligence tests don't measure real world skills and capabilities.  Intelligence tests give a skewed and limited view of a student and do not give a full picture of someones abilities and skills.  Intelligence tests cause students to feel inadequate and pressured.  Intelligence tests bring more harm than good because they fail to measure important types of intelligence, can be biased, and children can be labeled disabled or gifted which impacts their self-worth.  Not every type of intelligence can be measured by a standardized test & many brilliant people may feel stupid because their talents are not recognized by these tests.  Intelligence tests pit children against each other and open others to bullying.  Intelligence tests stigmatize people and put them into groups that may not be beneficial.  Intelligence tests bring more harm than good because it will give people low self esteem if they get a low score on the test.  Sometimes these tests make people feel bad about themselves or label people into things they should not be labelled.  Intelligence tests will cause children with alternative learning styles to fall through the cracks in the educational system.  Intelligence tests could label a child as unintelligent when they are not fully developed and so stunt their intellectual growth by placing them in lower levels.  Intelligence tests boxes children into stereotypes and hinders their growth.  Intelligence tests can cause depression in children with low performance.  Intelligence tests have been proven to have no predictive value in a person's ability to excel in education or the workforce.  Intelligence tests form a narrow test that does not take into account a student's creativity or other personality attributes. ","[5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 1, 3, 2, 4, 2, 2]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 20225558, 45458968, 45405037, 45181383, 45190571, 45181384, 45401087, 45538225, 6432269, 29155723, 13581319, 43877630, 21785776]"
ea402f0b-3fdf-41dd-8a7c-4e9424027d82,2572,We should ban algorithmic trading,Arg-Human1,"Algorithmic trading is unfair because people with the best connections and best equipment have an advantage over others.  Algorithmic trading is powered by ai that can be easily hacked, thus putting financial data at risk.  Algorithmic trading should be banned because it contributes to market instability and market crashes.  Algorithmic trading is inherently unfair, only those with the resources to use it can benefit.  Algorithmic trading has its disadvantages which include system failure risks,network connectivity errors, time-lags between trade orders and execution and, most important of all, imperfect algorithms.  Algorithmic trading offers an unfair advantage to certain traders.  Algorithmic trading should be banned as the software can be hacked by criminals.  Algorithmic trading results in unfair advantages for those able to access it to the detriment of ordinary investors.  Algorithmic trading is another way for the finance industry to make even greater profits that are not passed on to society.  Algorithmic trading gives an unfair advantage to those who have access to such technology and results in losses for the ""little guy"".  It is unfair to those without access to algorithmic trading putting them at a disadvantage, so a level playing field would be fairer.  Algorithmic trading is too easily corrupted.  it's far too easy to hack.  if hacked it could completely destroy the economy and individual people's lives.  it's not secure enough.  Allowing a trading method that is fully reliant on technology is a huge problem, with no backup plan, the losses that would be created by the system going down would be substantial.  Algorithmic trading leaves the average person behind the curve, giving an unfair advantage to big wall street firms.  Algorithmic trading will always give an advantage to people who use it leaving the others in the position of always losing money to them.  Algorithmic trading is slow to respond to real world happenings and could do some damage before it is fixed.  Algorithmic trading removes the human element of common sense from trading patterns, which has caused many wild mini-crashes and market fluctuations.  Algorithmic trading makes it easier for corporations to cheat their clients, by programming the system to manipulate the market.  Algorithmic trading is not available to everyone, causing an unfair advantage with high economic detriments.  Algorithms can be hacked and therefore the data isn���t safe, and should therefore be banned.  Algorithmic trading gives too much control to machines.  humans are better placed to understand the intricacies of the markets.  This method is unfair to many traders who do not have access to such technology.  Some trading algorithms such as those designed for high frequence trading can lead to market volatility and cause market crashes.  Algorithmic trading puts certain investors at an unfair advantage.  Algorithmic trading gives traders an unfair advantage.  Algorithmic trading prevents careful thought before each trade.  Algorithmic trading should be banned because it makes investors really reliant on technology and the systems that it deploys.  We should certainly place a ban on algorithmic trading because it could create an unfair advantage for people that can afford it versus those who cannot.  Algorithmic trading is unfair and manipulative for the financial markets.  Algorithmic trading cause massive stock market shifts and impacts on the economy, the practice should be banned.  Algorithmic trading has been reported as one of the main causes of the greatest fall in the dow in decades.  We should ban algorithmic trading because algorithms don't always work and will cause people to lose a lot of money.  Algorithmic trading can be rigged to benefit those who have the most money to gain.  Algorithmic trading may be an artificial manipulation of the market. ","[4, 4, 2, 4, 2, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 2, 3, 3, 5, 3]",15,"[45677971, 45567220, 13581319, 20225558, 45405037, 45567227, 45569485, 19838540, 45458968, 28813722, 45190823, 21785776, 43877630, 30777913, 28513847]"
bfc904ff-8eed-4de9-884a-f21308974a89,1161,We should ban cosmetic surgery,Arg-Human1,"Too many people have poor cosmetic surgery, and the health risks are not worth it! there are many cosmetic surgeons that care more about the money than their patients.  Cosmetic surgery is  putting people's lives at risk, so we should really ban it.  Surgery that is not necessary is not a good reason to risk someone's health or life.  People should be content with how they look and it gives out the wrong message about body image when people change how they look like this.  Cosmetic surgery is an unnecessary risk that can lead to future medical issues.  Cosmetic surgery promotes unhealthy body image ideals.  Cosmetic surgery presents many health risks.  Cosmetic surgery should be banned because the risks attached both to the surgery and in the longer term are not worth the gains.  Plastic surgery can cause many complications and infections and does not address the underlying self esteem issues of the patient.  We should be working toward body confidence and embracing our forms not enabling an industry that destroys that.  Cosmetic surgery should be banned as more people are feeling under pressure to become more youthful or beautiful and not all cosmetic surgery is safe.  Cosmetic surgery supports the idea that young people are not good enough as they are and that they require invasive procedures in order to look good enough for society.  Cosmetic surgery contributes to the mythical ideal body, the pursuit of which causes depression, anxiety and eating disorders in young people.  Cosmetic surgery creates an unhealthy self image.  Cosmetic surgery is a crutch for people for people who don't like themselves but by changing something on the outside they can somehow change something on the inside, i believe this is harmful.  Cosmetic surgery is a frivolous waste of resources and should be banned.  it takes medical time away from those  in need.  cosmetic surgery promotes vanity and self absorption.  Cosmetic surgery creates a great desire for physical improvement that leads to an endless loop of body adjustments which has a detrimental effect on the individual.  Plastic surgery provides people with an unrealistic goal of physical beauty that is not attainable.  We are propagating unnatural and unattainable beauty norms by fueling an industry that operates on those that can afford it, to look as close to perfect as possible.  Cosmetic surgery is dangerous and unnecessary, and many providers are unethical.  Cosmetic surgery is unnecessary and does not provide health benefits.  Risking complications of surgery, for example blood clots or infections, on a procedure that isn't necessary is irresponsible.  Cosmetic surgery is not regulated enough for it to continue as it can harm more people than it can help.  Cosmetic surgery has too many risks of something going wrong compared to the benefit of looking more aesthetically pleasing.  Cosmetic surgery contributes to the emotional issues regarding low self-esteem and is an unnatural procedure with various health risks.  Cosmetic surgery is negatively skewing the minds of our youth into unrealistic expectations.  Far too much is spent correcting bad surgery.  Cosmetic surgery encourages low self esteem while promoting unrealistic ideals.  young women are emotionally harmed by the barrage  of surgery results they can't afford.  Cosmetic surgery is unnecessary and creates a impossible body image that children try and feel bad when they can't achieve naturally.  We should ban cosmetic surgery because only rich people can afford it which is unfair.  there are risks of any surgery and there could be negative psychological impacts.  we shouldn't focus so much on beauty.  Cosmetic surgery is a harmful, invasive and unnecessary procedure that in the future will be looked upon as a barbaric practice, the way we look back at victorian medical procedures. ","[5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 5, 5, 4, 4, 2, 2, 5]",15,"[45569485, 45458968, 45677971, 20225558, 45405037, 44044795, 45538225, 29155723, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45181384, 45190823, 21785776, 45361788]"
b7406872-117c-4120-bcca-d25c194a74c3,2225,We should ban factory farming,Arg-Human1,"It is cruel to animals and is not healthy for us to eat.  The conditions in factory farms are disgusting and inhumane.  animals should be provided with more space to allow them to live more natural and happy lives.  We should ban factory farming because of the horrible conditions for these poor animals.  Factory farming should be banned because it increases the risk of animal cruelty.  We should ban factory farming because it is uneconomical and leaves the animals in terrible conditions.  Factory farming should be banned because it is legal cruelty to animals.   the animals have no quality of life before they are slaughtered.   that's not okay.  We should ban factory farming since most are dirty and cruel.  the animals have awful living conditions and are full of antibiotics and growth hormones.   factory farming is also ruining our environment.  Factory farming should be banned as it puts the product itself and financial result at the utmost top priority instead of the humane treatment of the animal.  Factory farming provides unsanitary and inhumane conditions to its livestock and should be banned.  Factory farming treats animals inhumanely, which is wrong and immoral.  Factory farming leads to sick and diseased animals and poor living conditions for the live stock.  Factory farming requires animals to be subjected to inhuman living conditions and should be banned.  Factory farming treats animals horribly, force feeds antibiotics and is a major source of pollution.  We should ban this unnecessary and unethical treatment of animals, it is cruel and there are viable, profitable alternatives.  This is an inhumane way to raise animals for consumption.  Factory farming tends to be inhumane for the animals.  the conditions are absolutely horrible.  The conditions these animals live in are horrendous and are a breeding ground for diseases.  Factory farming subjects animals to conditions they were not designed for when there are far more humane alternatives that could be used.  Factory farming often treats animals as purely product in the most unethical and cruel manner and the unclean conditions that result can lead to diseased product that gets into the marketplace quickly.  Factory farming puts animals in conditions which are detrimental to their health.  they would be healthier with more space and more care.  Factory farming often results in unsafe food production and an increase in polution.  Factory farms are a violent and dehumanizing place to work.  Factory farming should be banned because it is unethical to treat animals that way.  they are essentially being tortured.  Factory farming is very cruel and highly inhumane for animals to be bred only to be slaughtered, it is also very unsanitary for both humans and the animals.  Factory farming should be banned because meat quality goes down when animals aren���t living in optimal conditions and therefore people are having to eat inferior meat.  Factory farming leads to the cruel and inhumane treatment of animals, it should be banned.  Factory farming should be eliminated due to inhumane treatment of animals and workers.  We should ban factory farming as its cruel and inhumane to animals.  We should ban factory farming because it is cruel to the animals and because the quality of the products is sketchy at best.  Factory farms produce a lot of pollution.  Factory farming is the leading cause on food borne related illnesses.  Factory farming should be banned as it is cruel, produces poor quality food and employs unnatural methods in breeding and growth.  Factory farming often involves the use of unnecessary pesticides.  Factory farming should be banned due to the excessive pollution they cause to the environment.  We should ban factory farming because it leads to the  abuse of animals. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 3, 2, 5, 1, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 5]",15,"[45191882, 45185975, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 45190823, 13581319, 20312760, 45411178, 34110399, 29155723, 45405037, 19838540, 30777913, 15448937]"
221c6254-21da-40c1-ae7e-5c789ebdc96d,2615,We should ban homeopathy,Arg-Human1,"Homeopathy is not a proven solution and people are not seeking medical treatment that could possibly save their lives.  Some people reject actual medical assistance in favour of homeopathy, for example not getting treatment for cancer which then kills them.  Homeopathy is dangerous when used as the only method to take care of illnesses.  it just works as a placebo, not as a real effective cure.  Homeopathy is dangerous because it is ineffective and practically water.  people delay or refuse life saving treatment for something that does not work.  Homeopathy is not treating the disease effectively, rather with a placebo effect.  To rely on what is mostly water to bring health benefits is not benefiting anyone except the seller of the homeopathic 'medicine'.  Some diseases need to be treated with medicine or they get worse and the use of homeopathy may not bet able to treat the disease.  Homeopathy is not well regulated so people won't know the dangers of using homeopathic remedies.  Homeopathy if not used correctly for many ailments could make them worse.  Homeopathy is a dangerous option for many people as it is poorly regulated and the products are readily available with no advice or consideration for pre-existing conditions.  People who use homeopathic treatments often delay getting legitimate medical care.  Homeopathy leads people to believe that their serious illnesses can be cured without conventional medicine, and stops them taking drugs or following treatment that would actually help them.  Worldwide several scientific key players and organizations have condemned the practice of homeopathy as absurd and irresponsible.  Homeopathy is pseudoscience, pure and simple.  the ""medicines"" used in homeopathy don't treat anything, and homeopathy can be very dangerous if people seek this instead of conventional medicine.  Homeopathy lacks scientific evidence and may be more counterproductive than beneficial for people.  Homeopathy is untested and unregulated.  there is no safety net to make sure you are consuming an uncontaminated product.  many people have died or become seriously ill due to contaminated homeopathic products.  Homeopathy medicine is not proven and could have harmful side effects to the person using it.  Homeopathy is harmful due to misleading claims and sellers, as well as purporting treatments as cures when they have no real effect.  There are no credible scientific studies that show that homeopathy has any benefit beyond the placebo effect and it may be actively harmful if used in place of conventional medicines.  People treat only the symptoms and not the cause with homeopathy.  Homeopathy is pseudoscience; their ""medicines"" are nothing more than water, and it can be especially harmful if it prevents people from seeking out actual doctors and science.  None of the products have been tested and some actually have very harmful effects.  Much evidence has been proven to show that homeopathic remedies are not much more than water, so relying on the placebo effect.   this is surely preying on people's vunerabilities.  Homeopathy is dangerous because its not regulated.  Homeopathy has no basis in science and could lead people away from truly effective treatment methods.  Many homeopathic remedies are not tested by the fda or health professionals which can be detrimental to your health.  Homeopathy is untested and not backed up by scientific evidence, allowing dangerous outcomes where unqualified practicioners can see vulnerable patients.  Some homeopathic medicines can be toxic in high doses and at best have no proven medical benefit.  Homeopathy is currently not regulated and is not tested for the safety of its users.  Homeopathy has utterly no basis in medicine, and is a treatment offered purely to extract money from potentially vulnerable, desperate people in need of hope.  Homeopathy is not regulated or screened. ","[4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 4, 2]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 45191873, 45183231, 45272708, 45181152, 7756990, 45336991, 45282792, 44044795, 19838540, 34110399, 34609243, 45483811, 30398579]"
1fdab477-d391-49d0-8d90-e13ba28a91dd,2480,We should ban racial profiling,Arg-Human1,"Racial profiling only hurts minorities and gives them a stronger feeling of resentment towards authorities.  Too many innocent people are stopped, humiliated and inconvenienced, simply because of their race or ethnicity.  Racial profiling violates equal rights.  Racial profiling can lead to racism and oppression; it must end.  Racial profiling is unfair and unjust.  No one should be thought to be suspicious just because of their race or color.  Racial profiling impigns the rights of the innocent.  Racial profiling should be stopped as it presupposes a criminal intent in a group of people without evidence.  Racial profiling focuses on specific races, a form of police discrimination that unfairly targets the wrong people based on their appearance.  Racial profiling leads to unfair discrimination  and racism.  Racial profiling targets minorities whether they actually committed these crimes or not.  It enforces the stereotype that all people of a certain race are dangerous criminals.  Racial profiling undermines trust between the police and security services and the communities they are supposed to serve by unfairly targetting minorities.  Racial profiling is dangerous and unfair.  you cannot judge a person by the color of their skin.  too many young minority lives have been lost due to racial profiling.  Racial profiling suggests that all people of a skin color have similar traits.  but it is not the color of the skin that suggests violence, intelligence, attitude, tastes.   do not base judgments on pass ideas.  It is discrimanatory to use racial profiling which in turn alienates those on the receiving end of this type of profiling.  Racial profiling should not be allowed as it simply causes innocent people to seem to be guilty because of the actions of a few.  It is a racist policy and should have no part in a civilized society.  Racial profiling goes against what our justice system is based on - that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.  Racial profiling is unfair and many people suffer immensely.  Racial profiling distracts police from using actual evidence to catch criminals, as they are focused on skin color instead.  Racial profiling leads to false accusations and is unfair to those who have done nothing wrong.  Racial profiling is stigmatising ethnic groups and making them less willing to engage with the police when their help is most needed.  Racial profiling unfairly targets minorities and the poor.  Racial profiling only serves to fuel discrimination and racial resentment.  The racial profile promotes racism and xenophobia in the police forces.  Racial profiling is discriminatory and should not be used as it proliferates the concept that certain ethnic groups, ages or sexes are participating in criminal behavior.  Racial profiling is a form of racism, and such discriminatory approaches lead to a worsening of relations between minorities and law enforcement agencies.  Racial profiling should be illegal because it isn���t right to discriminate against someone because of their race.  Racial profiling is discriminatory and should be banned on all levels.  Racial profiling is discriminatory and humiliating and against one's constitutional rights.  Racial profiling is biased and unfair.  Racial profiling is biased and discriminatory.  We should end racial profiling because it is racist and doesn't actually do anything to lower crimes.  We should end racial profiling because it is discriminatory and causes racial stereotyping.  We should end racial profiling because it is immoral to target potential criminals based on racial stereotypes.  we may prevent a very small amount of crime but it is unjust to do it in this way.  We should end racial profiling because it's insensitive and demeans people, not to mention racist.  We should definitely end racial profiling because every individual should be judged on their character alone. ","[5, 5, 5, 1, 4, 4, 3, 4, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 45953041, 45538225, 31948170, 45411178, 20225558, 45458968, 45190823, 20512953, 45361788, 44044795, 15448937, 30777913, 6340330]"
e6d7c8cc-7b0b-4599-8544-2e905b4c0ae7,2747,We should ban telemarketing,Arg-Human1,"Telemarketing is an irritant, a waste of time,  and gives too many people spam calls which isn't helpful when the person is waiting for  a phone call from a potential employer, etc.  Telemarketing is an annoyance.   allowing people to bother you by calling unsolicited is a nuisance and should be eliminated.  Telemarketing is annoying for people as they do not request a phone call and vunerable people such as the elderly often feel threatened into taking part.  Telemarketing is not an effective marketing tool as all it accomplishes is annoying the potential customer.  Telemarketing targets the weak and encourages them to buy what they can���t afford.  Telemarketing is a waste of time for all parties involved, it rarely results in a sale for the company doing the telemarketing and provides a disturbance in the lives of those who are called.  Telemarketing is the worst possible thing in the world , companies are calling you day and night with their advertisements and products that you don't really need.  Telemarketing is nothing but a nuisance and are a vehicle for scams.  Telemarketing is disruptive to people and rarely effective for the companies doing it and therefore needs to be banned.  Telemarketing is an industry full of scams and fraud that can destroy people financially.  We should ban telemarketing because it disturbs people's peace when they do not want it.  We should ban telemarketing because it has gotten way out of hand.  the phone was once a convience now its a hassle.  Telemarketing is an invasion of privacy, especially when they call at late hours, during meals and/or repetitively even after asking for the call to stop.  Telemarketing is an intrusive form of marketing that interrupts work and family time.  Telemarketing should be banned because of so many of the spam phone calls that people recieve.  We should ban telemarketing because it is annoying and there is no way to tell if the offer is legitimate.  We should ban telemarketing because it is a huge way for scammers to steal people's money.  We should ban telemarketing there are a lot of telemarketers that are running scams just to steal peoples money.  Telemarketing serves no purpose other than to annoy potential customers, and is a breach of data protection regulations.  Telemarketing is essentially harassment, it is intrusive unwanted communication aimed at selling things you never showed any interest in.  They are basically nuisance calls, infringing on peoples privacy.  Telemarketing should be prohibited as it violates the private space of people.  Telemarketing should be banned since it only bothers people and intrudes on their privacy.  Telemarketing is an unwarranted and intrusive breach of a person's privacy, selling useless goods and services not requested by the consumer.  Telemarketing is an extreme invasion of privacy.  The cold calling of people is an invasion of privacy.  Telemarketing is violative and intrusive.  unwanted calls from telemarketers are too much annoying.  This predatory practice should be banned especially to prevent elderly vulnerable individuals being hassled into purchasing what they neither need nor can afford.  Telemarketing takes advantage of people who are not always capable of making reasoned choices and their selling cannot be properly regulated due tot he private nature of their business.  Telemarketing is intrusive, annoying and violates privacy.  Telemarketing preys on people who are vulnerable and easily conned, such as the elderly.  We should ban telemarketing because it is a nuisance and some people actually believe telemarketers.   telemarketers have caused some people grief and loss of money.  Telemarketing is intrusive and disruptive to people's lives.  Telemarketing is an out-dated and nuisance form of sales that can target vulnerable and impressionable people.  Telemarketing is usually done in unscrupulous ways through personal phone numbers being sold without individuals knowing.  Telemarketing should be banned because it interrupts people's daily lives. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 3, 2, 4, 5, 2, 4, 1, 4]",15,"[21017840, 45191873, 45183231, 45272708, 45181152, 45282792, 45336991, 44044795, 45483811, 7756990, 44690955, 43984981, 26649250, 45167145, 45355658]"
7405f7b1-3379-40ef-8faa-5ad3cf190425,2227,We should ban whaling,Arg-Human1,"Whales are largely scarce in the wild anyway, and killing off something high on the food chain will have major repercussions all the way down the chain.  We should ban whaling since killing these animals is unsustainable.  their numbers are dwindling yearly and whaling is just inhumane and unnecessary.  We should ban whaling because these creatures are incredibly intelligent and don't deserve to be killed.  we have enough food to provide everyone without this practice.  Whaling disturbs the delicate balance of sea life.  Whaling upsets the natural balance of the seas and should be banned permanently, not just seasonally.  Whaling should be banned.  the number of whales is depleting seriously and is a real environmental concern.  Whaling has devastating effects on the entire ocean ecosystem.  Whaling is inhumane and should be banned.  there is no reason to kill whales when there are other resources that could be used in place of the whales.  they are important sea animals that need to be protected.  Whaling is indiscrimate and inhumane, driving various species to the brink of extinction.  Whales are in danger of becoming extinct, there is already too much pressure on the species from environment changes, whaling must be banned to preserve these animals.  Whales are in danger of being over fished and endangered.  Whaling risks destroying populations of whales meaning that they could go extinct.  Whaling is wiping out a magnificent animal that should be cherished and protected.  Whaling endangers various species of whales and could upset the balance of the ecosystem if it is allowed to continue.  Whaling is not just cruel, but an indefensible assault on endangered species.  Whaling upsets the ecological balance of the seas and should be banned worldwide.  Whaling is unnecessary for human survival and endangers whales as a species.  Whaling is in humane and cruel.   whales should be protected.  Whaling is inhumane and should be banned immediately.  Whaling is inhumane and can lead to extinction of the whale population.  Whaling is inhumane and an act of greed.  we should help preserve nature!.  Whales are endangered and we need to ban whaling before it's too late.  Whale oil is rarely used today.    why are we killing these precious animals mainly just for their meat? this needs to be stopped.   there's lots of other meat we can be harvesting.    this is a terrible practice.  Whaling is inhumane and also contributes to the dwindling number of whales in existence, who need protection rather than hunted.  Whalers kill far too many whales, disrupting the food chain, which could bring catastrophic changes to the oceans.  Whales are beautiful living creatures that have existed through time.   they should continue to prosper and ending whaling will help to increase the whale population.  Whales are already endangered and whaling would make them go extinct.  Whales are a limited resource.   we need to protect the whales.  Whales are protected species and the hunting of them should be banned.  Whaling is damaging to many ocean populations.  Whaling is messing with the balance of nature and should be banned.  Whaling should be banned because removing too many whales from the oceans would risk making them extinct.  Whaling is a form of inhumane hunting that causes environmental degradation.  Whaling is an outdated practice that destroys entire marine species.  Whaling should be banned because it is not sustainable as a source of food which is its main current use.  Whaling should be banned because they are killing harmless creatures that are a necessary part of the ocean ecosystem.  Whaling is a cruel, unnecessary practice that endangers the populations of many species of marine life.  Whaling should be banned because we are hunting the whale population to extinction.  Whaling should be banned to help protect the whaling species. ","[5, 3, 4, 1, 5, 4, 2, 5, 2, 3, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 6432269, 45538225, 30777913, 6340330, 21785776, 44690955, 20312760, 28813722, 6367365, 13581319, 45044458, 34110399, 45206691]"
63dc2830-f652-4eea-9b07-9cf6089ce944,3232,We should cancel pride parades,Arg-Human1,"Some pride parades can get overtly sexual, blurring the line of public decency.  If we had a 'white parade', ""black parade', or a  'straight parade' people would be screaming discrimination.  by allowing pride parades you are saying that gay people have rights that other people do not.  They can be dangerous and sometime break out into riots.  Pride parades bring negative attention to the lgbt community and should be stopped.  Pride parades should be cancelled because they cost too much to police and are too disruptive of local traffic.  Pride parades can be offensive to some people and require additional police protection.   it can cause fights and disruptions between participating parties and those who disapprove.  Pride parades create a huge disturbance.  Pride parades cause delays to transportation networks in cities, causing pollution and economic loss.  Pride parades provide an opportunity for homophobic people to commit violence.  We should cancel pride parades.  they no longer serve a purpose as gay people now have equal rights and are accepted in society.  there is no need to be loud and proud anymore.  Pride parades are a drain on public resources due to the security costs incurred.  Pride parades bring town life to a standstill when roads are closed.  it is also offensive to some people.  Pride parades are disruptive and cause chaos in towns where they are held.  We should cancel pride parades as they cause disturbances and can incite riots.  Pride parades are offensive to people of certain religious backgrounds.  Pride parades incite cultural strife and are not a positive way of supporting a cause.  pride parades are used to disrupt and should be halted.  Pride parades cause unwanted turmoil.  Pride parades cause chaos and delays in town centres.  Such parades can affect traffic.  they can be offensive to some religious people.  Pride parades are often focal points for civil unrest and protest of extremist groups, and thousands of police hours are occupied by them.  Pride parades do the exact opposite of what they're meant to.   instead of making themselves part of the community, they're making themselves stand apart.  Pride parades cost the cities too much money by having to pay for extra police and crowd control.  Pride parades have now grown to the point where they are increasingly difficult to police and the scale of the events now need to be looked at to ensure the safety of all participants.  These parades often cause riots and crime from lgbt haters.  They can be disruptive to traffic and can sometimes incite violence.  Pride parades have strayed too far from the message of unity and have turned into an excuse for debauchery.  Pride parades waste the time of law enforcement.   the police are babysitting the parade instead of catching criminals.  Pride parades would be targets of extremist groups and ending them would be for the reasons of protection and security.  Pride parades are divisive and only serve to  flaunt someone's lifestyle in everyone else's face which creates more of a sense of division and alienation so they should not be allowed.  The parades are too sexual in manner and offend many people.  Pride parades are just unnecessary street shows  causing confusion and distress for the local communities, therefore we should ban them.  Pride parades openly emphasize sex and fetish-related interests in the public view and expose minors to harmful behavior.  Pride parades are unnecessary in the modern west as we recognise the freedom of people to engage in consensual same sex relationships already.  We should cancel pride parades because they entice people who oppose that ideology to cause riots and disrupt the general peace of citizens.  Pride parades are offensive to a lot of people.  Pride parades should be cancelled because they cause too much disruption to traffic and cost too much to police. ","[3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 3, 4, 2]",15,"[21017840, 45191873, 45183231, 45272708, 45181152, 45282792, 45336991, 7756990, 45483811, 44690955, 45167145, 45355658, 26649250, 34854490, 43877630]"
8c328887-303d-4d02-9212-d979cb623fe2,3170,We should end mandatory retirement,Arg-Human1,"Some seniors just don't have enough money to retire especially with the high cost of medicare and supplements.  Many people now cannot afford to live on their pension and pay for healthcare - thus making them retire is condemning them to ill health and poverty almost certainly resulting in premature death.  Some people can���t afford to retire so it���s not fair to force them to.  People are now living longer and staying healthy.   they should be able to work as long as they are able to and contribute to our society.  Some people are not ready to retire at the mandatory age and want to keep working.  People are living far longer than they used to and are not ready to retire at the age they used to.  many need the income to support their longer lives.  People who wish to continue working should be able to do so.  Mandatory retirement takes trained individuals from the workforce.  People should be allowed to retire when they are ready.  People are living much longer these days and many of them want to work.  let the free market determine how long they work.  Prohibiting mandatory retirement promotes labour market supply and removes barriers to older people participating in society.  Many older people are perfectly capable of contributing to the workforce.   they should not be punished by being forced to retire at a particular age.  People have the right to work until they want.  Mandatory retirement should end because it cuts everyone off at a certain age.   many people are able to work and need to work well past that age.  We should not force people out of the workplace if they can continue to offer skills to companies.  People are valuable at any age and should be allowed to work for as long as they want to.  We should end mandatory retirement as many people now live longer healthier lives and should be given the choice to continue working or if financially struggling.  We should end mandatory retirement because some people need to work longer to be able to support themselves and/or their families.  We should end mandatory retirement because not all people have the same stamina as others and can work longer than others.  We should end mandatory retirement because it should be up to each individual what age they feel they are unable to work any longer.  We should end mandatory retirement because it stops elderly from being able to work if they are still physically able.  We should end mandatory retirement because it helps the younger crowd to be able to find jobs.  People should be allowed to work for as long as they want and as long as they are capable.  We should not be permissive of any discrimination, and mandatory retirement discriminates based on age.  We should end mandatory retirement because no one has the right to tell another person when they have to stop working.  it is an individual's choice and should be left up to them when they wish to call it quits.  We should end mandatory retirement because  it is discriminatory against the elderly.  We should end mandatory retirement some people have to work to supplement government pensions.   it gives them social interaction which they may not have if they arent working.  We should end mandatory retirement because people should be able to work as long as they are able to and want to.  We should end mandatory retirement because a person should be able to work for as long as they wish as long as they do not pose as a safety threat to those around them. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 5, 4, 2, 1, 5, 4, 4]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 45185975, 45191882, 45191885, 45185946, 13581319, 45190823, 45953041, 31948170, 34110399, 45169947, 45405037, 19838540, 30777913]"
e2ced12d-3193-43d0-aa78-f5c67a71de2e,3263,We should end the use of economic sanctions,Arg-Human1,"Sanctions ultimately only hit the general population of the country affected, especially the vulnerable.   this serves to stir up bad feeling towards the countries implementing the sanction.  Economic sanctions usually do not prove to be effective and tend to cause hard feelings between the countries involved.  Economic sanctions will hit poorer people in the affected country more than politicians.  Sanctions only create humanitarian crises.  Economic sanctions only serve to punish the citizens of a nation for the misdeeds of a few in power.  Economic sanctions punish innocent civilians who have no control over the actions of their government so should be abolished.  We should not use economic sanctions because that only serves to hurt all the citizens in a country for the acts of those in power.  Economic sanctions should be ended because they are cruel and they don't work.  sanctions harm ordinary citizens including the poor of these countries which is inhumane.  Economic sanctions only hurt the people of the country and never the regime that is being sanctioned.  Economic sanctions should be ended as these sanctions have a negative impact on poor countries whose leaders are despots and dictators.  Economic sanctions only truly harm the already poor & have no affect on those it is intended to.  Ending economic sanctions would make it easier to trade between countries.  The only ones that suffer with economic sanctions are the regular citizens of the countries.  The poorest citizens of countries targeted by economic sanctions suffer the most.  Economic sanctions only hurt the normal working class citizens.  Trade between countries should be more easy and free-flowing.  it is beneficial to both countries and also leads to peace.  Economic sanctions only hurt the poor and do not hurt the corrupt people in charge.  Economic sanctions rarely accomplish that which they set out to do and hurt us in the long run.   it would be best if we stopped their use altogether.  Economic sanctions rarely have the desired outcome and come off as antagonistic, making constructive problem-solving more difficult.  When we impose economic sanctions, quite often it is the every day people of a country that suffers the most.  Sanctions that are meant to hurt leaders end up hurting innocent citizens.  We could not support economic sanctions as it only hurts both countries financially in the long run.  They punish the people of a country not the leaders.  They only hurt the poorest of society and are an outdated punishment.  Economic sanctions raise the prices of goods for many consumers and many can't afford the higher priced goods.  Economic sanctions usually hurt the poorest in the country and don't have a great effect on the regime leaders.  Economic sanctions serve no purpose and should be ended to ensure that every nation is able to trade freely.  Economic sanctions should be ended so that international trade can flourish.  Unilateral sanctions have been imposed for ill-defined purposes or with little consideration of their real impact.  We should end all economic sanctions because they cause harm to both countries by preventing free trade which in turn will cause an economic downturn.  We should end the use of economic sanctions because they rarely achieve their aims in the short term and often have undesirable consequences such as causing economic hardship to large populations of people.  We should end the use of economic sanctions because they rarely achieve their desired aims while causing unitended harm to large number of people.  We should end the use of economic sanctions because they cause stress and hardship on nations.  We should end the use of economic sanctions because it is abusing the rights of any self governing state. ","[4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 2, 3]",15,"[45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 45191882, 45189900, 45206691, 45181384, 45190571, 45181383, 45401087, 6367365, 45483811, 43877630, 45190823]"
adad235b-2d3d-4259-b860-5b6201360657,3199,We should fight urbanization,Arg-Human1,"We cannot continue to urbanize our environment and expect the planet to cope with the ever increasing pollution.  We should fight urbanization so that we help to preserve our natural environment.  We should fight urbanization because some parts of nature have been destroyed.  We should fight urbanization because it has adverse effects on human health for example due to increased air pollution.  We should fight urbanization because the amount of land we have is limited and once we expand cities further out into the open land, we can't get it back.  We should fight urbanization because it causes smog and air pollution.  We should fight urbanization as it eats up our green spaces which we need to provide oxygen and food.  Urbanization means increased pollution.  Urbanization is one of the causes of climate change.  We should be committed to keeping urban sprawl out of rural areas, because it is necessary for areas to stay rural for use such as farming.  We should all be against urbanization.     rural areas are very important to growing crops and goods from animals.    these industrial buildings create a lot of pollution as well.  Urbanization leaves rural communities impoverished.  it should be stemmed so that rural areas continue to thrive and develop.  Urbanization leads to the destruction of many animals and plants.  Urbanization is the root cause of crime and the breakdown of inner cities.  Urbanization leads to significant air pollution which can have serious impacts on human health.  We need to have some untouched land for crops and nature.  Urbanization is one of the main causes of climate change and reducing its impact is important.  Urbanization is too populated and would result in high crime rates and high unemployment.  Urbanization is not good for nature & increases pollution & climate change.  Urbanization packs more people into smaller spaces causing more crime, pollution and diseases.  Urbanization overloads areas already straining and lacking resources which leads to more poverty and harms to citizens.  Urbanzation result in homelessness, inner city poverty and a huge drain on limited public services , so we should  move away from this to provide better opportunities in less developed areas.  We have far too many built up areas - we need more countryside, more trees to fight pollution, green space to grow food and to give people room to move and live.  Urbanization leads to overcrowding and more poverty.  Urbanization leads to overcrowding and scarce resources.  Urbaniztion leads to the lack of community spirit and a decrease in mental health due to isolation.  Urbanization reduces the use of valuable green space.  Urbanization makes areas polluted and makes all the natural resources and wildlife around it such as lakes and rivers disappear.  Urbanization leads to more pollution, illness, and poor living conditions.  Urbanization results in resources becoming more scarce.  Urbanization leads to a loss of small town identities, unsightly urban skyscrapers, and a mass increase of pollution.  Urbanization leads to more concentrated pockets of pollution.  Urbanization leads  to increased levels of air pollution.  Urbanization leads to increasesd air pollution which has a significant impact on human health.  Urbanization results in environmental degradation.  Urbanization leads to deforestation and increased levels of pollution as well as concentration of waste and garbage.  We should stop urbanization because of the pollution and over crowding problems it causes.  Urbanization ruins nature by causing concentrated areas of pollution.  Urbanization should be banned to save on forest destruction, animal extinction, and overall save the environment.  We should fight urbanization because the increase of cities will cause the decrease of natural habitats for the animals in the world.  We should fight urbanization because of the environmental impacts it has on the planet. ","[5, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 45167145, 15448937, 45181383, 45401087, 45190571, 45181384, 30777913, 19838540, 6340330, 28813722, 45355658, 44044795, 45336991]"
fcf71365-7e23-434d-8337-b40a55586698,2083,We should legalize organ trade,Arg-Human1,"There is never going to be enough voluntary donation to meet demand, opening up an organ trade could remedy this drastic gap in supply to help save lives.  We need more organs than people donate so legalizing it would be a good thing.  The organ trade can provide a greater supply of organs which could  save many lives.  Organ trade will allow for more transplants, benefitting society a a whole.  Organ trade between consenting parties should be an option as it can reduce wait times.  Organ trade is excellent way to continue the process to help more people who are in need of a new organ, a ""pay it forward"" concept and should be legal.  Opening up organ trade would save thousands of lives and make organs more available.  Legalizing the organ trade would save lives because it would act to increase the number of donor organs available.  Organ trade should be legalized so that there is an incentive for more people to donate organs that people in need can get.  Organ trade should be legalized to eliminate the black market trade that leads to violence.  Organ trading should be legalized because it could be very beneficial for whoever is selling the organ.  The organ trade should be legalised so that organ transplants are much more available where needed and the industry can be monitored and standardized safely.  The organ trade would allow for more lives to be saved or improved.  Legalizing the organ trade would enable better regulation and stop deaths occuring due to botched, underground operations.  Legalizing the organ trade would help make organs more accessible to those who need them.  Legalizing the organ trade would save numerous lives.  so many people needlessly die waiting on the organ list.  if someone wants to sell their kidney and it saves a life, that shouldn't be stopped.  The organ trade provides ready access to people that are in desperate need of transplants.  People die every year waiting for organ transplants.   by legalizing organ trade, lives could be saved.  People should be able to do what they want with their organs.  Legalizing the organ trade would increase availability for people in need of a life-saving transplant.  Legalizing the organ trade would provide life saving options for all people not just the wealthy ones who can afford to buy them on the black market.  Organ donation has not met the world-wide need for organs.  the organ trade would be able to supplement the number of much needed available and viable organs.  Organ trade will give organs to those who sometimes will wait years for a match.  The organ trade should be legalized because it would result in the suppression of the black market for organs and therfore be safer for both donors and recipients.  Organ trade should be legal because it would save lives and make organs more easily obtainable.  Organ trade would increase the supply of organs.  We should legalize organ trade because it will be better monitored than having organs being sold on the black market.  We should legalize organ trade because it would stop shady dealings on the black market and make it a more safe and regulated industry for people who truly need new organs.  We should legalize organ trade because it would help more people that need organs instead of selling organs on the black market legalize it.  We should legalize organ trade because it will lower the risk of selling on the black market and can help those in need.  We should legalize organ trade because it would lead to the end of the black market in organ trading. ","[4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 2, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 4]",15,"[28813722, 6432269, 45567220, 45677971, 45569485, 45191882, 45189900, 45206691, 43877630, 45181253, 45181243, 45181262, 21785776, 44044795, 45355658]"
0b28a859-1cf6-414a-aeb1-278cedae8c39,2166,We should legalize sex selection,Arg-Human1,"Sex selection could help with overpopulation as parents wouldn't have to keep having kids until they get the gender they wanted.  In the modern world, science can now allow a woman to know the sex of her baby.   if a woman wants her child to be a girl or boy she should have the right to do so.  Parents should be able to utilize any technological advances they wish in order to build their ideal family.  Sex selection is a safe tool to help parents attain the family they dream of, thus should be legalized.  There is nothing wrong with a family wanting a specific sex when they have a child.   this should be supported and families should be helped in any way to achieve their desired result.  Sex selection makes it easier for families to plan when having children.  Some serious genetic disorders which are linked to the sex of a child can be avoided if sex selection is allowed.  It is better to never be born than to be born to parents who do not want you, therefore, we should legalize sex selection.  Families deserve the right to choose the sex they are most comfortable raising.  Parents may have good reasons for wanting a particular sex for their child, for example medical reasons.  it should be up to them to decide.  On medical grounds there is a good argument for selecting the sex of your baby should there be an hereditary disease that might be a life limiting or painful condition.  When families are only permitted to have one child, it is important for parents to be able to select the sex of that child.  There are valid medical reasons for using sex selection to combat certain diseases.  Parents should be able to choose what sex child they are going to have.  Parents should have the right to decide what gender of child they want.  Legalizing sex selection will help parents to have the exact family makeup they have always dreamed of.  Families should have the right to choose the sex of their babies.  Legalizing sex selection is the right thing for personal freedom of choice.  Sex selection is a legitimate way to ensure that the population is balanced between men and women.  The selection of sex is a private and personal decision of the parents and must be respected.  Sex selection can prevent gender-specific diseases from being passed onto a baby.  Legalizing sex selection is a good option for people looking to have a specific sex of child.  We should legalize sex selection because it should be up to people to make that choice.  freedom of choice is vital in democracies and should be protected where possible.  Sex selection should be legal for parents to select the sex of the child.   parents with all boys or all girls should have the choice of selecting the other sex.  Legalizing medical sex selection can prevent the abortion of unwanted gendered babies.  We should legalise sex selection because some genetic diseases can only be found in either man or females and if it runs in the family then it can give the child a chance to live a normal life.  We should legalize sex selection as people have every right to chose the sex of the child they wish to raise.  We should legalize sex selection because a ban leads to dangerous back alley procedures, and to more abortions and female infanticide.  We should legalize sex selection.  if i want to have a baby girl, who has the right to deny me my wish? what if i had two boys already and don't want a third?.  We should legalize sex selection because the parents are free to decide what gender they want. ","[4, 5, 5, 3, 4, 2, 4, 4, 5, 4, 2, 4, 2, 5, 5]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 45458968, 20225558, 45405037, 45538225, 45181383, 45181384, 45190571, 45401087, 45190823, 31948170, 21785776, 45361788, 44044795]"
8d7a326a-0338-468e-aa62-947a721619ad,2689,We should subsidize Wikipedia,Arg-Human1,"Wikipedia is an important, independent, online resource; it should be subsidised so that its founders can continue their good work in maintaining the site as free-to-use by all.  We should subsidize wikipedia so that it can hire good people that keep improving the site and the information it provides.  Wikipedia is a great source of information and encourages learning.  Wikipedia is a helpful source of information for research and educational purposes.  Wikipedia is valuable knowledge resource that should not be allowed to go under due to lack of resources and so should be subsidized.  Wikipedia is a fairly accurate way to get facts about nearly any topic and we should support that.  Wikipedia is an important and free source of knowledge that is open for all to use.  subsidizing it would ease the financial burden of such a helpful and important tool.  Wikipedia provides a useful collection of knowledge, and should be subsidized to ensure its continued existance.  Wikipedia, more and more, has been shown to be a source of relatively unbiased information.  Wikipedia provides valuable information for the public and must be kept free.  Wikipedia provides so much information to the world that it is time we subsidize it.  Wikipedia has been supported by voluntary donations for too long.   subsidizing it would give it more credibility, and would allow the volunteers to continue to update it with the most accurate information.  Wikipedia is the only free source of information with references that's guaranteed to be accurate.  it's needed, especially for those who can't afford anything else.  Wikipedia is an invaluable space for knowledge and should be preserved.  Wikipedia is a valuable tool used by millions to acquire knowledge.  Wikipedia is the most incredible resource of open source information, by subsidizing it we can ensure it is policed better.  Wikipedia is an important information source and we should subsidize it to make sure it continues to remain available.  Wikipedia provides valuable information not only to the public but to educational institutions and so we should subsidize it to keep it going.  Wikipedia provides a valuable public service; subsiding it would guarantee equal access to everyone.  Wikipedia is a valuable resource used by many people.  subsidizing it will allow it to be better maintained and more accurate.  Wikipedia is a valuable educational source and is free at source so should be promoted through subsidization.  Wikipedia is the search page most used by students and is an updated tool that helps knowledge and should be subsidized to ensure its proper functioning.  Wikipedia is a valuable resource used by many around the world.  it is an important source of knowledge that should be subsidized to ensure it remains free for all to use.  Wikipedia is the internet's greatest repository of knowledge and should be publicly supported in order to continue its mission.  Wikipedia is an important knowledge source, that is contributed to by independent experts and the general population.  it is important to maintain it.  Wikipedia subsidizing will engage more people to create content and to make it more widely available.  Wikipedia needs to be subsidized because it is an important online research tool used by many.  Wikipedia is useful in helping people of all ages learn about various topics.  Wikipedia is the most important and largest source of information on the internet and we must support it.  Wikipedia plays a vital role in sharing information on the internet, and should be subsidized to continue functioning.  Wikipedia is a valuable collection of knowledge that should be preserved.  Wikipedia is a great form of information and subsidising it would enable more information to be entered and corrected. ","[2, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 2, 4, 4, 2, 4, 3, 5, 5]",15,"[13581319, 20225558, 19838540, 45677971, 45567220, 45355658, 44044795, 45190823, 45405037, 28813722, 45411178, 28810858, 21785776, 45569485, 45458968]"
b49fb8e9-1284-4961-9068-cbb327890fc4,3201,We should subsidize embryonic stem cell research,Arg-Human1,"The more research that is done, the higher the chances to understanding and possible curing diseases.  The research of stem cells is a great advance for humanity to find the cure to several deadly diseases.  Stem cell research can help find cures to lots of diseases.  Stem cell research is essential in combating illnesses like cancer and moving forward to find cures and treatment.  Subsidizing embryonic stem cell research will allow for continued study into life saving treatments such as parkinson's disease, cancers and other life debilitating conditions.  Through stem cell research we could find a cure for many diseases.  These cells are unique in that they are undifferentiated, allowing them to be used in all parts of the body.  this means they have the potential to cure hundreds of diseases.  This research is very innovative and has already been very succesful.  This research will lead to many developments in the treating and curing of a variety of diseases.  Supporting embryonic stem cell research is important because it is the future of medicine and it can help scientists to find new cures for diseases.  Subsidizing embryonic stem cell research can improve the quality of the research and lead to more developments in cures.  This will help to establish cures for disabilities and diseases.  The costs of doing embryonic stem cell research is staggering.    these are important lab tests by scientists and we should definitely be subsidizing these tests.  Subsidising would ensure faster results in research bringing about much needed cures for diseases that are difficult to treat.  Subsidizing this powerful tool to extend human life should be a top priority for preventing and treating major diseases.  We should really put some more money on embryonic stem cell research, because it's the only way to  find a cure for several  illnesses.  Stem cell research is our best hope in finding cures.  Stem cell research may be the key to curing many diseases.  Stem cell research may hold the keys to curing cancer.  We need to subsidize embryonic stem cell research because of the promise of huge breakthroughs for modern medicine.  Stem cell research could hold the key to curing a myriad of diseases which currently plague us.   imagine being able to cure alzheimer's or cancer.   the solution could lie in stem cell research.  Stem cell research shows great promise in healing today's most tragic injuries and illnesses such as paralysis and cancer.  Stem cell research has been proven to help people with parkinson's disease, and other major illnesses.  We should subsidize embryonic stem cell research if we want to continue to advance in medicine.  We should subsidize embryonic stem cell research because we can learn so much from it.  We should subsidize embryonic stem cell research because it will help many people as long as it is successfully done.  We should subsidize embryonic stem cell research because it may yield promising results that have the potential to unlock new scientific discoveries.  We should subsidize embryonic stem cell research so that it can continue research into finding solutions to complex medical needs.  Stem cell research can help to cure a wide variety of diseases.  We should subsidize embryonic stem cell research because it is necessary for the betterment of the human race.  we may find cures for aging, diseases, or create new stronger genes.  We should subsidize embryonic stem cell research since it could help people in the future suffering from incurable diseases.  We should subsidize embryonic stem cell research and hope that it leads to great medical breakthroughs.  We should subsidize embryonic stem cell research because it will help with medical research and hopefully help to find cures for diseases and sicknesses. ","[4, 2, 2, 4, 2, 4, 2, 4, 5, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2]",15,"[45483811, 29155723, 43877630, 45361788, 44094031, 31948170, 26649250, 27770607, 38202325, 45397152, 45191885, 45185946, 45336993, 45336988, 45169947]"
52a4b8f6-c4b6-4781-95d6-aef6bea629e0,2588,Assisted suicide should be a criminal offence,Summit,"In the 2011 legislative session, a bill that would have criminalized physician-assisted suicide was also introduced. 
The latest court to so rule is in New York, which has a long history of criminalizing assisted suicide. 
In states that have legalized assisted suicide, the rates of all-cause suicide go up, not just assisted suicide. 
Background Certain provisions of the Canadian Criminal Code have the effect of prohibiting assisted suicide. 
Taken together, they are designed to rewrite the Criminal Code section criminalizing assisted suicide, punishable by up to 14 years in prison. 
This correlation is consistent with a suicide contagion in which legalizing physician-assisted suicide encouraged other suicides. 
There is also a broader moral hazard from assisted suicide: the general suicide rate has increased in every jurisdiction that has legalized assisted suicide. 
The Majority of States Affirmatively Prohibit Physician-Assisted Suicide Currently, 42 states affirmatively prohibit assisted suicide, and impose criminal penalties on anyone who helps another person end his or her life. 
Debates in states that are considering legalizing assisted suicide can draw from the experience in the states or countries where assisted suicide is legal. 
Supreme Court ruling In February 2015, Canada's Supreme Court unanimously struck down the Criminal Code ban on assisted suicide. 
The US state of Oregon was the first to legislate for assisted suicide, in 1997. 
In June, the B. C.  Supreme Court ruled the Criminal Code sections that prohibit physician-assisted suicide violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 
Criminal Code provisions banning assisted suicide are invalid because they were struck down by the Supreme Court, the appeals court ruled Tuesday. 
Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia are legal in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg; euthanasia is legal in Colombia; and Switzerland has decriminalized assisted suicide. 
Last year, the Farewell Foundation for the Right to Die attempted to challenge the law in B. C.  Supreme Court, arguing the Criminal Code section prohibiting assisted suicide is unconstitutional. 
Laws legalizing assisted suicide have been passed in five states and the District of Columbia . 
On Feb.  6, 2015 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the ""Carter case"" that Canadian laws prohibiting assisted suicide were not constitutional. 
The ruling opened the door to a new legislation enacted by the federal government on June 17, 2016, to amend the Criminal Code so that MAID would be a legal exception to the laws prohibiting assisted suicide. 
There are similar examples in the U. S.  in states that have legalized assisted suicide. 
Declaring the Suicide Act incompatible would not itself decriminalise assisted suicide, but would put political pressure on Parliament to change the law. 
A Bill to legalise assisted suicide has been struck down in the US state of Maine. 
Legal in all 50 states, it does not pose the real dangers of legalizing assisted suicide. 
The Parliament of Victoria is about to vote on a bill to legalise assisted suicide and euthanasia. 
There is now a push in Canada to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia as a supposed voluntary choice. 
That name appears to promote life, but is, in reality, a bill to legalize assisted suicide. 
It is important to note that legalizing physician assisted suicide or any form of euthanasia is NOT included in their recommendations. 
Fleming, who had MS, unsuccessfully took a Supreme Court case against the ban on assisted suicide. 
If legalizing physician-assisted suicide represented an authentic extension of personal freedoms, I would be an ardent advocate. 
If it is signed into law, Victoria would become Australia's first state to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia. 
The court declared that the Criminal Code prohibitions on assisted dying violated the charter and were invalid. 
That is happening in all jurisdictions that have legalised assisted suicide ""in strictly limited circumstances"", such as Holl and and Belgium. 
State lawmakers outlawed physician-assisted suicides in 1999 as part of a national backlash against Jack Kevorkian, the doctor who assisted in the suicides of dozens of terminally ill patients. 
","[3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 2, 2, 3, 5, 4]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 31948170, 45336993, 45336988, 45206691, 45189900, 45361788, 20225558, 45191885, 43877630, 20512953, 15448937, 30777913, 45405037]"
d5fe07b6-caa0-4618-a418-5a92a6c3ac14,3279,Blockade of the Gaza Strip should be ended,Summit,"Sinwar went on saying that the Israeli blockade that had been imposed on the Gaza Strip since 2007 has to be ended, adding that ""it will end by the peaceful marches of return, and if not, we have other means and methods to break it. 
The other demand is that the blockade of the Gaza Strip should be lifted and the humanitarian goods must be allowed to be sent to Gaza. 
Mahmat also said that blockade of the Gaza Strip by Israel restrains the development of water supply and sewage services in Gaza. 
One of the most controversial issues is the Turkish demand that the blockade of the Gaza Strip will be lifted. 
The Palestinians, on the other hand, expressed disappointment over a UN report that justified the Israeli blockade on the Gaza Strip. 
Ambassador Kawar said that the Gaza blockade must end and reconstruction efforts must be stepped up. 
Grandi also said that the Israeli blockade of Gaza is illegal according to the international law, adding that his agency is exerting unwavering efforts to put an end to the blockade. 
Noting that the Gaza blockade has been in place for more than a decade, he reiterated the importance of ending the economic and humanitarian crisis facing the Palestinian people. 
The Turkel panel was unanimous in concluding that the Israel Defense Forces acted in self-defense against the flotilla and that the blockade of the Gaza Strip is lawful. 
The Palestinian reconciliation deal and the opening of the Rafah border crossing to allow goods and people to enter Gaza has put paid to claims that the Israeli blockade of the Strip is inhumane. 
Faqih pointed out that the blockade of the Gaza Strip was in contravention of international humanitarian law, specifically the Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention. 
Arrigoni came to Gaza on the first ships that challenged an Israeli blockade on Gaza in 2008. 
Turkey also established an inquiry, which concluded, in contrast to the Israeli inquiry, that the Gaza blockade and the Israeli raid are illegal. 
The war ended in a cease-fire agreement that eased the Israeli blockade and allowed an increase in humanitarian assistance. 
Hamas's rockets resulted in a ceasefire that eased the Israeli blockade on Gaza, giving Hamas a victory to claim. 
In Gaza, Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said the document was ""evidence that the Gaza blockade was planned and the target was not Hamas or the government as the occupation always claimed. 
Israel says that its Gaza blockade is legal and that it will make sure that no boat violates it, even if that means resorting to force again. 
The Popular Committee against the Siege on Gaza has warned that the Israeli blockade on the coastal enclave has imposed a calamitous humanitarian situation on the residents. 
Such a solution should provide greater security to Israel, but also give hope to civilians in Gaza that the Israeli blockade on many types of material goods will soon be eased. 
The Commission concluded that the Israeli blockade of Gaza was legal; although it criticized Israel for what it said was disproportionate use of force against the members of the IHH organization who attacked the Israeli commandos boarding the ships. 
The Turkel Commission, an independent body established in Israel to investigate and assess the events during the May 31, 2010 operation, found that the Gaza blockade and the use of force during the IDF operation were legal under international law. 
The Turkish representative on the panel strongly disagreed with its finding that the Gaza blockade is legal, citing a UN Human Rights Council report calling it unlawful. 
Gisha, an Israeli advocacy group that opposes the blockade, criticized the inquiry's conclusion that the Israeli blockade did not constitute collective punishment of the civilian population. 
It nonetheless concludes that the Israeli blockade was lawful as a matter of international law and that the Israeli enforcement operation was in the main similarly lawful. 
","[3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 3, 2, 1, 4, 4, 4, 1, 2]",15,"[45181384, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45191882, 45189900, 45206691, 45483811, 29155723, 43877630, 45361788, 45336993, 45336988, 44094031, 27934334]"
10a7c0ec-16f7-4c8b-ab6e-a5c74ae7afd0,3195,Casinos should be banned,Summit,"There is concern that lifting the ban on casinos will lead to an increase in gambling addiction. 
Todd also added that banning other casinos does not mean banning the gaming activity at existing race tracks. 
As of midnight, the bill that bans casino gambling at carnivals and fairs has lapsed into law. 
There has been a spike in the number of people being banned from casinos in the past year. 
If the AAP comes to power and actually bans casinos, we will go to the court to challenge the ban,"" Mody said. 
Voters will have the final say in November, when they decide whether to repeal the casino law and ban the casino industry from the state. 
The changes drafted by Lang do not include lifting the smoking ban for casinos, he said. 
Japanese law currently bans casino gambling but effectively permits gambling at slot-machine and pachinko parlors. 
Exempted from the ban are casino employees, who may be allowed to stay on the premises. 
Arizona bans casino gambling in general, and Indian casinos are typically located far from population centers on Native American reservations. 
Duterte said he want end a total ban on casino operations because Boracay residents had called for a ""no casino"" policy. 
The bill would prohibit local smoking bans at casinos if smoking is still allowed at a competing casino within 75 miles. 
The implementation of a smoking ban in casinos has long been delayed due to the opposition from the gaming industry. 
Lawmakers of the 34th Guam legislature voted to ban casino gambling from the Liberation Day carnival. 
The museum is funded through taxes on gaming revenues, which have declined since smoking was banned in casinos. 
Bill 50, which would place the immediate ban on casino gambling at the Liberation Carnival lapsed into law yesterday. 
If passed, the measure would ban the casino industry from the state, three years after lawmakers legalized Las Vegas-style casino gambling in Massachusetts. 
A recent decision by the Tukwila City Council to ban casinos in the city starting in 2016 continues to cause controversy. 
Although the existing Gambling Law bans casinos, a few, approved by the previous government, still operate on the island resorts of Myeik in Tanintharyi Region catering to tourists. 
Japanese law bans casinos but punters are allowed to bet on publicly run horse, bicycle and powerboat races, and de facto gambling at slot-machine and pachinko parlors is permitted. 
These include banning cash machines on casino floors, restricting credit card purchases of casino chips to foreign customers only, prohibiting casinos from extending credit to domestic customers, limiting how often domestic customers can visit gambling houses, and prohibiting Macau-style VIP junkets. 
Myanmar's current law banning casinos was implemented in 1986, but a reversal seems inevitable with officials from the nation's states and regions largely supportive of introducing casino gaming as a source of much-needed tax revenue. 
For a Bristol casino to become reality, the Virginia General Assembly would have to legalize casino gambling. 
If there were 18 casinos prior to adoption of the law prohibiting casinos, around 50 casinos function underground now, he concluded. 
A central argument for legalizing casinos in Massachusetts was the draw the Connecticut casinos had on Massachusetts gamblers. 
An anti-casino group, ""Repeal the Casino Deal,"" has also organized to repeal the state law. 
It's not unlike the never-ending efforts of the casino industry to legalize casino gambling in Arkansas. 
It asked voters to repeal the casino gambling law passed in 2011, which allows for up to three casinos and a slots parlor in the state. 
The Repeal the Casino Deal Coalition is an organization opposed to the law that legalized three casinos and one slot parlor in Massachusetts. 
My issue with them is all about their drive to legalize casino gambling in Arkansas. 
Those petitions propose state laws that would regulate casinos at racetracks and spell out how tax revenues from the casinos would be divided. 
","[2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 3, 1, 1, 1, 2]",15,"[20225558, 13581319, 45190823, 29155723, 45181383, 45191873, 45181152, 45272708, 20512953, 6432269, 45411178, 45181243, 45181256, 45181262, 45405037]"
9b9f0bfe-e6c3-4ded-a66e-b75156ad42a0,3730,Community service should be mandatory,Summit,"Aside from some public high schools requiring community service for graduation, we do not have mandatory service. 
Community volunteers and people looking to complete mandatory community service hours are also welcome to participate. 
Minors who broke the rule were subject to mandatory community service, and a fine up to $1,000. 
Coffey discovered what the facility had to offer during a mandatory community service he had to serve. 
The former soldier is requesting that Eizenkot substitute mandatory community service for the prison term. 
Volunteer service at a public or private school shall qualify for mandatory community service requirements under this section. 
For those clients that are having to perform mandatory community service, it can be a struggle to find community service opportunities, but they do often help out across the county. 
Dr Mughal pointed out that he has made mandatory the community service and also community service will be mentioned in Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of the University Teachers. 
A few years ago, the district instituted mandatory community service for high school students to graduate. 
For voluntary political service and services to the community in Northumberland and Tyne and Wear. 
Members are expected to adhere to minimum ""citizenship standards,"" complete mandatory community service, and participate in extracurricular activities at their schools. 
If schools required community service from their students, everyone would participate in community service that they would have otherwise never known. 
The event, organised by the Community and Voluntary Service, is at The Curve, from 5. 30pm. 
The Logan Mayoress Community Service Committee is offering funding to eligible community service organisations in Logan City. 
Maths and science graduates could be forced to undergo mandatory community service by teaching these subjects at government schools, under a new draft proposal. 
The major plan for leaving a philanthropic legacy is an ASB Day of Service, where all the members of ASB come together to work on a service project in the LOU community instead of just completing mandatory service hours. 
For services to Criminal Investigation, Officer Safety Training, and voluntary service to the community in Suffolk. 
At the bill signing, McAuliffe approved bills that would require community services boards like the Northwestern Community Services Board to provide additional services. 
Perkins said there are many high school students who have volunteered one year to get their mandatory community service hours, but end up coming back. 
A false call of this nature would be charged with false report to police, a Class 4 felony which is punishable with three years in prison as well as a $25,000 fine and mandatory community service. 
Singh, a retired teacher, worked for Community Probation Service, a voluntary service, for 42 years. 
Sanctions include loss of 20 percent of a season's games, mandatory community service, possible publication of the offense, and meeting with athletic department staff. 
The District Judge imposed a rigorous ""community sentence"" which principally consisted of a 10-day detention order, a 12-month day reporting order with daily curfew and electronic monitoring, and mandatory community service. 
According to him, not less than 102,335 youth and women provided voluntary service to the community. 
For voluntary service to The City of Plymouth Children Fund and to the community in Devon. 
Most of them complete hours of community service while being a member, but some require service hours to join. 
Outstanding Voluntary Service or Achievement by an Individual: Mr Peter Edwards for his dedication to the fire service and community. 
The fine for a first DUI can be $1,000, then you have 40 hours of mandated community service. 
The list of compulsory community services and organizations where such services will be provided will be drafted by local authorities on coordination with territorial bodies of the Federal Bailiff Service, and bailiffs will keep a register of the persons sentenced to compulsory community service and explain them the rules. 
For voluntary service to the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association and the community in Northern Ireland. 
","[4, 3, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 3, 3, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 45677971, 45567220, 6432269, 45538225, 30777913, 34110399, 6340330, 19838540, 21785776, 20512953, 44690955, 27770607, 34854490]"
536e6a17-e53f-4dc2-b129-6693dd8a52fc,2449,Organ donation should be mandatory,Summit,"In China there is a cultural prohibition to donating organs, and a voluntary organ donation system is in its infancy. 
China began a voluntary organ donation trial in 2010 and organ donation nationwide in 2013. 
Michael Gherlone's letter of April 17 protesting a law for ""mandatory"" organ donation was necessary and honorable. 
As a registered organ donor, after passing away, he was determined eligible for organ donation. 
The RCSC established a organ donation administration center in 2012, and became a major force in organ donations, coordinating donations at every stage, from donor registration to organ distribution. 
A petition to go before Parliament calling on mandatory organ donation, launched by Jessica Manning who needs a double organ transplant, has amassed more than 1000 signatures. 
Donors have difficulty signing penile transplantation on the voluntary organ donation instrument, or they are more willing to donate some other organ, such as the kidney, liver, and cornea. 
The rise in the voluntary organ donation was after the ban on sourcing organs from executed prisoners. 
By the end of March, nearly 46,500 organs had been donated in China and more than 422,000 Chinese had registered for voluntary organ donations, the RCSC said in a statement. 
As of August 19, the country had seen 4,737 voluntary organ donations, with 12,748 large organs acquired. 
An organ donors register was set up recently following the enactment of a law regulation organ donations. 
Currently, organs can only be donated by living relatives or by voluntary organ donors after death. 
The Ministry of Health established an organ transplant committee to draft a law for organ donation and transplant. 
Pakistan had an existing law for deceased organ donation and if we started cadaver organ donation in our country, we could save majority of patients suffering from the organ failure. 
A voluntary organ donation programme, started in 2010, provided 2,495 organs from 918 donors in July this year. 
The project on voluntarily deceased organ donation started in China since March 2010, and voluntary organ donation has become the main source of human organs in the country. 
To boost organ donations in the state, the Delhi Government has launched an online registration system for voluntary organ donation in case of a brain death. 
The mayor has gave his support to a campaign to have the law changed on organ donations. 
Medical experts said that legalising commercial organ donation will increase the number of people pledging organs. 
This briefing provides an overview of the current law on organ donation consent, the Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill, evidence reviews on this issue, and views. 
This bipartisan legislation would promote organ donation by ensuring that organ donors receive the insurance and medical leave they need. 
The awardees were classified into two categories: relatives of brain-dead persons whose organs were donated, and voluntary organ donors. 
It is mandatory under the UAE law that the organ donors must have blood relations with the patient. 
The government may also encourage cadaveric (voluntary) organ donation, encourage organ donation from family members and set up a national registry to record recipients and donors information. 
The Voluntary Blood and Organ Donation Campaign received 1003 and 22,694 voluntary blood and organ donors respectively within 40 days of its launch. 
Its attempts to change the law to allow presumed consent for organ donation was runner-up. 
That being said, I know there are some who will object to government-mandated organ donation. 
Patients must live until they make it to a hospital to be eligible for organ donation. 
The comic also has a voluntary organ donation form which is meant for the children to give to their parents to be filled up. 
Public awareness of voluntary organ donation is still low that until last year, only 0. 8 per cent of the total population had pledged to donate their organs after death. 
Imagine that everyone is a mandatory donor, organ donor, blood donor, bone marrow donor, etc. 
","[3, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 3, 2, 3, 4]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 45191873, 45183231, 45181152, 45272708, 7756990, 45282792, 45336991, 44044795, 19838540, 34110399, 34609243, 45483811, 30398579]"
cd00a836-356b-4719-819b-3770d1c13759,2108,Surrogacy should be banned,Summit,"Some states ban all forms of surrogacy, while others including Washington ban only compensated surrogacy. 
The Surrogacy Regulation Bill which will allow only compensated surrogacy and ban commercial surrogacy was discussed. 
The Centre has proposed a ban on commercial surrogacy in the new Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2016. 
Some states criminalized surrogacy, other banned surrogacy contracts, and states which permitted surrogacy treated it as a family matter. 
Cambodia is the most recent country in the region to ban commercial surrogacy, or surrogacy for foreign parents. 
For example, Israel and the United Kingdom recognize altruistic surrogacy but explicitly ban commercial surrogacy. 
Altruistic surrogacy is the only type of surrogacy legal in Australia and it is illegal for couples looking for a surrogate to advertise for one - a ban that Surrogacy Australia and Families Through Surrogacy are pushing to have lifted. 
The basic argument of this Bill in completely banning commercial surrogacy and only allowing altruistic surrogacy is wrong. 
The bill stated a ban on commercial surrogacy and foreign couples demand for Indian surrogates. 
Thailand is expected to enforce a law to ban commercial surrogacy by the end of the year. 
In Australia, there is no national legislation on surrogacy, meaning some states have banned commercial surrogacy arrangements overseas in which the surrogate was paid for carrying a child. 
In 2014, the government drafted a law that bans paid surrogacy, in response to the controversial baby-Gammy incident. 
It bans foreign parents from hiring surrogates, prohibits agencies from soliciting surrogate mothers and bans all paid surrogacy, according to the BBC. 
The bills aims to ban commercial surrogacy to protect women from exploitation and ensure the rights of children born through surrogacy . 
The Thai government has drawn up legislation to ban surrogacy in the wake of the Gammy controversy. 
On August 24, the Union cabinet cleared the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2016, banning commercial surrogacy in the country. 
It proposes complete ban on commercial surrogacy, but altruistic surrogacy will be permitted for needy infertile couple under strict regulation. 
The Surrogacy Bill reopens many debates while proposing a ban on 'commercial surrogacy' and seeking to legalize only 'altruistic surrogacy', with the surrogate mother being chosen from amongst close relatives. 
Korea bans human egg sales outright, but there are no laws to regulate surrogacy or surrogacy arrangements, leaving them legally ambiguous. 
Prior to the ban on commercial surrogacy, India was a major centre for foreign couples looking for surrogate mothers. 
Whilst many countries have in place a ban on commercial surrogacy arrangements, there is no extraterritorial effect. 
Thailand passed a law banning commercial surrogacy in 2015 as a result, forcing clinics to move to Cambodia, where it was also later banned, and then Laos. 
It also bans surrogacy for singles, foreigners and persons of Indian origin living outside India. 
Anthony is seized of the controversy raging on surrogacy in India, with the government making clear its intent to ban surrogacy in India for foreigners like him. 
The complainant told the police that in 2015, the Supreme Court banned surrogacy in India, after. . . 
As it bans commercial surrogacy, however, even that would appear to give any relief to the gay foreign couple. 
A total ban on surrogacy would serve only to exacerbate the difficulties encountered by many parents whose children have been born, and will be born, through surrogacy arrangements. 
Other countries, such as the US, South Africa, Israel, India, Nepal, Thailand and Mexico ban international surrogacy. 
The bill bans ""commercial"" surrogacy wherein the surrogate mother is paid a lump sum amount to bear the child by the couple. 
Nepal turned into a hub for foreign couples wanting to have baby from surrogate mothers after India banned the surrogacy services. 
New Jersey bans traditional surrogacy, in which the surrogate carrier is also the genetic mother of the child, and also has court rulings against the enforcement of gestational surrogacy contracts based on public policy as developed by courts. 
","[2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 1, 3]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 45458968, 20225558, 45405037, 45538225, 45181383, 45190571, 45181384, 45401087, 31948170, 45190823, 21785776, 29155723, 45361788]"
fa93b4f8-b884-4d5e-8707-ba2ca24e0129,3759,Tattoos should be banned,Summit,"Tattoo artists spoken to by The Examiner were supportive of the measure to ban youth tattooing. 
As for the ban on tattoos and piercings, my feeling is that this law is redundant. 
The policy bans all inappropriate tattoos, as determined by the chief, and requires officers to cover up tattoos while on duty. 
SA Police is finalising a new tattoo policy that bans visible tattoos on all serving officers and new recruits. 
There was an outright ban on tattoo shops in redevelopment areas that was lifted in April. 
At the start of this year, the Mayo Clinic amended its ban on visible tattoos. 
Bikies have also been banned from owning tattoo parlours or selling alcohol in their clubhouses. 
The regulations went into effect in March and ban tattoos below the knee or elbow. 
Bushpepa and his bandmates are tattooed, thus contravening recent Chinese bans on showing tattoos and hip-hop culture on TV. 
Players have been banned from getting tattoos by the club because of the risk of septic infection. 
Some cities in the area clung to a more than half a century worth of bans on tattoo parlors. 
A stag-do reveller woke up with a pair of ""Ray-Ban"" sunglasses tattooed on his face. 
For example, if a tattoo is for religious reasons, banning the tattoo will give rise to potential discrimination issues on the grounds of religion and belief. 
Tattoos are still not widely accepted in Japanese culture, and so it is not uncommon for onsen to ban visitors with tattoos, or at least require them to be covered up. 
All branches of the military prohibit racist, extremist and gang-related tattoos, and the Army is the strictest of all, banning tattoos below the elbow or knee. 
While many states have animal cruelty statues, this is the only ban she has heard of to legally ban the tattooing and piercing of companion animals. 
The subject came up as I read The N&O story about the Army banning tattoos below the knee and elbow. 
Before that, the City Council in 1978 had voted to ban tattoo parlors from the city outright. 
A new proposed legislation wants to have an outright ban tattoos and intimate piercings for Irish juveniles. 
Bathhouses or ""onsen"" across the country have banned people with tattoos, to keep out the gangsters. 
In the late 1960s, Ms.  Kapik said, she decided that she would ignore the ban and tattoo her legs. 
Policy now forbids soldiers from having tattoos on their neck or face and bans tattoos that are deemed sexist, racist, extremist or indecent. 
Many police agencies have long banned visible tattoos on their officers, or ordered them covered. 
Hindu women, who wear the bindi dot on their foreheads, were affected by a ban on facial tattoos. 
In 2007, the New York Police Department banned visible tattoos on its officers, partly after discovering a recruit had the word ""JIHAD"" tattooed on his arm. 
The Albanian singer, Eugent Bushpepa, had visible arm tattoos, and a Chinese regulation introduced earlier this year banned tattoos from appearing on TV. 
Key West had banned tattoo studios since 1966 but relented in 2007 in response to a lawsuit. 
Last year the US Army announced it would ban tattoos below the elbow or knee and above the neckline. 
Earlier this year the U. S.  Army tightened its tattoo policy, banning tattoos below the knee or elbow; other branches of the military have similar rules. 
The policy banned offensive tattoos, although body art is acceptable, as long as it is covered from public view. 
New employees must sign waivers agreeing to cover their ink and acknowledging the ban on new tattoos on specified body parts. 
According to him, he knows ""a lot of people"" who were refused entry into the military because of the existing ban on tattoos. 
That department's ban prohibits tattoos anywhere on the body that are obscene, sexual, racial or religiously discriminatory. 
","[3, 3, 5, 2, 2, 4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 4, 2, 2, 4, 2]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 6432269, 45567220, 45567227, 45538225, 45411178, 21785776, 20225558, 29155723, 45355658, 20512953, 15448937, 45185946, 45190823]"
c79672c7-9c59-4c95-8c6c-057bca813484,2604,The right to Internet access should be protected,Summit,"One can thus see that a right to internet access and the right to free speech do not operate equally to protect the same thing to the same extent. 
This principle accords perfectly with the Constitution and the notion that the right to Internet access means that people should not be hindered from accessing the Internet, rather than a right to have the Internet provided to them. 
With its passage, the Human Rights Council now officially recognises that people have a right to Internet access and online freedom of expression. 
The bench led by Justice Dipak Misra has said that Right to Internet Access is a part of Fundamental Right of Expression. 
Precisely, authorities need to understand that the right to Internet access is fundamental human right including freedom of expression, right to freedom of speech etc.  Te access should not even be denied unreasonably to an individual. 
Interestingly, the suspension of mobile internet services in Kashmir comes days after the apex court of India had said that citizens have a right to internet access. 
The Russian Foreign Ministry has branded as hypocritical the U. S.  statements that Russia restricts the right to Internet access. 
It minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said at the Global Conference on Cyber Security that right to internet access is universal and not restricted by the Indian government. 
Colin Crawford has posited that a right to internet access could be recognized in the United States as a result of the application of public accommodation doctrine. 
It also recommended the provision of free filters by the government that can restrict free access to the Internet. 
Around one-third of the owners of Internet access points in Russia does not identify their users and Wi-Fi networks of those that allow free access to the Internet, are not regulated at all, the newspaper says. 
An Expert said that free access to the Internet was a matter of education for children today, and they needed access in order to learn and do their homework. 
For legal systems where the constitution is understood as requiring government to sometimes act positively, this first part of the paper shows that enforcing a right to internet access is the best, most effective legal mechanism available to pursuing the value of empowering freedom of expression. 
The network now includes more than 300 hotspots throughout the county that provide free access to the Internet. 
The city-county library was built with an enclosed computer lab that gives free access to the Internet. 
This threat to Net neutrality pertains to everyone in that the free access to the Internet could be gone in a second. 
The Haredi objection to smart phones is that they allow free access to the Internet, putting all aspects of secular thought, culture and media, as well as sexual content like pornography, at the fingertips of the observant. 
Free Basics, for which Facebook had tied up with Reliance Communications, is an app that promises free access to the Internet for a host of basic services on topics like news, health, travel, sports, jobs and communication. 
Interestingly, in January 2010, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a highly touted speech on Internet freedom, offering that the freedom to connect is like the freedom of assembly. 
De Juniac hailed the growing global demand, stressing that ""our freedom to connect through air travel drives prosperity and enriches societies"". 
IATA's Director General and CEO Alexandre de Juniac said in a statement that ""Our freedom to connect through air travel drives prosperity and enriches societies. 
The V-800HD Live Video Switcher is ideal for any live event or installation that requires the freedom to connect any type of source whether it be digital or analog, computer or video format. 
The world is now discovering that this freedom to connect comes at a very high price, namely, massive surveillance, which instils fear, instead of freedom from fear. 
","[5, 4, 5, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 5, 3, 1, 2, 3, 4, 4]",15,"[45567227, 45569485, 45458968, 34110399, 45411178, 21785776, 20512953, 15448937, 30777913, 27770607, 43877630, 33708599, 34854490, 44094031, 21017840]"
a93a1826-737c-4e88-abd1-7cbd71a568d4,3234,The use of AI should be abandoned,Summit,"Researchers abandoned the phrase ""artificial intelligence"" to escape painful snickering from academic and research communities. 
Facebook has abandoned an artificial intelligence experiment after two of its robots began talking to each other in their own language. 
Microsoft has abandoned an artificial intelligence experiment on Twitter after the programme caused alarm by posting racist and sexist outbursts. 
It has been said that ""AI is the new UI,"" which means that artificial intelligence is the new user interface. 
While some fear that artificial intelligence will take over education to the detriment of students and teachers, others claim that artificial intelligence will revolutionize and improve education. 
This means that the artificial intelligence software would need to be more certain that its findings were correct. 
A recent Mother Jones article says that AI will have one-tenth of human brain capabilities just before 2035 -- but that artificial intelligence will then surpass human intelligence by 2060. 
The Xbox One is home to Forza Motorsport 5, an extremely polished racing game that has abandoned conventionally programmed artificial intelligence rivals in favour of the ""Drivatar"" system that learns how people race and puts you to work against virtual clones of real players. 
Nrew research suggests that artificial intelligence (AI) technology is making the workplace more human, despite fears that AI will lead to widespreadjob losses . 
In 2014, Musk warned that artificial intelligence has the potential to be "" more dangerous than nukes "" while Hawking said in December 2014 that AI could end humanity . 
Whether it is Elon Musk saying that artificial intelligence looks to be an existential threat to humanity, or Mark Zuckerberg saying it isn't, that AI is clearly on our collective minds. 
Because of this video I realized that AI shown a great development through out the years, And for the record, different industry are embracing now the changes that Artificial Intelligence brings. 
There's tremendous fear that artificial intelligence will replace jobs, but this dystopian view doesn't acknowledge that AI software can help augment the business outcomes employees shoot for in many organizations. 
The firm hasn't abandoned the AI strategy but it will not released to clients at this stage. 
Many reasonable people would argue that we shouldn't have abandoned the term AI at all. 
Automated sales assistance can follow up with leads or abandoned carts AI automated sales assistance technology enables e-commerce businesses to follow up with previous customers, leads, and those who have abandoned carts. 
Just a few years later, he had given up, and eventually he abandoned AI altogether to focus on other areas of research. 
According to the report, 89 percent of the respondent organisations believed that AI would make complex jobs easier while 88 percent of them believed that intelligent machines would coexist with humans within their businesses. 
Based on a Brian Aldiss short story that was one of the late Stanley Kubrick's abandoned projects, A. I.  tells the story of an ultra-realistic robot boy (played by Haley Joel Osment) who's abandoned by his human masters and left to search the world to learn his purpose. 
So the core narrative about AI is not that AI will be like us, that AI is different than us. 
The important thing about AI ""is not that AI will be like us, it's that AI is different than us. 
AI leaders claim that they have ""super powers,"" that AI is the new electricity, and that there is no industry that AI will not disrupt. 
The AI concept created by Huawei unveils that AI is not limited to voice assistant, but also hints that AI's application in mobile terminal has new breakthrough. 
So that's why OpenAI was created as a nonprofit foundation, to ensure that AI power . . .  or to reduce the probability that AI power would be monopolized. 
There is no doubt, however, that AI will have a generational impact; for example, PwC estimates that AI could increase global GDP by $15. 7 trillion by 2030. 
","[4, 2, 2, 2, 5, 2, 1, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4]",15,"[45181384, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45483811, 29155723, 43877630, 45361788, 45336993, 45336988, 44094031, 31948170, 27934334, 32850083, 26649250]"
b7be022e-2982-4b1b-9a8f-0b9bc78cfad8,3207,We should abandon social media,Summit,"For me, the solution to many of these issues is not to abandon social media. 
There are no signs that he would abandon his major social media platform on which he airs his frustration. 
When it comes to social media, financial professionals face additional regulation, but that is no reason to abandon social media altogether. 
If this feature is not user-friendly and easy to use they will abandon your social media platform immediately. 
Unless you can convince all your friends to abandon social media, it barely matters if you yourself do. 
If you choose to abandon one social media service for another one, you'll carry all your data with you. 
My advice would be to not abandon social media but don't make it your primary marketing channel. 
Just abandon your social media for a few days and return when everything has died down. 
In terms of digital walls, I am struck by the need to abandon social media and be present in the physical world. 
Kim plans to abandon all social media during the break and try to recover her concentration skills. 
The important thing is not to freak out, abandon social media and call in the heavies to deal with your detractors. 
During those years, it even reached the point where Zito felt compelled to abandon social media. 
Abandon your social media and just focus on yourself, what you think and what you feel and not what other people think about what you think. 
The tax will affect them as some people could abandon social media, Mr Kawamara said. 
Indians manager Terry Francona was aware of Perez's decision to abandon the social media site. 
Whether or not these groups will abandon social media altogether or find new platforms for connecting with others has yet to be seen. 
Or they may abandon social media sites altogether unless they have a business or an overriding urge to pay for them. 
Considering it ""utter nonsense"" to abandon social media altogether, Fenton thought it unlikely that Wetherspoon's social media shutdown would spark a trend for businesses to delete their online platforms. 
Maybe you are not ready to abandon social media altogether, but at least make sure you are not replacing authentic connection with technology. 
The disappearing video application continues to grow its user base as younger demographics abandon other social media channels. 
Businesses shouldn't abandon their organic social media efforts, as there are many benefits of investing in organic reach . 
This isn't all to say you should abandon your social media accounts, but it's some useful food for thought. 
The period before, during and after the harmonised elections of July 30, 2018 was marred by abuse of social media and proliferation of fake news spread with reckless abandon on all social media platforms. 
These tips will help you know if it's time to abandon that social media profile that hasn't been fruitful for your business. 
Facebook's star - and the Facebook share price - has continued to fall as advertisers and investors threaten to abandon the social media platform. 
OUT Pop Culture Ruby Rose has become the latest actor to abandon a social media account due to online trolling. 
The scandal has caused Massive Attack to abandon the social media site, writing in a post that they would only return when the company addressed the privacy issue. 
According to several media reports, many wives of U. S.  soldiers have decided to log off and abandon social media entirely, fearing that terrorists were monitoring their public comments. 
Twitter is poison, says leading athlete counsellor Michael Blucher, who advises younger athletes to abandon the unfiltered social media tool as the abuse could interfere with their performance. 
The improper harvesting of data from as many as 87 million Facebook users by a British political consulting firm prompted pressure on CEO Mark Zuckerberg to appear before Congress as well as a consumer campaign to abandon the social media platform. 
","[1, 1, 2, 1, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 2, 2, 1, 3, 2]",15,"[45483811, 43877630, 45361788, 29155723, 31948170, 44094031, 27770607, 45397152, 45191885, 45185946, 38202325, 20312760, 20170210, 45336993, 45336988]"
6fca3384-14dc-4dd2-97dc-770470ac6769,3194,We should abandon television,Summit,"Their 1997 comedy film, The Castle, was a box office smash, but they didn't abandon television. 
The Quick family from Carmarthen will have to abandon their television, internet and mobile phones as they live the life of Edwardian landowners. 
Almost one out of five streaming user (18%) would be prepared to abandon conventional television completely in future. 
Consider a spiritual retreat, or even a home staycation in which you should abandon the television in favour of artistic supplies. 
BBC3 will abandon television on 16 February for a new life as an online-only channel and I've no doubt it will be a success. 
Hirai has repeatedly shrugged off pleas to abandon the television unit, which he insists remains central to Sony's business. 
While those new entrants ramp up the rivalry for viewers and creative talent, they could also encourage more people to abandon traditional television in favor of streaming. 
According to a survey conducted by the Public Opinion Foundation in May 2018, 64. 4% of the polled are not ready to abandon television in favour of other sources of information and entertainment. 
Not ready to abandon television production, she started making shows for competitor Channel 3, owned by another Thai tycoon, Vichai Maleenont, last year. 
Viacomhas been a lightning rod for the changing television viewership landscape as millennials abandon linear TV for online video and over-the-top services. 
Why not abandon TV at home' Abandoning football from a certain place is like abandoning a basic right from any human being. 
As younger viewers abandon linear television and cable subscribers DVR their favorite shows, live sports has become traditional television's most valuable property for advertisers, the keystone holding up the grand arc of the cable bundle. 
Encouraging kids to abandon television and their video games take time and effort but the benefits and the joy of seeing your child happy, healthy, and independent is surely worth it. 
The findings reinforce concerns about the UK's indoor generation', with many of the parents polled saying they have to force their children to abandon televisions and games consoles to go for a walk. 
Over 50% of U. S.  broadband households subscribe to an OTT video service, but Parks Associates analysts say this finding does not mean consumers are ready to abandon their televisions. 
Viacom announced Wednesday that it had hired Sean Atkins as the new president of its MTV division, the ratings-challenged network group that has struggled to shift its business as younger viewers abandon traditional television. 
The other big change is that people will abandon conventional TVs like they've abandoned newspapers. 
As viewers abandon that conventional television newscast, News 12 has become the number one choice for local news coverage in New Jersey, with record ratings on TV, on the Internet and on demand on your cable set-top box. 
Just when we were about to abandon ship for TV, the mood has changed for the better. 
Sony chief Kazuo Hirai has shrugged off pleas to abandon the television unit, while the firm has also turned down a call from US hedge fund boss Daniel Loeb to spin off 20 per cent of its entertainment arm, which includes the Hollywood film studio, to boost profits. 
It would be a shame, after all, if our public station were forced to abandon this beloved TV service. 
The reckless abandon with which TV firms change and alter kick-offs is not going to be affected either. 
The new Golden Age of TV is causing people to abandon TV that isn't so golden. 
A strike probably would have encouraged more viewers to abandon traditional TV for streaming options such as Netflix and Amazon. 
There was also a drop in the TV audience, so the company decided to abandon TV reporting and focus on digital media instead. 
Broadcasters - Investment - Children - Programming - Viewers The broadcasters have cut investment in children's programming as younger viewers abandon traditional TV for Netflix and YouTube. 
","[1, 4, 2, 3, 3, 1, 2, 4, 3, 5, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2]",15,"[28813722, 45411178, 45405037, 6432269, 45567220, 45677971, 45569485, 45206691, 45189900, 15448937, 45181253, 45181243, 45181256, 28513847, 13581319]"
6c804ec6-f73a-4d29-a2d8-7a3c055090ad,3222,We should abolish bitcoins,Summit,"Borrowers would borrow some amount of bitcoin, sell that bitcoin today, and then repay that bitcoin when the loan comes due. 
Gox was a company that used Bitcoin, but it was not important to the underlying decentralised network that Bitcoin runs on. 
Gox was a company that used Bitcoin, but it was not important to the underlying decentralized network that Bitcoin runs on. 
There are some Bitcoin enthusiasts that believe that Bitcoin could work as an anti-cyclical asset. 
None of this is to say that Bitcoin value will be stable, or that Bitcoin won't be replaced eventually. 
Bitcoin has the largest network and that means that Bitcoin grows in utility simply from having the most users. 
That means that Bitcoin could be legalized in the nation for it to be regulated. 
Major difference that has given Bitcoin an edge over all other digital currencies is the fact that Bitcoin is decentralized. 
Indeed, Buffet said that Bitcoin is rat poison and Dimon said that Bitcoin will be crashed by governments. 
Another important aspect of Bitcoin valuation is that fact that Bitcoin has never experienced a full business cycle. 
The fact that Bitcoin has become comparable to gold prices means that Bitcoin has made waves in luxury markets. 
The more individuals that use Bitcoin to purchase everyday products means that Bitcoin becomes much easier to use in the sportsbook industry. 
What governments do not say is that that Bitcoin is a medium of exchange that is outside of their control. 
The reason for that is that Bitcoin (BTC) was created to be an effective store of value. 
The Namibian Central Bank has ruled that Bitcoin shall be ruled that Bitcoin may not be used as payment for goods and services. 
So far the evidence that bitcoin is a good store of value consists of the fact that bitcoin's price keeps going up. 
The Q. . . ndicates that bitcoin is not a financial product for the purposes of the Act on Financial Supervision and that bitcoin transactions are taxable on an as-converted to legal tender basis. 
It's complicated, but the gist is, the that the bitcoin market is not only an unregulated one, but that the bitcoin futures market - which is regulated - is still dangerously small. 
While many expected Bitcoin to recede into obscurity as 2018 moved forward,Lee added that Bitcoin's recent resurgence suggests that Bitcoin still holds the coveted positionas the most reliable cryptocurrency investment. 
So that means that Bitcoin transactions, forexample, are getting more expensive and slower,"" he added. 
Known for his bold predictions that Bitcoin will reach $500,000 within three years, he's confident that Bitcoin cannot be considered a bubble. 
As such, it is highly likely that Bitcoin ETFs will be approved in 2018, given that Cboe and CME have proven that Bitcoin can be traded on strictly regulated platforms with proper investment protection. 
Most analysts remain confident that the bitcoin bull run will continue throughout the coming weeks, and that bitcoin will end the year at around $10K or $11K. 
The continued gains that Bitcoin prices have experienced latelycould be interpreted as evidence that Bitcoin has indeed bottomed out, as several analysts haveclaimedin the last few weeks. 
In December, Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann told Wirschaftswoche that Bitcoin is not an alternative to national currencies and that Bitcoins are only used as currency in certain niches, CoinDesk said. 
Publicly accessible information shows that that Bitcoin account has been a party to four transactions, all in September of 2012. 
There are some other analysts that believe that Bitcoin could continue falling even under $2,000 dollars in some cases. 
There are several experts that believe that Bitcoin can reach much higher prices than what it is currently worth. 
The accusation that bitcoin's sudden price spikes are manipulated by Tether comes from a report published by University of Texas claiming to have found proof that bitcoin's price was manipulated during market downturns. 
","[3, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 2, 3, 2, 1, 3]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 45191873, 45183231, 45272708, 45181152, 7756990, 45282792, 45336991, 44044795, 19838540, 34110399, 45483811, 44255568, 34609243]"
0a59aac5-36ec-4e84-ace7-f971daaa79de,3227,We should abolish capital punishment,Summit,"The petitioners, all on death row, aimed to abolish capital punishment by declaring it unconstitutional. 
The only way to guarantee that the innocent are not wrongfully executed is to abolish capital punishment. 
If approved by the Nevada legislature, AB237 would abolish capital punishment in the Silver State. 
On Wednesday, Connecticut became the fifth state in as many years to abolish capital punishment. 
This year's topic, ""Resolved: This House would abolish capital punishment,"" will be debated by participants. 
Referendum 426 preserved the death penalty by repealing the legislature 's 2015 motion to abolish capital punishment. 
The New Hampshire Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty is announcing a new effort to repeal the state's capital punishment law. 
Earlier this year, lawmakers attempted to repeal the state's capital punishment law, which would abolish the death penalty. 
Maryland was the last state to abolish the death penalty, in 2013, and capital punishment currently is legal in 32 states. 
France is a staunch advocate against the death penalty, urging governments around the world to abolish capital punishment. 
It was there they used to hang criminals, until Queensland became the first state to abolish capital punishment in 1922. 
It's time for New Hampshire to abolish the death penalty and join the civilized world in rejecting capital punishment. 
Several states have repealed capital punishment in recent years, with Maryland a possible 18th state to abolish executions. 
Nebraska is to become the 19th US state to abolish the death penalty in what has been described as a watershed decision by campaigners against capital punishment. 
The bill would abolish capital punishment for first-degree murder, although it would not apply to inmates now on death row. 
Indonesia, like Nigeria, is yet to abolish the death penalty although drug offences do not carry capital punishment in Nigeria. 
In 1930, the League to Abolish Capital Punishment predicted that the death penalty was on the way out, because public opinion had changed. 
If the Legislature outlaws capital punishment, Nebraska would become the first conservative state in more than 40 years to abolish the death penalty. 
If the new constitution does not abolish capital punishment, the convicts might still escape it by way of commuting of their death sentences to life imprisonment. 
Nebraska was the 19th state to abolish capital punishment, as has the District of Columbia, while the death penalty is legal in 31 states and for some federal crimes. 
If it passes, Maryland would become the sixth state to abolish capital punishment since 2007, the Journal notes. 
A ballot initiative in California, Proposition 34, gives voters the chance to abolish capital punishment in the state. 
Bera said the death penalty is broken in California and he would likely vote for Proposition 62, an initiative to abolish capital punishment. 
The Connecticut Senate on Thursday voted to repeal the death penalty and make the state the fifth in five years to abolish capital punishment. 
The hanging brought calls from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International asking India to abolish the capital punishment. 
The move, which comes as a number of states reconsider capital punishment, would abolish execution as the maximum sentence in murder convictions and replace it with life imprisonment. 
This case provides clear evidence of the urgent need for Texas and all other death penalty states to abolish capital punishment and replace it with the sentence of permanent imprisonment. 
Two death row prisoners were executed in Japan yesterday, officials and media said, as campaigners called for the country to abolish capital punishment. 
Some opponents have argued that Nebraska should abolish capital punishment because the state hasn't executed anyone since 1997. 
The Philippine government's reinstatement of the death penalty is also a big step backward in rights protection and for the global campaign to abolish capital punishment. 
A week later, a decision was taken to abolish the death penalty, which took effect the following year with the Acts Amendment (Abolition of Capital Punishment) Act. 
","[3, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 6432269, 45458968, 45190571, 45181384, 45401087, 45538225, 28810858, 21785776, 45336993, 45206691, 45189900, 45361788, 45336988]"
e61dbf9a-f59f-4ff7-af3b-65cec534f684,3661,We should abolish foster care,Summit,"Dear God, please abolish foster care and return the kidnapped victims to their families who impatiently wait. 
Smith opined that the foster parents were more than able to care for the children. 
The state courts that now run the kiddy courts need to be consolidated with the federal courts and abolish the foster care system. 
One of the great frustrations is that the foster care system is really poorly understood. 
Topics include the suggestion that foster caring is only for ""empty-nesters who need extra income"", and that foster care has a negative impact on biological children. 
Sweetie Pie discovered that Foster Care was more of a challenge than raising her own. 
That foster parent was allegedly employed by Christian Heritage, a Nebraska nonprofit corporation that provides foster care and social services. 
Forti, who hashad four foster children so far, says she wants to dispel the myths that foster children are too challenging and that foster care parents doit for the money. 
Part of the reason there aren't more, Garrett thinks, is the stigma foster care carries with it - that the care is somehow sub-par; that the children that need that care are damaged and dangerous. 
Many decent doctors deplore the changes in health care delivery systems that foster such abuses. 
Another option is to adopt payment policies that foster increased efficiency among primary care providers. 
State lawmakers must take steps to ensure that Foster Care Redesign can continue and expand. 
It therefore appears that foster parents do not burden foster children with their own stress. 
Prosecutor Julie Baldwin said in court that Anderson was a foster parent and that the foster children have been removed from his home. 
Canfield testified that the foster family was meeting all of S. M. G. 's physical and emotional needs, that DFPS's goal for S. M. G.  was unrelated adoption, and that the foster family wanted to adopt S. M. G. 
It was undisputed that the foster family was meeting all of S. M. G. 's needs, that she was thriving in that home, and that the foster parents wished to adopt her. 
One cannot assume that every foster carer will always attach to every foster child who comes into that foster carer's home. 
A common stereotype out there is that foster parents are in it for the money. 
The circuit court ordered that petitioner and her children be placed in that foster home. 
The seminar really opened my eyes to the many difficulties that foster parents face and the hardships that many foster children have to overcome. 
Further, there was evidence that the foster family provided a safe and healthy environment for the three children and that the foster family desired to make the children a permanent part of their family through the adoption process. 
Its monthly meetings have disclosed that foster children slept in offices while waiting for placement. 
We`re learning that the foster mother was with the investigative unit of the Child Protective Services Office, and that the foster father was an emergency room nurse. 
Learn how to encourage activities that foster growth and reduce stress in children and parents. 
Police said the injuries were not accidental and that Foster intended to hurt the child. 
The Plainfield YMCA offers a variety of programs that foster understanding and companionship between children. 
It is estimated that foster children move schools at least once or twice a year. 
C&NN offers information about research, networking and organizations that foster reconnecting children with nature. 
Ledoux cautioned interpreting the report as a sign that foster families are no longer needed. 
The judge told the lawmakers that foster homes would be created to house juvenile prisoners. 
DHR reported to deputies on May 19 that a foster child was possibly being abused. 
That means that the foster parents needs to be able to operate within many of the same parameters as any parent. 
","[2, 3, 4, 2, 3, 2, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 3, 4]",15,"[13581319, 20225558, 19838540, 29155723, 44044795, 45355658, 45677971, 45567220, 45190823, 28810858, 20512953, 45405037, 45411178, 28813722, 45458968]"
4de6aa57-e44a-4d73-8953-77df8c5e28d8,2694,We should abolish intelligence tests,Summit,"The first thing to point out is that IQ is not the same as intelligence. 
It was indicated that IQ is the primary intelligence used in HRD activities in organizations. 
The testing system also goes wrong when educators assume that IQ scores and intelligence are immutable. 
Research indicates that IQ ranks second to your emotional intelligence in determining outstanding job performance. 
As summarized by Harris these are: that ""general intelligence"" is a scientifically valid concept and can be measured by IQ tests; that IQ is highly predictive of success in life; that mean IQ differs across populations; and that IQ is partly genetically determined. 
His "" Social-Class Influences Upon Learning "" made the most compelling case of that era that intelligence tests discriminated against lower-class people. 
An individual is not merely a construct of verbal and mathematical abilities that IQ measures. 
Some of that IQ came from growing up around the game and around his father. 
There have also been many studies that indicate that IQ levels increase so does brain chemistry in terms of learning and retaining other knowledge. 
The idea that IQ is fixed for life is built into the questionable politics of IQ testing. 
His discovery that IQs have been rising suggests that IQ couldn t be a measure of actual brain power and that the IQ gaps between groups weren t fixed and were in fact closing. 
It is reasonable to be cautious about claims that IQ has a major influence on national productivity. 
Multiple studies have shown that IQ is positively correlated with multiple measures of nerve conduction velocity. 
These kinds of results should eliminate claims that IQ is merely a measure of acculturation. 
This document appears to suggest that IQ testing performed when Plaintiff was 14 years of age revealed that she possessed an IQ of 116. 
One might object that IQ is meaningful only because our society is obsessed with it. 
IQ Option Info wizard gives each graph that IQ option is one of the ensured affiliations. 
How unfortunate that IQ scores and levels of affluence do not always go hand in hand. 
Another audience member pointed out that IQ at three is not as reliable as IQ test results at older ages, and Pearce agreed, suggesting that an IQ no earlier than age five would be preferable. 
Lynn believes that IQ tests can be used to determine the worth of racial groups and nations. 
HR executives have long proclaimed that IQ gets you hired, but EQ gets you promoted. 
These and other studies show that IQ similarity most closely lines up with genetic similarity. 
The study also indicated that IQ scores could be lower for kids with a higher BMI. 
The clearly bullish implication from that comparison is that IQ could have huge upside ahead. 
The court ruled that IQ tests were culturally biased and discriminated against black children and other minorities. 
The court noted that an IQ score below 70 was a common sign of intellectual disability. 
What he's saying is that IQ research is among the most reliable research in psychology. 
Studies show that IQ declines cumulatively by 3 percent on each successive day of sleep loss. 
That allowed IQ Choice to develop further so that iq option strategy became known in Countries in europe, China, America and so on. 
The trouble is that IQ and an aptitude for hard work are largely inherited characteristics. 
The Ninth Circuit directs that an ALJ can decide that an IQ score is invalid. 
In that work, Murray argued the indisputable point that IQ is strongly correlated with labour market success; that IQ is between 40 per cent and 80 per cent heritable; and, most provocatively, that IQ varies among ethnic and racial groups. 
The factorial analysis confirm that IQ and MP are overall good predictors or SF absorption. 
Coach Jim Caldwell is especially concerned about that IQ he developed under Harbaugh at Stanford. 
","[4, 4, 2, 2, 5, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 5, 3, 2, 5, 4]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 20225558, 45405037, 45458968, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45181384, 45538225, 6432269, 21785776, 43877630, 44044795, 45191882]"
895e20d8-4c3f-4c6c-807c-ea8807551d9c,2489,We should abolish no-knock warrants,Summit,"With the search warrant, I have to admit, I was surprised when I heard that it was a no-knock warrant. 
Mayor Broderick said you have to have special circumstance for that no-knock warrant and that damage is always a possibility. 
A common misconception is that no-knock warrants are issued so that police can catch suspects before they dispose of drugs or other evidence. 
That ""no knock"" warrant came in response to reported sales of prescription medication and heroin at the location. 
It is very difficult to believe that no-knock warrants cause the people to be more secure in their persons or houses. 
Prieste said she felt if police would have investigated more thoroughly, they would have known that her son was not a drug dealer, and that a no-knock warrant was unnecessary. 
One of the most prominent changes, announced in a state police press release in January 2016, was a requirement that any no-knock warrant be approved by a judge instead of a clerk-magistrate. 
Clerk-magistrates in Fitchburg and Leominster, the only other two courts that have issued no-knock warrants to state police since 2016, said they also had never been asked to kick the warrants up to a judge. 
It's arguable that tactics like no-knock raids actually make warrant service safer for police officers. 
While it's common for no-knock warrants to be issued when there is probable cause for narcotics, a study by the ACLU on warrant data reveals that when no-knock raids go wrong, it's often civilians who pay the price. 
In his application, Mousseau stated that a no-knock warrant would give the subjects less time to arm themselves or attempt to destroy any contraband. 
Jung said during the hearing that she believed the no-knock warrant was appropriate, given the attempted-murder charge against Stanford. 
The bill also allowed that no-knock warrants would be allowed where probable cause would show that if police announced their search that it might give suspects time to quickly destroy evidence, for example by flushing drugs down a toilet. 
Speakers will turn a legal lens on police practices from the time of slavery to contemporary tactics that include no-knock warrants to stop-and-frisk and the excessive use of force. 
Lynch noted that even on the threshold of his retirement, Maloney never considered passing on a joint task force effort to issue that no-knock warrant against Cullen Mutrie. 
Millsap said Monday that under a no-knock warrant the language must spell out that the officer has knowledge that the person is armed or has made threats to shoot members of law enforcement or another person. 
Hibbs testified that officers sought a no-knock warrant because they were told that methamphetamine was believed to be inside the house, and they didn't want to give the residents time to destroy it before answering the door. 
Officers at Sherry Carroll's two-day trial in 2006 explained that executing a no-knock warrant requires them to move through the entryway, also referred to as the ""fatal funnel,"" as quickly as possible to avoid being easy targets. 
The Denver Police Department requires that all no-knock raids be preapproved by the DA's office. 
State Rep.  Kevin Tanner, R-Dawsonville, will also push a related bill that limits * no-knock raids to daytime hours, forces officers participating in drug raids to attend training sessions, and require a supervisor to oversee raids. 
Trust inthe police is low amongmany, however, and protesters are questioning the official story, and witnesses have claimed that it was a no-knock raid and police just began firing immediately afteropening the door. 
Maybe, while under a federal investigation that included a no-knock raid on his home, Manafort was able to form his own company, also based in Fort Lauderdale, that did basically the same thing as Hoyos Integrity, all without leaving a paper trail. 
","[4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 45336988, 45189900, 45361788, 45206691, 45336993, 28810858, 20225558, 45538225, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 21785776]"
9147936e-ec4a-48dc-b3b6-c60a8b1e1da8,3699,We should abolish primary elections,Summit,"It does not abolish primary elections, though if a state holds primary elections it must also use RCV. 
The reason was that after that primary, he refused to inspect the results of that primary election which excluded him from that primary. 
Winter Park voters will also decide whether the city should abolish primaries in favor of run-off elections. 
Meridian - Meridian Republican Rep.  Steve Horne has introduced House Bill 305 to abolish party primaries for state and local elections. 
Beckley residents voted by a 2-1 margin to change their city charter and abolish their traditional primary and general elections, Pugh told members of a special Charleston City Council election task force Wednesday. 
In Yuguda's opinion, the contentious NGF election was unnecessary; similarly, Anenih wants to abolish primaries so the PDP can have Jonathan as its consensus candidate. 
On the day she was sworn in as chief justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, Maureen O'Connor said she would work to abolish partisan primaries in judicial elections. 
The state GOP went so far as to abolish partisan judicial primaries in a likely effort to split the Democratic vote, to trying to end judicial elections altogether. 
When the Legislature acted in 2004 to reestablish the June primary, supporters of the effort to abolish March primaries said all the earlier elections had done was ensure that more political cash needed to be raised and spent by state and local candidates. 
House and Senate leaders also found time to pass legislation to abolish the primary in district and superior court judge elections, a stunning last-minute move, and the House passed a bill to redraw the districts for the election of judges and district attorneys to try to elect more Republicans. 
It would abolish party primaries in Arizona, instead allowing all voters to vote on all the candidates. 
The court also suggested the possibility of not having primaries at all, referring to a decision by the North Carolina General Assembly to abolish primaries for some partisan state offices. 
Members of the state's political parties and the League of Women Voters had challenged the ballot measure, which would abolish partisan primaries and have all candidates for a given office compete in a single primary. 
That means that primary election voters will make the final choice on who joins the Supreme Court next year. 
An Arizona group is launching a ballot measure to abolish party primaries in the state, saying the current system favors partisan extremists. 
There's a part of me that believes that a primary issue or impact on those elections still hasn't happened yet. 
Lawyers for the state had defended a law that requires primary candidates belong to the party holding that primary. 
On Saturday of that primary, a candidate mentioned the name of our national leader that he is going to be shocked by the outcome of that primary. 
The fact that primaries benefited both Trump, and Mitt Romney four years earlier, is proof that primary electorates don't always act in predictable ways. 
There is nowhere in the party rules that says that primaries can be held outside the constituencies. 
After Iowa and New Hampshire we do know that that the primary gets a lot browner and more reflective of the Democratic Party. 
The first argues that primary outcomes depend mostly on candidates' decisions, personal qualities, and campaign spending, while the second argues that primaries are heavily manipulated by the activities of partisan elites. 
","[4, 2, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4]",15,"[45538225, 20312760, 44690955, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 43984981, 45191882, 45206691, 45189900, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 34110399]"
e919cab9-4166-41b5-b236-3fb33aebedf7,2647,We should abolish term limits,Summit,"It will not abolish term limits but simply extend the number of terms from three to four. 
After he was reelected in 2008, the constitution was amended to abolish term limits for the presidency. 
Some Argentines think that she will seek to abolish term limits after the legislative election. 
Voters have been asked twice before to abolish term limits since voters put the two-term limit in place, but have never been asked to lengthen term limits. 
Term limits: The House State Administration Committee on Monday will hear bills to revise or abolish term limits for state legislators. 
China's Communist Party announced Feb.  25 it would abolish abolish term limits for the presidency. 
Specifically, the move would abolish presidential term limits and thus allow President Correa to pursue further terms in office. 
NEWS3 >> at least one state Senator says the time has come to abolish term limits. 
Last year, the Party adopted a new fundamental change of the constitution to abolish term limits. 
Coey led an effort to abolish the term limits in 2016, but voters overwhelmingly rejected it. 
In 2008, the government amended the constitution to abolish term limits and allow the president to remain in office for life. 
Chinese President Xi Jinping has recently demonstrated one way to do this: abolish term limits . 
March 11, 2018 - END OF TERM LIMITS The National People's Congress votes nearly unanimously to abolish term limits for the presidency. 
Voters in Mechanicville decided they did not want to abolish term limits for their mayor and City Council members. 
One ordinance would ask voters to abolish term limits altogether; the other would amend the charter to change the existing two-term limit to three terms for the mayor, auditor, city attorney and members of council. 
Mr Museveni was the key player in the change of the Ugandan constitution to abolish presidential term limits. 
The mayor wants to abolish term limits for members of the City Council, which would allow him to run for a third four-year term next year. 
President Xi Jinping has been voted by the national congress for a second term after the law was amended to abolish term limit to presidency. 
In Mansfield, 73 percent of voters defeated a charter amendment to abolish term limits for elected city officials. 
Earlier this month, the Chinese parliament voted to abolish presidential term limits, effectively allowing Xi to serve as president for more than two terms. 
This time framed as a ""constitutional review"", it invited Venezuelans to abolish term limits not only for the presidency, but for all elected public offices. 
The biggest obstacle is a proposed constitutional change that would abolish presidential term limits and the timing of the upcoming parliamentary election. 
This week the Chinese Communist Party proposed amending the country's constitution to abolish presidential term limits. 
An Egyptian court will later this month hear a petition seeking constitutional changes that would abolish presidential term limits. 
Each time lobbyists and special interests get involved in term limits campaigns, they pump money into whichever side wants to prevent, weaken or abolish term limits. 
The City of Mansfield's charter amendment to abolish term limits lost with a vote of 72 percent against to 27 for. 
Chinese legislators have passed constitutional changes that abolish term limits to let President Xi Jinping rule indefinitely. 
In Cameroon, President Paul Biya pushed through reforms to abolish presidential term limits in 2008, enabling him to lead the country for his sixth consecutive term. 
This year's session has an especially important task in passing constitutional amendments that will abolish term limits for the president and vice president. 
President Biya is running for an extension of his 29-year tenure after successfully spearheading a constitutional amendment to abolish term limits in 2008. 
In 2009, he held public referendum to abolish all term limits for public offices, and the people granted him the power to run for president as long as he was able. 
","[1, 1, 1, 3, 2, 2, 4, 4, 2, 4, 2, 2, 1, 1, 3]",15,"[45483811, 43877630, 29155723, 31948170, 45361788, 27770607, 45191885, 45336993, 20312760, 38202325, 45185946, 34110399, 45169947, 34854490, 34609243]"
0ee47695-50b7-4271-9e0e-2072fffa2452,3166,We should abolish the American Jobs Act,Summit,"Economists estimated that the American Jobs Act would create nearly 2 million jobs--1. 9 million jobs. 
Obama claims that the American Jobs Act will create more than 13,000 education jobs in North Carolina. 
Most of all the president proclaimed that the American Jobs Act would pay for itself. 
That American Jobs Act is based on a simple, common sense idea: if you want to create jobs, create jobs. 
It is worth noting that the American Jobs Act uses the word ""support"" and not ""create"" when mentioning jobs. 
A good place to start is by demanding that Congress pass the American Jobs Act. 
That is why the American Jobs Act included new rounds of tax cuts for small businesses. 
In Delaware, it is estimated that the American Jobs Act will produce 1,700 local transportation jobs, 1,100 educator and first responder jobs, and numerous other related jobs. 
That's why the American Jobs Act includes $30 billion to support 400,000 education jobs nationwide. 
In Miami, protesters gathered at a congressman`s office, demanding that he support the American Jobs Act. 
Mr.  Obama has promised that the American Jobs Act will be fully paid for, but he has no detailed plan on how to do it. 
On top of that, the American Jobs Act will make crucial investments in California's infrastructure. 
President Obama failed to convince most of this group that the American Jobs Act would create good long-term American jobs even if the bill passes. 
While the president traveled, the White House released a report showing that the American Jobs Act would create at least 400,000 jobs in education. 
Analysts have said that the American Jobs Act, if passed, would positively impact economic growth in the country. 
The report also outlines the direct impact that the American Jobs Act would have underserved communities across the nation. 
Wall Street analysts estimated that adoption of the American Jobs Act would create between 1. 9 million and 2. 6 million jobs relatively quickly. 
The White House said that under the American Jobs Act, Mecklenburg County Public Schools would receive an estimated $3. 5 million for teacher jobs. 
The neighborhood stabilization fund -- the president proposed some more money for that in the American Jobs Act -- I believe about $15 billion. 
Democrats and Republicans have supported every kind of proposal that's in the American Jobs Act in the past. 
Our economy needs this type of help today, which means that the American Jobs Act needs to be passed today so that American businesses can benefit immediately. 
In his speech before Joint Session of Congress, Obama spelled out a program that he called the American Jobs Act. 
Contrast that to the American Jobs Act, which the president introduced to a joint meeting of Congress and has crisscrossed the country for weeks promoting. 
Outside economists, as you know, independent of the administration, have said that the American Jobs Act would add up to 2 percent to the GDP of this country by next year and would add up to 1. 9 million jobs. 
The White House says that if the American Jobs Act passes as written, Arkansas would receive nearly $1 billion and gain at least 12,400 jobs, most of which would be time-limited construction work. 
There's no question that the American Jobs Act will put more money in the pockets of working Americans, get police officers, teachers and firefighters back to work and put construction workers back on the job rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges. 
Prominent, independent experts have said that the American Jobs Act could create 1. 5 million or more jobs, increase growth by as much as two percentage points next year, and lower the unemployment rate. 
Oleksiak pointed out that the American Jobs Act would help to lessen the impact of the $860 million public school funding cuts in Governor Tom Corbett's 2011-12 state budget. 
This president is on his game and has been since he gave that jobs speech. 
","[2, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 3, 1, 2, 4, 2, 1, 1, 1]",15,"[45185975, 45191882, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 13581319, 20312760, 45458968, 29155723, 45355658, 15448937, 19838540, 20512953, 30777913, 27770607]"
f1e40cb7-35e6-45ce-81bb-c999609efe0c,2486,We should abolish the US Electoral College,Summit,"The problem of the Electoral College is compounded by state laws that provide that electoral votes are awarded on a winner-take-all basis. 
Because their candidate lost the election, they want to abolish the U. S.  Electoral College in favor of a popular vote. 
The first is that all of the electors in every state won by one of the candidates went to that elector. 
That could be by issuing a fine, or voiding that Elector's vote in the Electoral College. 
Michigan one of 28 states with an faithfulist (ph) elector law, meaning that electors are bound. 
Paris, it's also false for Trump to say that the electoral college vote was a landslide. 
LEMON: It is also false to say that the electoral college vote was a landslide. 
If I vote for Trump for president, that Electoral College vote is stuck with me. 
Unfortunately, most opponents of the current electoral system want to abolish electoral votes as well as the office. 
There is also the possibility that the Electoral College vote will end in a 269-269 tie. 
Rep.  Tarr is hopeful that electors will consider all their options, including delaying today's Electoral College vote. 
There are other candidates running for CRC who are determined to neuter, or even abolish, the elector petition. 
Secretary of State Jon Husted noted that the electors had joined a class that has only 1,143 members. 
Even the 12th Amendment fails to ensure that the Electoral College vote would mirror popular vote. 
This may seem paradoxical, given that electoral votes are weighted in favor of less populous states. 
There is no law in the U. S.  constitution that says that an elector cannot vote in opposition to the rest of the state. 
No federal rules say that electors must vote for the candidate who won the popular vote in their state. 
The college exists so that the electors, representing people who want a candidate, confirm the people's choice. 
Because the funding will come through the alternate approval process, the Community Charter states that elector approval is needed. 
No fact is alleged to suggest that any of the electors in question was prevented from voting or that any of the electors was prevented from voting for that elector's preferred candidate. 
An eligible elector may sign as many petitions as candidates for whom that elector may vote. 
It is not often that electors can influence the outcome of a new plan by how they vote. 
Utah dictates that electors are selected by individual political parties and binds the elector to vote for the party nominee. 
Some of the framers envisioned that ""electors"" would deliberate over the choice of the president. 
Political promises are a measure of the competition that electors can hold over their elected representatives. 
By changing it so that the electoral votes are split, it ends up effectively eliminating my vote. 
There was a further expectation that the electors' votes would be divided among favorite sons. 
All Estates residents are encouraged to attend in order to vote at that Electors' Meeting. 
If governments renege on their election commitments, it is logical that electors should be able to revisit their vote. 
The framers also expected that presidential electors could humble a corrupt president by denying him re-election. 
To propose that electors use their vote to essentially take away their vote is of course preposterous. 
The Council must ensure that electors have reasonable facilities for voting, which are suitable for disabled access. 
This means the returning officer did not verify that the electors met the criteria to appoint a friend voter. 
There's really no expectation that an elector that deserts Donald Trump will vote for Hillary Clinton. 
The amendment changed the process, stipulating that electors must cast distinct votes for President and Vice President. 
In certain circumstances (eg, if a mark on the register suggests that that elector has already voted), this will not be an ordinary ballot paper. 
","[2, 3, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 4, 2, 4, 4, 1, 5]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 6432269, 45569485, 45567227, 45677971, 45567220, 44094031, 45411178, 6340330, 33708599, 44044795, 19838540, 44690955, 30777913]"
0234c66f-f7c7-4513-b941-c8747b7413ab,2458,We should abolish the needle exchange programs,Summit,"It has been repeatedly shown that needle exchange programmes prevent deaths from HIV and infection. 
There is little to no evidence to suggest that needle exchanges increase the prevalence of drug usage, but there is substantial evidence that needle exchanges reduce the prevalence of these fatal diseases. 
It is hoped that a needle exchange program will be up and running in the near future. 
Charleston had decriminalized hypodermic needles so that the needle exchange could operate within a criminal setting. 
What the research does show is that needle exchange programs are an effective means to prevent the spread of disease. 
It WORKS, and careful surveillance proves that needle-exchange does NOT increase the number of addicts. 
No one believes that a needle exchange law or program will put an end to drug abuse or HIV infections. 
That does not necessarily mean that the needle exchange program has one iota effect on the HIV transmission rate. 
The cost of setting up that needle exchange program is likely not one Heise would have been able to foresee. 
Numerous studies have shown that needle exchanges lower the rate at which those diseases are contracted. 
It is generally agreed that needle exchanges prevent the spread of disease and saves lives. 
Cole acknowledged that needle exchange programs might be more cost effective than HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C outbreaks. 
Some individuals feel that Needle exchange programs encourage, enable or increase drug use, as well as crime. 
Facts and evidence show that needle exchanges reduce the spread of deadly infectious diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C. 
At least indirectly, the assembled photographs show why that needle-exchange program was such a resounding success. 
Morgan said the Harm Reduction Program is comprehensive and that the needle exchange portion is only a tool. 
Fallahzadeh and Aaron both agreed there was no evidence to prove that needle exchange programs cause an increase in crime. 
Whynott noted that needle exchange employees speak with each client about how to prevent and reverse an overdose. 
Ford says she used to worry that a needle exchange program would encourage more drug abuse among intravenous users. 
Back then Pence insisted that a needle exchange aimed at curbing the spread of disease was a lousy drug policy. 
With so much positive evidence that needle exchange programs work we should consider using them more often. 
Kebec also said that needle exchanges could act as an entryway for people to get help with their addiction. 
Ireland said she ultimately sided with public health experts who say that needle exchange programs prevent the spread of diseases. 
A recently released report by the federal government found that needle exchange programs increased significantly over the last decade. 
It's clear that the potential health benefits far outweigh concerns that a needle exchange program could enable drug use. 
Long said Pence isn't alone in his concerns that needle exchanges could promote drug use instead of prevent it. 
Studies have shown that needle and syringe programs can reduce the spread of HIV among injection drug users. 
Multiple studies have shown that syringe exchange programs do not encourage or lead to increased drug use. 
A November CDC report revealed that syringe-exchange programs can curb the risk of HIV infections significantly. 
The health department takes the position that syringe exchanges and drug treatment programs help curb the spread of hepatitis. 
The group says many studies show that syringe exchange programs decrease drug use by connecting people to treatment, that syringe exchange program participants are five times more likely to enter drug treatment than non-participants. 
While it is a common myth that syringe exchange programs encourage, enable or increase drug use, as well as crime, decades of research from organizations including the World Health Organization and the American Medical Association, show that syringe exchange programs do none of those. 
Public health has determined that dirty needles were used at a health fair in the city March 25th. 
","[1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 5, 2, 1, 1, 5, 5]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 20225558, 6432269, 13581319, 45336993, 45336988, 45206691, 45189900, 45405037, 45361788, 45458968, 29155723, 45411178, 45538225]"
9e93ab4b-f92c-4f0e-b76e-3a64df18dd81,2613,We should abolish the two-party system,Summit,"It is time to abolish the two-party system, which was not part of our founders' vision or our Constitution. 
Readers must be reminded, however, that two party system does not necessarily mean the existence of only two political parties but that two parties are dominant. 
It appears Obama is trying to abolish our two-party governing system by decimating the Republican Party, which will give him the control he wants to more easily destroy our nation. 
If that's what it takes to bring courage back into our political structure, then maybe we should abolish the two-party system now. 
Ventura, who says he is non-partisan and would like to abolish the two-party system, has a new book out called ""DemoCRIPS and ReBLOODlicans: No More Gangs in Government"". 
On Saturday night it was unusual that two parties, Labor and the Liberals, were celebrating. 
The bottom line is that two parties that might negotiate a resolution do not exist. 
As to the first part of your question, we assume that two parties must agree. 
The crematorium will have facilities so that two parties can carry out their rituals simultaneously. 
Make that two parties that are happy they are playing each other in the Yates Cup. 
Article 25 is the possibility that two parties have to bring an arbitration to WTO. 
Florida law requires that two parties must consent to a recording for it to be legal. 
It remains a fact that two parties have a similar vote bank and follow similar ideology. 
As with online dating services, the aim is that two parties will find a perfect match. 
The fact is that two party members had levelled serious allegations against a third worker. 
The theory of commercial contracts is that two parties freely enter a contract on equal terms. 
Police officers believe that two parties who are known to each other were involved in the violence. 
It was seen as public rebuff of Mufti Sayeed and after that two parties drifted much. 
Mr.  Dhar also claimed that two party members were killed following the declaration of the poll results. 
The PTI chief said that two parties ruled the country over the past 30 years. 
The department received a 911 call at around 4:40 p. m.  indicating that two parties were injured. 
That means that the majority party can confirm whomever they want, without a single vote from the minority party. 
This is not the first time that a minority party has chosen to become a multiethnic party. 
This was the first time that a minority party became the main Opposition Party in Parliament. 
It became obvious that the majority party did not have their votes to pass the bill. 
The problem is with the legislation or a lack of consensus in that majority party. 
The critical factor here is that a majority party will not dominate the next Parliament. 
The reality is that there is only a limited amount that the minority party can do. 
It is not like that the majority party will always work for the mass people. 
One proposal was that a majority party should not hold the majority of committee convenerships. 
The pattern of coalition politics across Europe is that minority parties do not dictate terms. 
This changes the game such that the majority party has a limited window to maximize its advantage. 
Adding to its importance is the consideration that the majority party controlled the disciplinary process. 
The past shows that the majority party in both the House and Senate tend to lose seats. 
Especially when you consider that the majority party in parliament may not always enjoy an actual majority. 
Democrats complained that the majority party was moving too quickly on the bill, bypassing hearings. 
The districts were so unbalanced that the minority party didn't even bother to field a candidate. 
Wood stated that the minority party Republican legislators were not included in the budget development process. 
","[3, 3, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 2]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 6432269, 31948170, 45336988, 45189900, 45361788, 45206691, 45336993, 45181384, 45181383, 45401087, 45190571, 20225558, 45405037]"
b1622749-5d9a-4ca9-957a-f26eecadb8ce,2496,We should adopt a zero tolerance policy in schools,Summit,"The accused may not be guilty till proved so, but the school should adopt a zero-tolerance policy. 
Schools need to adopt a zero-tolerance policy for bullying, no matter academic or social status. 
Schools that adopt zero-tolerance policies add yet another more severe form of a punitive policy. 
To better accomplish this, the public school system must adopt and enforce a zero-tolerance policy for acts of violence. 
Instead, students filled the atrium of Tomson Hall demanding that the school adopt a zero-tolerance policy for racism. 
If referees want to adopt a zero-tolerance policy in the penalty area then so be it. 
As governor, I would adopt a zero-tolerance policy for this type of behavior in state government. 
There has never been a more urgent need to have the police force adopt a zero-tolerance policy. 
Woodard said one of the best practices is to create and adopt a zero-tolerance policy. 
It is incumbent upon all of us to adopt a zero-tolerance policy for corruption, at any level of government. 
To us, the best reward is the satisfaction of our customers and we adopt a zero-tolerance policy in this regard. 
Schools and parents need to educate the young that dropping litter is a filthy habit, and the police/council need to adopt a zero-tolerance policy to offenders. 
Adopt a zero-tolerance policy for inappropriate behavior, from the verbal to the physical and the implicit to the explicit. 
The only way to tackle fraud is to adopt a zero-tolerance policy and to prosecute in all instances. 
Adopt a zero-tolerance policy, and then we can talk about the NFL wanting to take this issue seriously. 
The minister also directed to adopt a zero-tolerance policy against corrupt elements in the FIA. 
Bhana urged the Department of Education to work with schools to implement policies that would encourage affirming discussions of sexual diversity, and to adopt a zero-tolerance policy on homophobic bullying. 
One of Hogan's goals was to beat back demands that the NFL adopt a zero-tolerance policy. 
Some of the other recommendations suggested that company will adopt the zero-tolerance policy for complaints related to discrimination and harassment. 
Raje stated that the government would adopt a zero-tolerance policy towards all cases of contaminated water supply. 
Adopt a zero-tolerance policy for workplace violence, which encompasses threats and even so-called ""jokes"" about violence or weapons. 
The Chief Minister said that the government would adopt a zero-tolerance policy against those openly taking the law into their hands. 
Australia's universities owe it to themselves, their students and the nation to publicly adopt a zero-tolerance policy on ""academic misconduct"". 
Ahmed said that police will adopt a zero-tolerance policy towards any form of breach of law and order, which included corruption. 
The government should strengthen the beleaguered military justice system and adopt a zero-tolerance policy for security forces abuses. 
If the police are to improve their public image, they must adopt a zero-tolerance policy on racism, not only for the citizens, but also for those who enforce the law. 
The organization could adopt a zero-tolerance policy or a range of disciplinary actions from warnings to suspension without pay to termination. 
The East Singhbhum district administration will adopt a zero-tolerance policy towards illegal sale of crackers during Diwali. 
If they are to improve their public image, the police service must adopt a zero-tolerance policy and hold its staff accountable when they fail to enforce the law. 
The possible compromise would make both taxis and ride-hailing companies adopt zero-tolerance policies for drug use, Fann said. 
Under it, Nepal will adopt a zero-tolerance policy against drinking alcohol in public functions, weddings and other social and cultural events. 
To end child abuse, Tong urged all institutions dealing with juveniles to adopt a zero-tolerance policy on any form of harm directed at children. 
Dartmouth Change stated that the College should adopt a zero-tolerance policy towards sexual assault and would expel any student who was found guilty of the crime. 
","[3, 1, 2, 1, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2]",15,"[20225558, 45190823, 13581319, 29155723, 20512953, 45181383, 45191873, 45181152, 45272708, 6432269, 45405037, 45181253, 45181256, 45181262, 27934334]"
359f910a-d64f-4d0d-aadb-f3fbf16615ce,3185,We should adopt socialism,Summit,"It unfortunately abandoned the Labour Party when it refused to adopt socialism as its aim. 
So, the American people, who would not adopt Socialism knowingly has adopted fragments of the Socialist program in increments - little by little. 
India did not adopt extreme socialism like China or the erstwhile Soviet Union neither did it adopt extreme Capitalism. 
Party members need to decide whether the NDP should maintain social democratic values or re-adopt socialism. 
If one wants to do away with inequality of wealth and incomes, one must abandon capitalism and adopt socialism. 
Communists know free people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the pretext of liberalism, they will unwittingly adopt every aspect. 
Perry claimed that dictatorships, like that of the Nazi party, adopt the title ""socialism"" to persuade workers. 
Amin raised issues of corruption and price rise and said there was a need to adopt socialism to resolve these problems. 
People can easily agree on eating good cheese but they will argue over whether to adopt Socialism or Evangelism. 
Americans would not knowingly adopt socialism, but under other names, such as liberalism or progressivism, we will adopt every fragment of the Marxian program until one day Americans will have a socialist nation. 
The media have strongly supported U. S.  campaigns against nations that adopt socialism or communism as an alternative to capitalism. 
Minor opposition party outlawed by South Korea's Constitutional Court for conspiring to adopt North Korean socialism. 
The Basic Law says that Hong Kong shall not adopt socialism, but a compassionate society doesn't necessarily entail a welfare state or socialism per se. 
Concerns were expressed about the usefulness of Westminster parliamentary democracy and whether it would not have been better for the country to adopt socialism, a masses-oriented system. 
Norman Mattoon Thomas, a Socialist Party for President in 1944, wrote: ""The American People will never knowingly adopt socialism. 
These countries and many other debased and disgusting examples extolled and held out to be how we should adopt socialism in Britain have endured the inevitable end result of revolutionary socialism wherever and whenever it has been tried. 
Most importantly, however, is her determination to embrace social movements, stand for left-wing issues, and adopt a strident socialist image and vocabulary. 
Left-wing populists often adopt socialism as a host-ideology while right-wing populists may espouse nationalism, authoritarianism or nativism. 
The leading faction of the political force in the War for Liberation had to adopt socialism as a state principle, which was a reflection of people's aspiration; and that was enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic. 
Norman M.  Thomas - six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America - once opined: ""The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. 
A former socialist leader, Norman Thomas, said in 1944 that the American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist country. 
There is an apocryphal saying credited to six-time Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas that goes, ""The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. 
Without using any real names, Rushdie tells us about Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the opportunistic man; the man who was quite affected by the west; and the man who would not hesitate to adopt socialism provided that this would allow him to access power. 
Initially, industrialisation was weakened by the government's decision to adopt socialist policies for economic development. 
UNCTAD not only advised countries to adopt socialist, government-planned economies, it also propounded 'dependency theory'. 
In an effort to completely eradicate Western influence, he made a strategic decision to adopt a socialist approach vis--vis the economy. 
Last year, Wenger told The Associated Press that he had tried to adopt a ""socialist model"" for Arsenal's wage bill. 
Zelaya was ditched amid fears he was plotting to adopt socialist policies in Honduras, a country where a conservative business class wields enormous power. 
","[2, 4, 2, 1, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 1, 1, 4]",15,"[20225558, 45190823, 13581319, 29155723, 20512953, 45181383, 45191873, 45272708, 45181152, 6432269, 45355658, 19838540, 45181253, 45181262, 6579519]"
2b209964-6651-40f1-b97b-cd2558f8f5d3,3212,We should adopt the teacher tenure reform,Summit,"Last week, state Department of Education officials introduced regulations that will govern the teacher tenure reform law Gov. 
Christie said he expects that a new teacher tenure reform bill, which has been discussed for a more than year, would be introduced soon. 
Newsom refused to discuss the Vergara case, saying it had been ""litigated,"" and he argued that teacher tenure reform is more likely to be achieved without an adversarial approach to powerful teachers unions. 
It's time for this change: A recent poll by the Minnesota Campaign for Achievement Now found that teacher-tenure reform has 90-plus-percent bipartisan support among Minnesotans. 
","[2, 1, 2, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 2, 1, 1, 5, 4, 1, 4]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 20225558, 45181383, 45190571, 45181384, 6432269, 45458968, 45190823, 43877630, 45405037, 45538225, 45401087, 29155723, 21785776]"
892b91d3-d7ee-4614-9761-f72917b95b07,2143,We should ban abortions,Summit,"The law did not ban abortion in the first trimester; in fact, it did not ban any abortions at all. 
The legislation to ban abortions based on genetic defects also would ban abortion based on gender selection. 
Iowa's abortion law bans all abortions after the fetal heartbeat can be detected, which effectively bans abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy. 
One would ban dismemberment abortion, and another would prohibit abortion on children with Down Syndrome. 
The protections of Roe v.  Wade also prevent Congress from banning abortion before viability by ensuring that any federal law banning abortion will not hold up in court. 
By then the state had already banned abortions past the 19th week of a pregnancy. 
This is a bill that would have banned abortions across the country after 20 weeks. 
States - Abortions - Weeks - Gestation - Missouri Twenty-one states ban abortions after more than 20 weeks gestation, and Missouri is considering a bill banning abortions after 20 weeks. 
Arkansas passed a law in March banning abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy; North Dakota then banned abortions after as few as six. 
A bill also was passed that will ban abortions for sex selection or genetic anomalies. 
The bill would have banned abortion in most cases after the 20th week of pregnancy. 
Lawmakers will vote on a bill to ban abortion if the baby has down syndrome. 
Nine states have laws banning abortion that would become effective if Roe V.  Wade is overturned, and four states have laws intended to ban abortion should the U. S.  Supreme Court overturn the legal right to abort. 
Scott has a spotless voting record - supporting legislation to ban dismemberment abortion, ban abortion after 20 weeks and defund Planned Parenthood. 
The recently passed law banning abortion after six weeks of pregnancy effectively bans most abortions, and forces women to travel to other states to receive care. 
The legislature passed a bill that bans abortion after a fetal heartbeat can be detected. 
If passed, the amendment would allow the state legislature greater power to restrict abortion practices and pass abortion laws but would not be able to ban abortion, which is a federally protected right. 
This bill to ban abortion after six weeks is not a path we should take. 
The bill also banned abortion in cases of ""disability,"" which meant outlawing abortion even in cases of serious fetal anomaly. 
On January 29 the parliament passed the Law on Public Health with amendments banning abortions. 
Mississippi senators have passed a bill that would ban abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. 
After imposing these restrictions that push abortion later in pregnancy, the state will now ban abortions after 15 weeks. 
States were prohibited from banning abortion early in pregnancy but were allowed to impose increasing restrictions or outright bans later in pregnancy. 
That would pave the way for conservative state legislatures to ban or restrict abortion if the Supreme Court acts. 
Some states have 20-week bans restricting abortion, but a ban after 15 weeks proposed by Mississippi and Louisiana would be a first. 
These three men are confident enough in the personhood of fetuses to support banning abortion. 
State laws banning abortions after 20 weeks gestation have been found unconstitutional in federal court. 
Banning abortions for these women means refusing them a procedure that could save their life. 
The second bill would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy except in medical emergencies. 
The great state of Arkansas just this year has passed six new laws banning and restricting abortion. 
The Ohio Senate last month approved a bill that would ban abortion at 20 weeks. 
The reason states are not allowed to ban abortion right now and the federal government is not allowed to ban abortion right now is because of a 1973 Supreme Court ruling called Roe versus Wade. 
The proposed regulations would ban abortion referrals ""as a method of family planning,"" with one limited exception. 
","[2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 1, 5, 2, 2, 2, 2]",15,"[21017840, 45191873, 45183231, 45272708, 45181152, 45282792, 45336991, 44044795, 7756990, 45483811, 44690955, 26649250, 45355658, 43984981, 45167145]"
a6679406-b80a-473b-9cdd-d7f1a355239c,2572,We should ban algorithmic trading,Summit,"After banning algorithmic (algo) trading in micro- and mini-contracts in commodities with effect from January 1, the commodities market regulator, the Forward Markets Commission (FMC), has issued guidelines for regulation of algorithmic trading in the commodity futures market. 
Regulation Automated Trading is a proposed US regulation that seeks to regulate algorithmic trading on exchanges. 
These regulations on algorithmic trading would similarly inform those who employ trading strategies that use algorithms and ensure that the trading activity that flows from those algorithms complies with their obligations under the Commodity Exchange Act. 
Sebi has implemented some of the world's strictest regulations on algorithmic trading, requiring approval for individual algorithms. 
Other issues include patterns used in the international practice to regulate algorithmic trading and, specifically, high-frequency trading. 
Overall it is found that algorithmic trading has improved liquidity and enhanced the informativeness of quotes. 
The statistical analysis of data has generally shown that algorithmic trading has benefited market quality. 
Sebi also said there was no plans to ban algo trading,but said that brokers should put in appropriate risk management systems for these types of trades. 
New rules have been introduced which prohibit disruptive algorithmic trading techniques which manipulate market prices (Cadwalder, 2015). 
The adopted RTS will supplement the requirements set out in the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive on algorithmic trading for both investments firms and trading venues. 
The commission is also planning to frame rules to regulate algo trading, which will fix the eligibility criteria for traders to obtain registration. 
The regulator has already banned algo trading in all micro and mini contracts as the benefits of algo trading in these contracts were pocketed by only large traders. 
For example, Hong Kong's Securities and Futures Commission is currently proposing new regulations for algorithmic trading systems. 
Securities market regulator SEBI will consult every possible stakeholder before taking a final call on the regulations regarding algorithmic trading (algo)/high frequency trading (HFT). 
Among the new measures are rules which attempt to reign in high frequency trading and impose tighter regulations on algorithmic traders. 
Four years on from the crash, new regulations covering algorithmic trading and HFT are beginning to be introduced across many jurisdictions. 
Algo-trading rules haunt market: Plans for initial public offerings by the National Stock Exchange (NSE) and BSE have come under a cloud amid a planned Sebi crackdown on algorithmic trading. 
The capital market regulator will also consider imposing restrictions on algorithmic trading and reduce the cost of investing in equity mutual fund schemes. 
Regulators from Australia, Hong Kong, Japan and India also shared their experience of regulating algorithmic and high-frequency trading, says Sebi. 
A Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) discussion paper on regulating algorithmic trading released last week has made market participants anxious. 
The SEC should not roll back the technology clock or prohibit algorithmic trading, but we are assessing the extent to which specific elements of the computer-driven trading environment may be working against investors rather than for them. 
Mumbai: The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) is planning to impose restrictions on algorithmic trading by introducing a congestion charge for a prescribed slab that will be levied on traders. 
The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association is pushing back against Commodity Futures Trading Commission efforts to regulate algorithmic trading, invoking recent statements by both President Donald Trump and CFTC Acting Chair J.  Christopher Giancarlo. 
The country was also working on regulations and trading systems to establish a nationwide emissions trading scheme, Li said. 
It can be assumed that algorithmic market participants were quite active during the relevant period. 
Olson noted that algorithmic traders continue to index oil and gas companies to crude oil prices. 
The move aims to enhance the supervision on securities and futures market, regulate programmed trading behavior, safeguard market order and guarantee the legitimate interests of investors. 
Gartner expects that algorithmic business will create even greater levels of disruption and new industries. 
","[2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 1, 3, 1, 2, 3, 2, 2, 4, 5, 2]",15,"[20512953, 45953041, 21017840, 6432269, 30777913, 45411178, 6340330, 45569485, 45567227, 45458968, 44094031, 45355658, 15448937, 44690955, 21785776]"
0c6e73c7-6735-465a-beef-9b6ce3def878,2616,We should ban alternative medicine,Summit,"The bill would amend the Law on Advertising and ban abortion and alternative medicine advertising, and introduce administrative liability for illegally practicing alternative medicine. 
The free zone regulates traditional and alternative medical practice, and is the only body regulating complementary and alternative medicine in the region. 
Instead, they have called for establishment of a Central Alternative Medical Board to regulate alternative medicine in the country, saying such move was the only way to move the practice of complementary and alternative medicine forward in the country. 
The order, among other things is for the Federal Ministry of Health to establish a Central Alternative Medical Board to regulate Alternative Medicine; adding that in fairness, Homoeopathy, that is, Complementary and Alternative Medical Practitioners should not be in the same Council with the orthodox Medical practitioners. 
Professor Alan Bensoussan, director of the centre for complementary medicine research at University of Western Sydney, said that any attempt to ban alternative medicines or any move to silence voices in the field is akin to censoring learning. 
The debate comes after 124 healthcare practitioners signed an open letter to newspaper the Figaro Vox , calling for a ban on ""alternative medicines"" within the medical profession. 
Manama : The National Health Regulatory Authority (NHRA) is keen on regulating complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practice -- Ayurveda, traditional Chinese medicine, Unani medicine, naturopathy, homeopathy, and herbal therapy -- in the Kingdom. 
National standards to regulate complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in Bahrain have been drawn by the National Health Regulatory Authority (NHRA). 
Another option is a ban on complementary medicines being displayed 'behind the counter' in a community pharmacy. 
It is evident that Turkey now has well-coordinated, comprehensive regulations in alternative medicine that are the first of their kind in the world. 
Let us monitor and regulate our alternative medicine practitioners better so that we can take off the market unsafe products. 
Bahrain is to set up tough new guidelines to regulate the alternative medicine industry, amid fears about the credibility of some businesses. 
The Delhi government is planning to challenge a decision by the Delhi High Court barring alternative medicine practitioners from practising allopathy or prescribing allopathic medicines. 
Charles previously said that a European directive on alternative medicine was having ""a deleterious effect on the complementary medicine sector in this country"" in a letter to former Prime Minister Tony Blair. 
The apex drug regulator in the country has decided to regulate herbal and alternative medicine along with medical devices through a uniform drug policy. 
The Food and Drug Administration released a new draft of guidelines for the agency's approach to enforcing regulations for some alternative medicine products on Monday. 
The WHO, being attentive to the potential advantages of A&CM, has formulated policies that regulate alternative medicines and integrate them with mainstream healthcare worldwide. 
In this case, a former client is claiming Sajady's supernatural healings are tantamount to practicing medicine, and he should follow state regulations for alternative health care. 
A scientific organisation intended to influence EU policy has called for tougher regulations of alternative medicine, branding homeopathy ""nonsense"" and warning the ""promotion and use of homeopathic products risks significant harms"". 
Medicines Control Authority of Zimbabwe should take a lead in regulating complementary medicines, Health and Child Care Minister Dr David Parirenyatwa has said. 
The China Food and Drug Administration regularly reviews and amends regulations pertaining to complementary medicines. 
This could lead to a situation in which the definition of & complementary medicine& upon which the legality of the balance of the regulations pertaining to complementary medicines rests - may be too vague to enforce in the existing law. 
For its part, the college describes regulating alternative health practices as a ""complex issue"" and says its regulations are constantly under review. 
The Government is keen to regulate complementary therapies and is encouraging rigorous scientific work to establish their merit. 
My point is, I do believe we ought to repeal the whole health care bill. 
","[1, 2, 4, 2, 1, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 2, 2, 2, 3]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 45458968, 20225558, 45405037, 45538225, 45181383, 45190571, 45181384, 45401087, 44044795, 45190823, 29155723, 21785776, 45567220]"
0eb7f470-9aa3-4074-91b4-e85d8986b8b6,2483,We should ban anonymous posts,Summit,"The government should tell social media companies to ban anonymous posts or face a complete ban. 
For these and other reasons, a large portion of major news sites have banned anonymous posts, or have dropped comments altogether. 
David Smith wants the controversial website to ban all anonymous posts to stop online bullies hiding their true identities. 
The decision, which is not understood to extend to the private sector, is a challenge to new commonwealth rules on social media that ban anonymous posts criticising the government. 
The Huffington Post (left-leaning news), the National Journal (right-leaning news), USA Today, Popular Science, ESPN and the Sporting News have all either banned anonymous posts or eliminated commenting altogether. 
Restaurants that have removed anonymous posts, or have banned cameras from the dining room "" a fruitless endeavor considering most everything has a camera these days "" should instead embrace this new reality. 
Prohibiting anonymous posts Some companies require that individuals posting about their employer must identify themselves as employees. 
Consistent with the concerns of the ""no anonymity"" movement, we found strong evidence that anonymous posts shape the attitudes of news audiences. 
Yik Yak is an app that lets people anonymously post to a ""page"" that would appear in a geographic region. 
Halinski added that anonymous posts on the Internet have contributed to problems with TSA's reputation. 
Most of the comments came on Yik Yak, a popular college mobile phone application that allows anonymous posts. 
An unidentified person -- or group -- uploaded the list to Pastebin. com, a website that allows for anonymous posts. 
Websites that allow for anonymous posts, or messages that can disappear after they are sent, are also prime vehicles for dissemination, she said. 
Rubin thus launched unfair attacks on his rivals, including the one on Rick Perry that prompted my anonymous post. 
Littau has had great experiences with Secret - an app that shares your anonymous posts with the people in your phonebook using the app. 
California-based Whisper is a mobile app that lets users anonymously post messages as text superimposed over an image. 
According to OSU Police, Abo-Basha reported threats made on the app Yik Yak, telling police that the anonymous post was a video of a lynching. 
Falwell also complained about media outlets that had quoted anonymous posts on the social-media sites, such as Yik Yak, to capture the feelings of the student body. 
The content might indicate that the anonymous posts have been made by an APS employee and the posts erode confidence that the public service is serving the elected government faithfully and is committed to delivering government services. 
On Friday, China's highest internet regulator issued new rules forbidding anonymous posts in online communities and discussion forums, requiring users to register with their real names. 
This all changes when his best friend Leah (Katherine Langford) informs him that someone wrote an anonymous post on the high school chat site saying they were gay. 
Other apps or websites popular among teens are Pheed, where teens can live-stream what they're doing at any given moment, and 4Chan, an online community that allows anonymous posts, opening the door to bullying. 
On Feb.  21, deputies responded to a bomb threat made against the school on Ogle, a social media smartphone app that lets users anonymously post text and photos about the school they select. 
A man has been charged with operating a so-called 'revenge porn' website that let people anonymously post explicit photographs of others so that he could extort hundreds of dollars from the victims. 
According to police, the girl said that during fall break in October 2016, she started seeking out men on a website called Whisper, described as a ""secret sharing"" application that allows anonymous posts. 
Kamala Harris 'Revenge porn' site founder charged A San Diego man has been charged with operating a website that let people anonymously post explicit photographs of others so he could extort hundreds of dollars from them. 
","[5, 4, 3, 2, 4, 5, 2, 2, 4, 3, 3, 4, 4, 1, 5]",15,"[6432269, 45567227, 45567220, 13581319, 45538225, 45953041, 20225558, 45411178, 45458968, 15448937, 45190823, 45185975, 45191882, 29155723, 30777913]"
b4b38af1-6351-4609-9de9-9a7e07941255,1161,We should ban cosmetic surgery,Summit,"The British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons called for a full ban on plastic surgery ads. 
Last year, Seoul Metro banned plastic surgery advertisements because excessive ad on plastic surgery could negatively affect teenagers. 
Youth parliamentarians will also debate whether the government should ban elective plastic surgery in Canada. 
Seoul needs to ponder why some advanced countries, including France, ban such plastic surgery ads. 
A Change. org petition to ban plastic surgery games for kids has amassed over 100,000 signatures. 
The Advertising Standards Authority has a history of banning plastic-surgery adverts that prey on women's insecurities. 
Germany's coalition government will ban plastic surgery on children and minors unless it is justified on medical grounds. 
It has been revealed that the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons (Bapras) has raised objection on the proposal of complete ban on cosmetic surgery advertising. 
The British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons (Bapras), representing plastic surgeons on behalf of the Royal Colleges, does not support the call for a wholesale ban on cosmetic surgery advertising (Government urged to ban cosmetic surgery adverts, 15 March; Letters, 15 March). 
In light of underage plastic surgery becoming a social issue, Saenuri lawmaker Lee Jae-young in January proposed a bill that would ban plastic surgery for those under the age of 19. 
The backlash is far from over, however, as more conservative MPs try to ban ""revealing"" women's swimwear and ""regulate"" plastic surgery by banning any form of sex reassignment surgery and gender correction. 
Seoul Metro announced plans on Monday to ban all plastic surgery advertisements from the city's metro system by 2020. 
Rio de Janeiro: Lawmakers in Rio de Janeiro, where plastic surgery is all the rage, had approved draft legislation banning cosmetic surgery for dogs and cats, Brazilian media said. 
There are no nationally uniform laws to prevent under-18s from going under the knife for aesthetic purposes, although Queensland does ban plastic surgery for minors. 
As per recent reports, the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (BAAPS) has called for a ban on cosmetic surgery advertising and has also advised to have regular investigations on cosmetic surgery clinics and on doctors who conduct them. 
With that can come prejudice and in the extreme, a desire to ban cosmetic surgery. 
It began last November when the Seoul Metro, which runs the capital's public bus and subway system, announced it would ban advertisements for plastic surgery at its stations. 
It is the job of Dubai Health Authority to regulate the plastic surgery market, she said. 
China, since a ban on cosmetic surgery was lifted in 2001, is now experiencing a boom in the cosmetic surgery industry. 
The group has already called for an outright ban on cosmetic surgery advertising in all its forms. 
The 'Measures to Regulate Cosmetic and Plastic Surgery Market Targeting Medical Tourists,' announced on 12 February, aim to ensure Korean cosmetic and plastic surgery industry remain trustworthy. 
The doctors who fight efforts to restrict plastic surgery to those board-certified in the area have told state legislators that the plastic surgeons are only trying to quash competition, says plastic surgeon Miller. 
Topics up for debate included censorship of the internet, legalising the sale of human organs, banning advertising to children, the death penalty and banning cosmetic surgery. 
A number of leading surgeons have also backed this newspaper's Ban The Cosmetic Surgery Cowboys campaign, which aims to outlaw the promotions. 
South Korean Health Ministry has announced a crackdown on illegal plastic surgery clinics in the country, amid increasing complaints by medical tourists, who flock to Korea of cosmetic surgeries. 
According to an article published June 8 on Yahoo News, Australian based surgeons are calling to regulate plastic surgery procedures for improved patient safety. 
Following Huang's death, New South Wales (NSW), Queensland and Victoria introduced laws restricting where cosmetic surgery can be performed, a move supported by the Australian Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS). 
","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 5, 5, 1, 4, 4, 2, 3]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 45190571, 45181383, 45401087, 15448937, 45181384, 6340330, 45183231, 45181152, 7756990, 45336991, 45191873, 19838540, 34609243]"
13c5f87a-632b-4ce0-a2f3-f8414d35be2a,2225,We should ban factory farming,Summit,"A ban of animal factory farming or even a ban on using animals for food and clothing altogether may no longer be so unimaginable. 
The first related to the banning of factory farming of large animals, in particular pigs and cows. 
The same number also supported banning factory farming of animals, and 68% said they ""had discomfort"" with the way animals are used in the food industry. 
Completely banning factory farming could save thousands of animals and give them a better life. 
The crew started in Canberra on the lawns of Parliament House with their animal embassy tent and a banner 'Ban Factory Farms'. 
It wants to improve animal welfare by banning imports of factory-farmed products and ensure food imports meet higher Swiss standards. 
Peter Singer's expertise in bioethics (Comment, 5 August) is matched by his ignorance of organic farming, which bans intensive factory farms and does not permit the use of soya from cleared forest. 
The auction has been organised by Direct Animal Action, an Auckland-based group who want legislative bans on factory farming and rodeo in New Zeal and. 
Perhaps students could begin with a boycott of all factory farmed animal products sold on campus. 
Animal welfare groups did such a good job at spotlighting the animal abuse on industrial egg farms that many urban dwellers were inspired to raise backyard hens to boycott factory-farming cruelty. 
A small community of farmers asked for an ordinance to ban factory farm hog lots locally. 
In the political realm, it can include standing up to powerful corporations and passing state laws to ban the worst factory-farming practices - such as extreme confinement of egg-laying hens and breeding sows - and electing leaders who take action against animal cruelty. 
State and federal laws heavily regulate animal feeding operations and these farms are at an extremely high level of oversight. 
California's ban on the production and sale of foie gras is similar to other bans on cruel factory farming practices such as confining pigs to gestation crates or hens to battery cages [""How 'no' gets translated,"" Food, Aug.  22]. 
The ban on factory farms by the ACT Government last month was a victory for more than just chooks and pigs: common sense - the environment and the health system were also winners. 
Requiring proper manure management: Kaptur has supported a ban on spreading manure on frozen ground, additional review of livestock numbers on the watershed, and manure regulations for large Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). 
Many critical laws protecting animals, including those regulating factory farms, battery cages, puppy mills, and preventing the sale of dog meat, are in danger. 
Des Moines, IA - a group of farmers, advocates and community leaders gathered in Iowa today to announce the launch of a national campaign to ban factory farming. 
Jamie Oliver made a television programme a few years ago in which he exposed the ""horrors"" of factory farms and urged shoppers to boycott intensively reared chicken. 
Bartholomew County is closing in on an agreement on how it will regulate confined animal feeding operations. 
For the love of Mother Earth, it is imperative that we boycott the factory farm industry. 
This is a resolution to change the state constitution about regulations regarding confined-animal feeding operations. 
Long: The county needs to have regulations on confined animal feeding operations to prevent the contamination of the surface and groundwater, air quality and to prevent the general public from coming in contact with the animal waste. 
The environmental groups accused IEPA of failing to adequately regulate CAFOs, factory farms or feedlots. 
As a bonus, the bill also makes it more difficult to regulate confined animal feeding operations and hazardous waste facilities. 
As for water pollution, the U. S.  pork industry is a zero-discharge industry, meeting the EPA's Clean Water Act regulations for animal feeding operations. 
State environmental authorities must step up their permitting and enforcement of water and air pollution regulations on factory farms. 
","[3, 4, 4, 2, 2, 4, 4, 3, 1, 4, 4, 1, 2, 4, 4]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 45185975, 45191882, 45191885, 45185946, 45411178, 13581319, 45190823, 31948170, 20512953, 29155723, 21785776, 6340330, 38202325]"
1d648e06-4e9b-43a4-b580-f0b45fdef0d9,2539,We should ban genetically modified crops,Summit,"Much of the world has banned or is in the process of banning genetically modified crops. 
A bill to ban genetically modified crops on the island of Hawaii passed in December. 
The Tasmanian Government has indicated it is unlikely to lift a ban on genetically-modified crops. 
Measure P is a countywide ban on planting genetically engineered crops, using genetically modified organisms (GMOs). 
The EU tends to ban genetically modified crops so if the Government wished, that could be an option. 
Nineteen European countries that care about the health of their people have completely banned genetically modified crops. 
Beyond Scotland, these bans on genetically modified crops can negatively affect research in other sectors of the GMO market. 
The European court has said member states do not have the right to ban genetically modified crops without substantial evidence. 
Environment and agriculture ministers are set to continue their consideration of permitting national bans on cultivating genetically-modified crops. 
The bill also would allow a ban of genetically modified crops that was approved by Josephine County voters in 2014 to go into effect. 
The Scottish Government's decision to ban cultivation of genetically modified crops north of the Border has split the science community. 
Huang Dafang, deputy director of the State Agricultural GM Crop Bio-Safety Committee, says that as a supporter of research on genetically modified crops, the ministry might oppose the ban on GM crops. 
Senate Bill 633 would ban counties from individually passing laws to limit or outlaw genetically modified crops, allowing only the state to regulate GMO crops. 
In Jackson County, GMO foes have backed ballot Measure 15-119 to ban genetically modified crops locally. 
It would also ban genetically modified plants or animals from being released into the environment. 
Scotland will be left behind in global agriculture development because of its ban on genetically modified crop trials, a leading scientist has claimed. 
The Czech state will possibly have a chance to ban growing of genetically modified crops, allowed in the EU, as the government approved a change to the legislation today. 
That was considered the impetus for a measure in one Oregon county last month (Jackson) voting to ban growing genetically modified crops. 
France remains one of the staunchest opponents of genetically modified (GM) food, ever since environmental protesters pressured the government into banning GM crops in the 2000s. 
Zambia's government has banned genetically modified crops and is offering incentives to move from low grade crops like maize to high grade products like cotton. 
Talbert says the just-passed ban on genetically modified crops makes Jackson County unique in the state, and it should capitalize on that by promoting organic, GMO-free crops and food products. 
The European Union Parliament voted to give EU member states the power to restrict or ban genetically modified crops on environmental or health grounds. 
Citing environmental and health concerns, a panel of Los Angeles lawmakers Monday advanced a citywide ban on growing genetically modified crops. 
A moratorium blanket ban on genetically modified crops in the state has nothing to do with the science, or the impacts on human health, according to the Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture (TIA). 
Limiting the chance of the use of genetically modified (GM) crops in European Union countries, EU politicians have supported a plan to allow nations to ban GM crops on their soils even if they are given permission to be grown there. 
It came to a juddering halt in 1998, when the EU slapped a moratorium on genetically modified crops. 
Our Family Farms Coalition, the group that helped pass an initiative to ban genetically modified crops and seeds in Jackson County, is registered as a supporter as well. 
European nations, especially France, have strict regulations on which genetically modified crops can be grown and imported. 
More than $1 million has been raised on both sides of a proposal to ban genetically modified crops and seeds from being grown in Southern Oregon's Jackson County. 
","[2, 2, 4, 4, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 5, 1]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 31948170, 45361788, 45206691, 45181384, 45401087, 45190571, 45181383, 45567220, 45567227, 20225558, 45411178, 29155723]"
9f8f7243-a9e5-4062-9e9f-9c6b8b8ae15d,2615,We should ban homeopathy,Summit,"The NHS has announced that it is banning homeopathy and herbal medicine in a new publication. 
Officials have banned homeopathy and herbal medicine as they say it is 'misuse of scare funds'. 
The RCVS stressed that it has not banned veterinary homeopathy and neither does its position statement suggest that it has. 
The NHS has announced a ban on homeopathy and herbal medicine, saying they are a ""misuse of scarce funds"". 
The NHS is set to ban homeopathy on prescription as bosses branded it a ""misuse"" of scarce funds. 
Homeopathy medicine sellers in Patna downed shutters on Friday to protest the government's decision to ban homeopathy medicines in certain quantities. 
Doctors may be banned from prescribing homeopathy, ministers have said, as many experts deny it works. 
NHS to ban homeopathy and herbal medicine as misuse of resources was published by The Telegraph and discovered approx. 
Millions of patients are set to be banned from getting homeopathy, herbal treatment, vitamins and omega-3 oils on the NHS. 
Forty-six percent of respondents who had an idea of what homeopathy is said they supported the recommendation by the Russian Academy of Sciences' commission to ban homeopathy at state clinics and remove homeopathic ""medicines"" from pharmacy shelves. 
Among the treatments that could banned are homeopathy, herbal treatment, vitamins, co-proxamol and omega-3 oils, reports The Mirror . 
Vets are calling for a ban on homeopathy for pets after claiming animals cannot benefit from the placebo effect because they are unaware they are being treated. 
The US Food and Drug Administration fell short of banning homeopathy in 2016 - manufacturers are forced to carry warnings on the packaging stating there is no scientific evidence that they work. 
Although the college does not regulate homeopathy, they provided their position on unregulated homeopathy practitioners. 
Ontario was the first province in Canada to regulate homeopathy in 2015 after the province's Homeopathy Act came into force. 
A petition urging vets to ban prescribing homeopathic treatments for animals has gathered more than 2,500 signatures. 
The FDA, however, bans the HCG homeopathic remedy for weight loss, but does not say anything about other remedies for weight loss. 
Pharmacies that dispense PBS medicines should be banned from selling homeopathic products, according to the interim King review. 
There have been growing calls to ban homeopathic products outright, and to strip practitioners of complementary medicine of their credentials as health providers. 
By definition, homeopathy cannot have any effect on diseases, and therefore is anything but medicine, even though the directive describes homeopathic products as such. 
In July last year NHS Engl and announced it would be banning homeopathic and herbal remedies, describing them as 'at best a placebo'. 
The new study follows the NHS ' proposed decision to ban dishing out homeopathic remedies as part of a major cost-cutting drive. 
Earlier this year, the NHS banned homoeopathy, calling it a ""misuse of scarce funds"", but humans are still allowed to go to homoeopaths to have themselves, or their children, treated with homoeopathy. 
To read more about the crackdown on homeopathic remedies and what homeopathic supporters have to say, click here. 
Amy Rothenberg, with the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, said the current regulations on homeopathic medicines are adequate, but enforcement should be clarified, such as barring products containing both homeopathic and nonhomeopathic active ingredients from being marketed as homeopathic. 
Dr Shah said that the government had prohibited Homeopathic doctors to handle Allopathic medicines and also the medical distributors who distribute Homeopathic medicines not not to distribute Allopathic. 
The FDA has issued a new proposal for regulating homeopathic medicines that have long been on the fringe of mainstream medicine. 
Another federal agency that has a hand in regulating homeopathic treatments is the Federal Trade Commission. 
In response, the FDA on Monday revealed a new risk-based approach to regulate homeopathic treatments. 
ANTHONY MASON: Plus doctors Jon LaPook and Holly Phillips on regulating homeopathic or so-called natural remedies just like over-the-counter drugs. 
","[3, 3, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 3, 2]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 31948170, 45336993, 45206691, 45336988, 45185946, 29155723, 45361788, 45185975, 45191882, 45190823, 45189900, 45411178, 20512953]"
dc44bf33-5c9b-4049-9b63-b58d57619f06,2125,We should ban organic food,Summit,"A committee that sets the rules for the organic industry recently voted to ban carrageenan from organic food. 
Controversial artificial food colours and preservatives are banned: All organic food is fully traceable from farm to fork. 
Kevin Flynn asked if the intention was to eventually ban organic food waste from landfills or make it unaffordable do do so. 
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), the agency responsible for implementing all regulations regarding organic foods, defines organic food as, ""an agricultural product that has been certified as organic. 
The lawsuit claims 26 of the ingredients in the organic formulas are prohibited in organic foods. 
Organic purists such as the Cornucopia Institute campaigned to ban it from organic food, citing scientific studies that observed intestinal problems among laboratory animals that ate the substance. 
The organic food and organic beverages market is growing at a significant rate, due to government regulations supporting the organic food and beverages, changing consumer perception towards organic food, and widening distribution channels. 
Organizations regulating organic food products may restrict the use of certain pesticides, chemicals and fertilizers in organic farming. 
While it seems simple enough to either be organic or not, developing and enforcing regulations for organic foods can be problematic. 
In the context of these regulations, organic food is produced in a way that complies with organic standards set by regional organizations, national governments and international organizations. 
Increasing organic farming in the world, implementation of government regulations with increasing organic foods supply in conventional food stores are driving market. 
Goods and Services: Reviewing standards and practices to assure compliance with laws and regulations relating to organic agricultural production, organic food production and organic food processing and handling. 
Last year, EU proposed new regulations on organic food production to enhance rules of organic farming. 
Massachusetts recently banned organic food waste from landfills and a growing number of states and cities are also doing so - Connecticut, Vermont, Seattle, San Francisco, and Portland - who have all put similar bans in place within the past three years. 
The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has released new regulations covering organic foods in the country. 
Remember the best way to avoid glyphosate is by choosing certified organic foods because it is prohibited on organic crops. 
The countdown for effective date banning non organic greens and cereals from other States has started. 
In conventional diets these would be supplied by synthetic amino acids, but these are banned in organic diets. 
The apex food regulator is mandated to regulate organic foods in the country under the provisions of Section 22 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. 
The Food and Drug Administration and the U. S.  Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulate organic foods and have strict guidelines on what qualifies as such. 
Understanding the laws and regulations governing organic labeling and organic imports can help food and agribusiness companies protect themselves from unknowingly purchasing or selling fraudulently certified foods. 
The bill would also prohibit organic natural foods from being marketed as safer or better than GMO counterparts. 
One of the main issues is that housing OPR in food safety regulation would restrict organic commodities permissible for certification to food, livestock feed, aquaculture and seed. 
Nothing prohibits organic and non-GMO food companies from advertising said facts so that consumers can be fully informed. 
The ordinance proposed by Portland's task force also calls for education, but it would ban both organic and synthetic pesticides. 
While local food devotees and farm-to-table restaurants have become widespread, Scowcroft recounts the history of the movement from his roots in California, the only state in the 1980s to regulate organic food. 
The USDA's National Organic Program (NOP), the US authority for properly certified organic food production, in September closed the complaint against Aurora Organic Dairy's (AOD) High Plains Dairy, finding the company in full compliance with the access to pasture and grazing regulations required in organic dairy production. 
","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 4, 4, 3, 4]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 31948170, 45538225, 45181383, 45336988, 45361788, 45189900, 45567227, 45567220, 45206691, 45336993, 20225558, 45405037]"
43e0d8ee-2b61-4fd2-9a9e-d2a14b0d37ff,2480,We should ban racial profiling,Summit,"In other words, the new Guidance provides a ban on racial profiling in federal law enforcement only, not a federal ban on racial profiling in law enforcement. 
The second bill is being sold as a law banning racial profiling but racial profiling is already against the law. 
Ms Hopkins is concerned about how the ban on racial profiling will be put into practice. 
That includes a ban on racial profiling and a requirement that police explain the reason for the stop. 
The former secretary of state also will propose a legal ban on racial profiling by police. 
The proposal stems from a 2015 law that banned racial profiling by police in Oregon. 
According to the NAACP, Iowa is one of 20 states that does not have a law banning racial profiling. 
The department also is banning racial profiling from national security cases for the first time. 
Jackson adopted an ordinance in 2010 that was meant to ban racial profiling by police officers. 
As part of a criminal justice platform, Singh has called for a federal ban on racial profiling. 
Oregon is already one of more than 40 states that have passed a law banning racial profiling in law enforcement. 
President George W.  Bush banned racial profiling in federal law enforcement in 2003, but he applied the ban only to racial and ethnic profiling and carved out exemptions for terrorism and national security. 
At the heart of the accusation is a city ordinance that bans racial profiling by police in the majority-black city. 
Nebraska has required law enforcement agencies to collect and report profiling data to the commission since 2001, when the state banned racial profiling. 
The law bans racial profiling, requires police departments to adopt a written anti-profiling policy and requires them to submit racial data on each traffic stop, so the stops can be analyzed for possible patterns of racial profiling. 
Supporters of the Police Modernization Law, however, have said a city ban on racial profiling is necessary. 
It would require all law enforcement agencies to adopt a written policy by January 2016 banning racial profiling. 
Armed police do gruff identity checks of young people of color, despite a ban on racial profiling. 
Several of the provisions give more rights to immigrants in detention and there is a ban on racial profiling written into the bill. 
These advocates asked candidates if they were elected president, would they sign an executive order banning racial profiling. 
This includes his proposed federal ban on racial profiling - ostensibly aimed at the RCMP to prevent racial discrimination by police - and his call to decriminalize all drugs. 
As the NAACP found, some states and localities ban the use of pretextual traffic stops, others explicitly prohibit racial profiling, and still others require mandatory data collection -but few contain all of the elements of an effective racial profiling ban, and many states lack profiling laws altogether. 
Police need to ban racial profiling, provide implicit bias trainings, and train officers on how to practice procedural justice. 
It encouraged the Government of France to swiftly pass legislation that explicitly banned racial profiling during identify checks. 
The NAACP says it will step up efforts to push through a law that would ban racial profiling by Iowa law enforcement officers. 
The bill would have been a ban on racial profiling, allowing for the collection of data during traffic stops and for law enforcement to develop policies to stop the discriminatory practice. 
Even without the legislation, police have been documenting the race of people they stop since 2000, when the General Assembly banned racial profiling. 
The End Racial Profiling Act would ban racial profiling, mandate that federal law-enforcement agencies receive training on the practice and require the U. S.  Justice Department to collect data on all routine and spontaneous investigations. 
Tennessee police agencies would be required to implement written policies banning racial profiling under a bill approved Monday by the state Senate. 
","[3, 3, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 2, 5, 3, 5]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 31948170, 45411178, 45336993, 45206691, 45189900, 45361788, 45355658, 45185975, 45185946, 29155723, 44044795, 6340330, 38202325]"
bb94d207-5bd0-4231-bbc9-bc7368a0e4f5,1661,We should ban school uniforms,Summit,"So I say end this nonsense by banning school uniform, or at least ban the compulsory nature of it. 
The Bill being proposed by the ""government"" is that there should be a ban on school uniforms. 
As students debated the bill to ban school uniforms, the passion and conviction of speakers was evident. 
The NCAA policy also bans school uniforms with the nickname and logo in post-season play. 
Topics for discussion included the banning of school uniform and the introduction of mandatory participation in weekend sports. 
The code forbids the use of mobile phones and laptops inside school compounds and bans students in school uniform from riding motorbikes anywhere. 
These include a ban on mobile phones within school grounds, as well as a crackdown on correct school uniform being worn and on punctuality. 
QUEENSLAND McDonald's franchise has apparently banned children in school uniform during school hours at the request of teachers. 
Under the revised version of Senate Bill 54, school authorities would only be banned from handing down out-of-school suspensions for most school uniform violations. 
That is why it is so important that a school uniform is both smart and comfortable. 
There is a general consensus that school uniforms play an important role in the schooling system. 
Recent studies have shown that school uniforms help the students' school experiences in may ways. 
It was also reported earlier that the school took such action as it wanted all students to adhere to the school's own regulations pertaining to school uniform as it was a Buddhist school. 
Some people say that school uniforms keep students focused on their education, not their clothes. 
These child club members also helped increase the enrollment of Muslim girls who had not been attending school due to the schools' restriction on school uniforms. 
A recent news article considered complaints that school uniforms in public schools were somehow racially discriminatory. 
BYH to all the people complaining that the school uniform policy does not save them money. 
In what he claims is an attempt to protect girls, BJP legislator from Alwar, Rajasthan, Banwari Lal Singhal has written to state Chief Secretary C K Mathew Saturday asking him to ban skirts as a school uniform. 
A McDonald's franchise on Queensland's Gold Coast has banned children in school uniforms from the store between 9 am and 3 pm in a bid to cut local truancy rates. 
This was then followed by a briefing given by the Student Affairs Department about school regulations pertaining to school uniform ethics and CCA attire. 
For example, we have called on the Department of Education to issue a directive on school uniform policy for all schools to standardise the approach and make it fairer for parents. 
The MEC has proposed that school uniforms bear the South African flag by next year. 
District officials have said they believe that school uniforms could help to improve student discipline. 
Students at Casuarina Senior College are concerned about disruption to their learning following a sudden crackdown on school uniforms. 
Ely College has launched a fresh crackdown on school uniform - with school leaders reportedly checking every girl in the college to make sure standards are enforced. 
The move comes as Haughton Academy initiated a crackdown on its school uniform policy in recent days, with pupils asked to ensure they come to school wearing correct footwear, ties and blazers. 
Ngwema said the commission also did a survey that showed a large number of schools were not familiar with a circular issued by the Department of Basic Education regulating how school uniforms should be purchased. 
His comments came after several demonstrations against legislation regulating school uniforms which effectively prohibits the wearing of the Islamic headscarf in schools in the mainly Muslim but officially secular republic. 
More than 50 children this week were sent home from Djanogly City Academy in Nottingham after a crackdown on school uniform revealed they were not wearing appropriate footwear. 
","[5, 1, 1, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 4, 5, 3]",15,"[28813722, 45405037, 6432269, 29155723, 34609243, 45411178, 44044795, 20512953, 45181253, 45181256, 45181262, 45181243, 45191882, 15448937, 19838540]"
76fabe43-4914-4b3b-8e23-d7d66c3a3932,2747,We should ban telemarketing,Summit,"A clear cut ban on telemarketing would hurt telemarketing companies and financial marketing companies built around these cold calls. 
The Call For Action On the TPS (CFAOTTPS) is an organisation formed to prevent a ban on telemarketing. 
House Bill 247 would ban telemarketers from sending text messages to people on the Do Not Call list. 
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act runs the National Do Not Call Registry, which bans telemarketers from calling phone numbers on the registry. 
It is justice that Keown and Subscriber Services were ordered to pay for their fraud and are permanently banned from magazine telemarketing. 
The bill bans telemarketers from communicating inaccurate, misleading or false caller identification information to consumers. 
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is proposing to ban telemarketers from cashing the ""remotely created"" checks. 
The measure is modeled after the 2002 law that bans telemarketers from calling consumers who sign up for the Do Not Call Registry. 
Under the stipulated final orders, they are banned from telemarketing nondurable office or cleaning supplies. 
The legislation lets the state ban telemarketing companies that violate the state's telemarketing laws, prohibits prerecorded messages unless a recipients has consented to the call and requires telemarketers to provide the call recipient with option to have their number added to the telemarketer's do-not-call list. 
The scam violated a 2001 order that banned D'Antonio from telemarketing and misleading consumers about goods or services. 
The law bans telemarketing calls to phone numbers on the list, with the exception of political calls and calls from businesses with which the recipient already has a relationship. 
Under the settlement, the Dalbeys are banned from telemarketing, from marketing or selling business opportunities and from producing or distributing infomercials. 
When the Do Not Call list went into effect nearly a decade ago, it banned all telemarketing calls except for those involving charities and politics. 
Peters pointed to the National Do Not Call Registry as an example,implemented in 2004, which bans telemarketers from calling people onthe registry. 
The Federal Trade Commission banned telemarketers from ""robocalling"" cell phones in 2009 and subjected them to high fines if they did so. 
Online insurers have been exempted from the ban on telemarketing as their products were developed for sales exclusively over the phone, the FSS said. 
Administered by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, this program bans unsolicited telemarketing calls to residential, mobile and paging telephone numbers. 
The newly amended rule also bans telemarketers from asking you for your bank account information in order to use a remotely created check. 
Mississippi regulators have ordered an Arizona company named Action Point to pay $30,000 for violating the state's ban on unwanted telemarketing. 
The head of an operation that allowed telemarketers to make robocalls offering credit card services, hide Caller ID information and call numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry is permanently banned from telemarketing and robocalling under a settlement with the federal government. 
A carpet cleaning company has been banned from making telemarketing calls for six years in Arizona and will pay $1 million in civil penalties after repeatedly calling consumers on the ""Do Not Call"" registry. 
Phoenix (AP) - Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich has banned two telemarketing businesses from operating in the state for six years. 
In a document prepared for the Legislative Council's panel on information technology and broadcasting, the bureau wants to ban telemarketers from phoning people without their prior consent. 
The Federal Trade Commission said Fereidoun ""Fred"" Khalilian agreed to be permanently banned from telemarketing to settle charges that he tricked consumers into buying extended auto service plans. 
Koster's office said it ""aggressively"" pursued those complaints, filing 20 lawsuits, successfully banning 28 telemarketers from making calls into Missouri and collecting more than $270,000 in fines. 
The settlement order bans the defendants from making robocalls ([REF]), prohibits other telemarketing activities, and bars them from making misrepresentations related to the sale of any product or service. 
","[4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3]",15,"[45191882, 45185975, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 45190823, 13581319, 21785776, 34110399, 45411178, 29155723, 6340330, 19838540, 20512953, 34609243]"
d62f803f-a5a0-414a-b7cb-b9cff119941c,2227,We should ban whaling,Summit,"The International Whaling Commission has banned commercial whaling, but this is not recognised by Icel and. 
The International Whaling Commission banned commercial whaling in 1986, but allows Japan to kill whales for scientific research. 
Only in 1982 did the IWC enact a ban on the commercial whaling of all whale species. 
The hunt is allowed under a loophole in the International Whaling Commission's ban on commercial whaling. 
Japan introduced what it calls ""scientific"" whaling to circumvent a 1986 ban on commercial whaling. 
The International Whaling Commission imposed a commercial ban on whaling in 1986, but Norway objected. 
The International Whaling Commission banned commercial whaling in 1986, but does not consider dolphins and other porpoises as protected. 
The International Whaling Commission banned commercial whale hunting in 1986; albeit with some exceptions, such as scientific research. 
Hunting whales is illegal in most parts of the world, due to an international moratorium (ban) on whaling for profit (commercial whaling). 
Region - Fleurieu whale professionals are delighted Japan has been banned for whaling practices in the Antarctic. 
That company hunted 134 endangered fin whales in 2013 in defiance of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) ban on commercial whaling. 
If the ban on commercial whaling were to be lifted, it would be up to the commission to set catch limits. 
The International Whaling Commission officially banned whaling in 1966, and the Endangered Species Act protected humpback whales in 1973. 
Norway's whalers mainly trade whale blubber and whale meat with Japan under an exemption to the international ban on commercial whaling. 
Whaling ""for purposes of scientific research"" is exempt from the 1986 international ban on commercial whaling, and Japan has been conducting ""research"" whaling for years in hopes of proving that whale populations are bountiful enough to resume commercial whaling. 
Japan hunts whales in the seas surrounding Antarctica under the loophole of ""scientific whaling"" despite the worldwide ban on commercial whaling. 
There also are structural problems with research whaling: the IWC ban on blue whale hunting, which has been in place since 1964; the ban on commercial whaling since 1982; and a steadily growing international trend in favor of prohibiting whaling. 
South Korea has banned catching any type of whales since 1986 even though the IWC charter bans whaling of only 12 specific species of whales. 
The 1986 global ban on commercial whaling by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) is being challenged by a delegation from Japan. 
There has been a ban on commercial whale hunting for a quarter of a century, but Japan aims to catch about 1,000 whales each year for what it calls research. 
Japan's whaling proponents say there are no good scientific reasons for a blanket ban on commercial whaling. 
After the IWC adopted a ban on commercial whaling in 1982, Japan, Norway and Icel and continued to hunt whales. 
The International Whaling Commission banned commercial whaling in 1986, but Japan uses a clause in the moratorium to conduct ""lethal research"". 
Humpbacks were listed as endangered in 1970, four years after the International Whaling Commission banned commercial humpback whaling. 
The International Whaling Commission (IWC) imposed a moratorium on commercial whaling in 1986, but a clause in the ban allows Japan to catch up to about 1,000 mainly minke whales in the Southern Ocean every winter. 
The country claims the right to whale legally due to its objection to the global moratorium on commercial whaling and its reservation to the ban on international trade in minke whales, although its quotas are not approved by the International Whaling Commission. 
Whaling for research purposes is exempt from the 1986 international ban on commercial whaling, and Japan has conducted hunts in the Antarctic and Pacific on that basis. 
Japan says the hunt was for ecological research, allowed as an exception to a 1986 international ban on commercial whaling. 
Japan is permitted to hunt the animals for scientific purposes under an exception to a 1986 ban on whaling. 
","[3, 1, 1, 4, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3]",15,"[45483811, 43877630, 29155723, 31948170, 45361788, 27770607, 45191885, 45336993, 20312760, 38202325, 45185946, 34854490, 34609243, 45169947, 28513847]"
e8a68adc-23b2-4c26-846f-508323ef86a9,3232,We should cancel pride parades,Summit,"The pressures to cancel the Gay Pride Parade in Jerusalem were immense, but the authorities held firm. 
It was announced meanwhile that the Gay Pride Parade, also scheduled for Saturday, is definitely cancelled. 
Although there is little doubt that he will be outvoted, Tel Aviv's LGBT community is already anticipating that he will attempt to cancel the 2012 Gay Pride parade. 
The US and Swedish embassies in Kampala expressed dismay that pride events had been cancelled. 
Without even mentioning his beating, he says it was disappointing that the pride march had to be canceled. 
The decision to cancel the 2016 Pride event resulted in the creation of Pride in the CLE , which enjoyed its second-annual march and event earlier this month. 
A group of ultra-nationalists asked the authorities last week to cancel the gay pride parade, saying it would make sure it did not take place if police did not heed the call. 
It's just the second year that the Pride Parade has been held in Corpus Christi. 
This is the third year in a row that the pride parade has been banned in the capital for the same reason. 
DeLaria believes that the gay pride parades should be more outrageous and more in your face. 
This marks the first time in nearly 20 years that a Pride parade has marched in Charlotte. 
BLITZER: I know there will be a lot of excitement in New York City this weekend with that gay pride parade. 
The organizer of Beirut Pride in Lebanon, Hadi Damien, this year and told he would only be released if he pledged to cancel all upcoming Pride events. 
Captn Blynd believes that ""queer"" cannot be spoken in love, and that the pride parade is a hate event. 
Suspending the grant would cancel Pride events for families, ""clean and sober"" revelers, black Torontonians and more. 
The Minister of Ethics and Integrity Simon Lokodo repeatedly warned the LGBT community to cancel all pride events. 
The bigger controversy, however, was the decision of the Serbian interior ministry to cancel the Pride march on Saturday. 
Gonzalez, who marched in the Brooklyn Pride parade two weeks ago in Park Slope, said that Pride events are an important way to create allies. 
BLM insists that the Pride Parade has to kick out the police floats, which have been a popular staple for years. 
According to Human Rights Watch, it was the second violent attack on Karasiychuk in the last six weeks, and followed threats of violence from anti-gay protesters that prompted activists to cancel a gay pride parade in May 2012. 
Pride Houston officials announced Wednesday that the Pride parade and festival have outgrown the lower Westheimer area and will move in 2015 to downtown Houston. 
This year, Istanbul Governor's Office announced on 29 June that the Pride Parade to be held on 1 July was banned. 
Alexeyev said they would insist in court that the gay pride parade be held and would refer to earlier court rulings to the effect. 
This is the third time in as many years that the Pride march has been banned. 
An event in remembrance of WW2 was held the same day, meaning that the Pride event was rejected. 
Moses also reports that the Pride event cost more than expected and he is now in debt. 
If so, keep in mind that the gay parade is the only one the city has declined to authorize. 
Many LGBT activists believe that the Pride events of recent years have not been political enough. 
Manitoba RCMP confirmed last week that the pride march is to go ahead and that officers will ensure a safe event. 
Gates agreed, saying the country is becoming more accepting of diversity and that pride festivals and other events can be beneficial for others. 
Gabriel added that Pride events are still important, as they are platforms to create awareness around issues that affect the LGBTQ+ community. 
","[2, 4, 1, 1, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 5, 2, 1, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 45167145, 15448937, 6340330, 45401087, 45190571, 45181383, 45181384, 30777913, 19838540, 28813722, 44044795, 45272708, 45181152]"
ffbc817a-205f-4aec-8c5e-40e9d6d722ab,2402,We should close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp,Summit,"Officials also say will complicate the President`s pledge to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. 
Another promise Obama reneged on was to close down the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba. 
In January 2009, Obama touted about signing an order to close Gitmo, the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba. 
The U. S.  government promised to close Guantanamo Bay detention camp in 2009, but as of Dec.  4, 2016, there were 59 detainees at Guantanamo Bay, it says. 
President Barack Obama of the United States presented to Congress a plan to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, which he promised in 2009 to close. 
Obama said that he would close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp within a year after his inauguration; he didn't. 
President Barack Obama, a Democrat, has pledged to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp since his 2008 election. 
The White House spokesman was also asked to comment on Cuba's requests to close the US Guantanamo Bay detention camp and the US naval base located there. 
On his first day in office, Obama pledged to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp. 
President Barack Obama proposed to close Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp within a year in 2009, but with dissenting members in Congress, the camp remains open. 
SAVIDGE: The Obama administration is stepping up its effort to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center. 
Obama reaffirmed his determination to work with Congress to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba. 
Barack Obama vowed - and failed - to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, the military prison where human rights abuses were famously committed against inmates. 
It stipulated that Mr Obama's order to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba would be revoked, and that rules on approved interrogation techniques would be amended if necessary. 
Candidate Obama promised his first act as president would be to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center. 
The coalition rally will demand that the U. S.  government close Guantanamo Bay prison camp, end indefinite detention, stop torture, and immediately transfer cleared detainees. 
For example, as a candidate in 2008, Obama repeatedly said that his intention was to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center. 
There was his executive order to close down the U. S.  detention facility at Guantanamo Bay within one year. 
Closer to home, Obama still has not made good on his pledge to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center. 
Calls on Obama to close the Guantanamo Bay camp have risen as a hunger strike at the U. S.  naval base in Cuba lingers. 
Davis said a military plan to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center is being considered at the White House. 
The report also covers the administration's legal justifications for trying to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba. 
Closing Guantanamo: Obama has broken his pledge to close the Guantanamo Bay prison facility in Cuba by January 2010. 
GITMO DETAINEES: President Obama is driving a new push to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center despite congressional opposition. 
Obama also disapproves of provisions in the bill that would complicate his pledge to close the U. S.  detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 
For example, former President Barack Obama issued executive orders around detention to study enemy combatant detention when he was determining how to close Guantanamo Bay prison. 
In my opinion, it is high time we close Guantanamo Bay prison, which is our version of a concentration camp where prisoners are incarcerated and tortured without being charged. 
While the proposal ""affects only Yemeni prisoners,"" it is ""considered key to a renewed push by President Obama to close"" the Guantanamo Bay prison camp. 
For example, it includes language that will make it harder to close the Guantanamo Bay prison. 
The president promised upon entering office that he would close the Guantanamo prison camp in Cuba. 
Obama has also sought to reinvigorate his drive to close the Guantanamo Bay prison for terror suspects. 
","[2, 1, 1, 2, 4, 2, 2, 2, 5, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 2]",15,"[13581319, 45677971, 45567220, 20225558, 19838540, 45405037, 45567227, 45569485, 44044795, 28813722, 15448937, 45411178, 45355658, 45190823, 34609243]"
a66bdee9-9f42-4cba-97fa-fe1b41163a75,2679,We should disband UNESCO,Summit,"Although they put PM Abhisit into office by occupying the Bangkok airport, they are upset with his inability to disband Unesco, overrun Preah Vihear or convince the rest of the world that Thailand is the only country that has any heritage worth mentioning. 
It was not the first time that Unesco had cast its eye on the rock. 
The government has also suggested that a UNESCO designation would be a way to attract tourists. 
So unique is this method that UNESCO added it to its Intangible Cultural Heritage list. 
This reminds us that UNESCO's admission of 'Palestine' was not a fluke, and that UNESCO is reverting to anti-Israel bias and is unworthy of U. S.  funding. 
There has been news reports that UNESCO is attempting to bring Thailand back to the committee. 
What people must understand is that a Unesco City of Literature is not only about books. 
These are all elements that UNESCO includes in its composite concept of Media and Information Literacy . 
A recommendation usually implies that UNESCO will adopt it as an intangible cultural heritage of humanity. 
It creates a spectacular view, so much so that that UNESCO has added it to the World Heritage list. 
It is against this background that UNESCO launched the 2018 global report of the 2005 convention. 
It is expected that UNESCO could vote on their bid during its general conference in Paris. 
Saying that UNESCO was ""shocked and dismayed"" by the content of the February issue, the letter stated that UNESCO has sought more detailed information from the magazine's editors and the Palestinian Authority. 
It was in 1999 that UNESCO first proclaimed the day as International Mother Language Day. 
It was in 1999 that UNESCO decided to proclaim March 21 as World Poetry Day. 
A group of environmentalists contradicted the claim saying that the Unesco never gave such a signal. 
AS of this date, there are only three other archaeological sites in the United States that have that UNESCO designation. 
It was important that in reaction to the intervention that UNESCO is following the lines of commodifying water one of its officials later opined to reassure participants that UNESCO does not align with the view that water has a price. 
Qhapaq an is a monumental engineering achievement that UNESCO recently recognized as a World Heritage site. 
Pietrobruno notes that UNESCO has promoted ""the storage of videos of immaterial heritage on YouTube. 
It is proud moment for every Indian that UNESCO has declared Ahmedabad as World Heritage City. 
It may be recalled that Unesco in July 2017 declared Ahmedabad as World Heritage City. 
Let me just say that UNESCO is the only United Nations agency with the specific mandate. 
Osun Osogbo Festival is highly regarded to the extent that UNESCO funds the event annually. 
The chairperson also said that UNESCO, United Nations Children's Fund and JICA have been supporting basic education initiatives in the country, while adding that UNESCO was providing financial and technical assistance for the ongoing workshop as well. 
Irina Bokova said on Sunday that UNESCO wants to protect Iraqi artefacts from any future damage. 
U. S.  officials have said that UNESCO is constantly being used as a tool to delegitimize Israel. 
The beauty queen noted that UNESCO appreciated the power behind beauty queens in transforming the society. 
Shaikh Khalid highlighted Bahrain's keenness to spread the noble values that Unesco strives to instill. 
The U. S.  Charge D'affaires also pointed out that UNESCO is being abused by political motives. 
Mr Hamid also announced that UNESCO will next year hold World Press Freedom Day in Ghana. 
Al Kawari said that Unesco has diligently fought against racism and racial discrimination since its inception. 
Turkish Culture Minister NabAvcmeanwhile insisted on the fact that UNESCO is best placed to promote cooperation. 
It is regrettable that despite that UNESCO recommends around 25-27 per cent of the country's budget to be allocated to education. 
","[3, 1, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 3, 5, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3]",15,"[45538225, 20312760, 44690955, 45181152, 45191873, 45183231, 45272708, 43984981, 45191882, 45206691, 45181384, 45189900, 45190571, 45401087, 45181383]"
d8ee5f66-a4c5-4d83-866f-2bc059d20e45,2621,We should disband the United Nations,Summit,"Both Storm watch and Extreme Justice were ultimately ordered to disband by the United Nations. 
It's not every day that the United Nations - yes, that United Nations - recognizes a project in Woodland. 
Addressing rumours that the United Nations was requesting that Canada extend the Mali deployment, Sajjan confirmed that the United Nations ""is working with other nations to look at replacing us"". 
It was also that year that the United Nations appointed him as the UN Patron of the Oceans. 
If all the accords and treaties the countries of the world sign with such fanfare are all just empty words, then we may as well tear them up and disband the United Nations. 
It was in that context that the United Nations now faced the challenge of adapting and improving. 
That assumes that the United Nations leader has more clout than anyone else who has tried. 
The most active option proposed that the United Nations establish an office to support the Sahel Force through the African Union (something that the United Nations has already done in Somalia). 
Remember that that United Nations commission of inquiry report is making its rounds in the U. N. 
A reported White House proposal to no longer consider Palestinians ""refugees"" and to disband the United Nations organization created to care for them in that capacity is receiving mixed reviews from Jewish leaders here. 
Mr Buhne also highlighted that United Nation is here to facilitate Ministry of Climate Change . He further said that United Nation would take Climate Change Act to donors for its better implementation. 
Moscow had presented its own draft resolution that requested that the United Nations make arrangements to monitor the situation. 
Aftab Ahmad Khan Sherpao viewed that that United Nations (UN) is the proper forum to resolve issues. 
If it were not so, we should also disband the UN, the World Health Organisation and the G20, and return to the dark days of the 20th century, when peace was not the first priority of any nation but national pride was. 
The Kashmir Committee informed that UN High Commissioner that the United Nations passed quite a few resolutions on Kashmir. 
MCGOVERN: Miss Malac, it's an encouraging sign that that United Nations is moving an office from Nairobi back to Mogadishu. 
It is true that UNO has been able to avert global wars of the magnitude of world wars but it is equally true that the United Nations failed to eliminate shooting wars completely. 
Article 55 provides that the United Nations shall promote that the UN shall promote the universal respect for, and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. 
Member nations can either cancel US membership, critically review the veto power or disband the UN since there seems to be chaos in international order currently. 
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) has urged the United States immediately to disband the ""UN Comm and"", which has been operating in South Korea, and ""has become a Cold War leftover"". 
The U. S.  should disband the ""UN Comm and"" as unanimously desired by the Korean nation and the international community and withdraw the U. S.  imperialist aggression forces from south Korea without delay. 
Many presidents have expressed a desire to disband the UN as a waste of time. 
The peace treaty option has traditionally had drawbacks from the US and South Korean side, as it would disband the UN mission in South Korea and perhaps lead to a bring-the-boys-home sentiment arising inside the US. 
UN secretary-general Kofi Annan decided to disband the UN Fact-Finding Mission on Jenin following the Israeli refusal to cooperate with this mission as it was constituted. 
Karti said that said that the UN shall direct its criticism to one party rather than the other. 
The next Secretary-General can do so by ensuring that different U. N.  activities compliment each other so that U. N.  truly delivers as one. 
","[3, 2, 2, 4, 3, 4, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 1, 1, 4]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 20225558, 45538225, 6432269, 45191882, 45361788, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45181384, 45336993, 43877630, 29155723, 44044795]"
2c6f1d3b-db6d-487c-86b3-496073b609ba,3581,We should end cheerleading,Summit,"It was the cheerleaders' last performance together, and for many it marked the end of their cheerleading careers. 
At the other end are cheerleaders who have hopes of a Cabinet position or the vice presidency. 
The race likely isn't the end of the cheerleaders challenging other teams in their sports. 
In response to recent scandals, many commenters have called for an end to cheerleading squads in the NFL. 
While it may bring an end to the cheerleading career for this season, it could have been much worse. 
The move to end its longtime cheerleader team comes amid news of several controversies and lawsuits regarding other cheerleader teams. 
That doesn't necessarily mean there can't be cheerleaders, and I'm hoping the student community at UA will end up being cheerleaders and will end up supporting the team online or in person. 
Right towards the end there were cheerleaders who joined runners on the last mile to give some encouragement. 
Towards the end the cheerleaders and the school mascot pepped up everyone's' spirit with a great show. 
Although Courtney laments, ""Now the geeks are in charge,"" by the end, even the cheerleader and the bully have proved their value. 
After it was over, the players lined up at centre ice and bowed to the crowd, first to the end containing the cheerleaders, then to the other end, filled mostly with South Korean fans. 
At the end, 10 cheerleaders -- including two from Harbor High School -- from the entire camp were selected to perform in London. 
Performances at the ceremony included the North end Cheerleaders, the New Britain High School Marching Band and the NBHS Madrigals. 
Dvorak recommended the board adopt a policy to end cheerleader travel and require the cheer team to have supervision at every event. 
The North End cheerleader was escorted from the pitch after trying to distract Rams keeper Stephen Bywater during the match. 
Ensuing victories will prompt no end of media cheerleading, which will inflate a giant bubble of national optimism that will be duly deflated in Brazil. 
Another Captain, Taylor Stoia, commented, ""This year's Nationals experience was the best way to end my cheerleading career. 
A football, basketball and baseball player throughout high school, Robinson never imaged he would end up as a cheerleader at East Carolina. 
Her community involvement includes coaching East-End cheerleading, participating in the canned food drive and making decorations for local nursing homes. 
Taking home the national championship trophy was the icing on the cake to mark the end of my cheerleading career,"" senior captain Rachel Ayers said. 
The Pascack Valley Tribe took first place at the Winter's End Challenge Cheerleading Competition at Clifton High School Feb.  21. 
Toward that end, the cheerleaders will be hosting a family dance Friday, Nov.  15, 6-10 p. m.  at the Franco American Club, 44 Park St. 
The Finback Sharks, on the other hand, are at the other end of the cheerleading spectrum as the Finback sharks was the oldest team at Cheer Sport Sharks in Stittsville, with athletes ranging in age from 16 to 30 years old. 
If a Saints player enters a restaurant that a cheerleader is already at, that cheerleader must still leave. 
Some argue that cheerleaders are just ""flirts in skirts"", there to entertain to the crowd, but the skills involved in competitive cheerleading leave no doubt that cheerleaders are exceptional athletes. 
Bank of America Stadium was covered with traces of pink, from the players' cleats, wristbands and gloves to the goalpost padding in the end zones to the cheerleaders' pom poms to a pink coin used in the coin toss. 
Robinson said that the cheerleaders get to exhibit their school spirit for the football and basketball teams, but this helps show that the cheerleaders are just as athletic as the players they cheer for. 
Although, this could mean the end of the cheer team, their legacy will still hold true no matter the decision. 
","[2, 3, 4, 4, 2, 3, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 3, 3, 3, 3]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 6432269, 45538225, 21785776, 6340330, 20312760, 44690955, 28813722, 13581319, 34110399, 45191873, 45183231, 45272708, 45181152]"
322066e2-5e1a-478a-ae2f-8947f95e103c,3170,We should end mandatory retirement,Summit,"If you end mandatory retirement, you create an age logjam in the hunt for jobs. 
With minor exceptions, all of the provinces have already put an end to mandatory retirement. 
Voters have the chance next month to end mandatory retirement for judges, and there are many reasons to do so. 
Related In , Dias laments the end of mandatory retirement as a loss of opportunity for young workers. 
Hall at that time predicted the case would lead to the end of mandatory retirement for all employees in federal jurisdiction. 
Nixing mandatory retirements: Rep.  Tina Liebling, DFL-Rochester, wants to put an end to the mandatory retirement age for Minnesota's judges. 
That article determined that the end of mandatory retirement requirements is keeping women in the workforce, and that a lack of retirement savings is redoubling the effect. 
Some of this increase reflects among factors the end of provincial mandatory retirement legislation in the mid 2000s. 
Recruiting professional directors primarily from the ranks of retired executives should go hand in hand with an end to mandatory retirement at age 70 or 72. 
As part of the amendments to the Ontario Human Rights Code that brought an end to mandatory retirement in 2006, an exception was made for employment-related benefits. 
The Government will not oppose legislation introduced by Independent Senator John Crown to end the mandatory retirement of medical staff at 65 years of age. 
Kimber is also acutely aware of the time bomb for employers and workers posed by the need to fund employee pensions and the need to end mandatory retirement ages. 
Financially Insecure Even with the end of mandatory retirement, uncertain economic times and longer life expectancies, few survey respondents actually retired at age 65 or later (or plan to wait that long to retire). 
The end of mandatory retirement has clearly led to employers taking a more proactive and aggressive approach to employee performance management since they will in many cases no longer be able to rely on a retirement rule or policy. 
Labour TD Anne Ferris introduced her Employment Equality (Abolition of Mandatory Retirement Age) Bill to end compulsory retirement ages ""for people who are able and willing to continue in the role for which they were employed"". 
What you may not know, though, is that the mandatory retirement age is now 70. 
Importantly, it held that a mandatory retirement of 65 was a proportionate means of achieving those aims. 
It called for an end to the compulsory retirement ages of 60 for military personnel and 70 for judges. 
The end of compulsory retirement at 65 means large numbers who would once have been forced to retire can keep working. 
The retired judges argued that the mandatory retirement age ignored the improved mental acuity of citizens who reach 70. 
Following a previous holding, the court stated that the mandatory retirement provision is an exception to the ADEA. 
The constitution states that the mandatory retirement age for a judge is 66 years and six months. 
To this end, enforced retirement after the age of 70 or 75 might bring important change. 
Judge Galen Vaa contends that the mandatory retirement age for district court judges is discriminatory and unconstitutional. 
The Government submitted a proposal to the public service unions to end compulsory retirement at the age of 70. 
In negotiation are also the regulation of pre-retirement in the civil service, the end of compulsory retirement at 70 years of age and changes in the rules of disciplinary processes, among other projects. 
That shift began when two of the court's members -- Chief Judge Walter S.  Felton Jr.  of James City and Robert P.  Frank of Newport News -- stepped aside at year's end after reaching the mandatory retirement age of 70 for state judges. 
The Government is to press ahead with plans to end compulsory retirement at 65 despite calls from business for the move to be delayed, it was announced yesterday. 
","[2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 5, 2, 4, 2, 2, 4, 3, 2, 2, 4]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 45185975, 45191882, 45191885, 45185946, 13581319, 45190823, 45953041, 34110399, 31948170, 45411178, 45355658, 34854490, 38202325]"
402b7429-d92c-4291-b610-bb8efa66b1b9,3197,We should end progressive taxation,Summit,"At the upper end of the progressive tax scale, income is taxed at 45c in the dollar on annual incomes of more than $180,000. 
By eliminating both the income tax and the payroll tax we end up with a progressive sales tax, particularly after the prebate provision of the FairTax which exempts all consumption up to the poverty line, giving each family a tax-free consumption allowance. 
My problem with that progressive argument is this: New Jersey has one of the most progressive income taxes in the country. 
Backers of a progressive income tax constitutional amendment claim that the progressive income tax would only target the wealthy. 
CS: ""It is also a fact that a progressive income tax (aka, graduated income tax) is fairer. 
Republicans argued that the progressive income tax amounted to a tax hike for most Illinoisans. 
The end game with the graduated income tax is to create more revenue for the state by raising taxes. 
Hungary has not demonstrated that the progressive tax rates were justified by the objective pursued by the advertisement tax. 
The switch from ACES to SB 21 brought about a lower subsidy because of theelimination of one majorcredit program and the end of the progressive tax rate that increased with prices. 
The economists would agree that a progressive tax system is more useful than a regressive one. 
If the Supreme Court were to hold, as the New York complaint suggests, that tax laws cannot impose greater burdens on some states' taxpayers than on others, that would be the end of progressive taxation. 
The worst part is that ""progressive taxes"" reduce the pay checks to all recipients of income. 
This emphasizes the fact that progressive state income taxes are the rule, not the exception, throughout the nation. 
Their advice is that a progressive tax rate should be levied first on capital profits. 
Society expects that progressive taxes will be introduced, for which, I believe, Latvia is not ready yet. 
The net effect is an end to progressive taxation in America and increasing wealth concentration at the top of the economic ladder. 
That a progressive tax system combined with rising incomes delivers real benefits to lower income earners. 
How unfair that a progressive income tax system requires those who make more to pay their share of the load. 
Data show that the progressive tax rate in surrounding states has hurt the middle class the most. 
Perez said that progressive taxation, such as the proposed oil extraction tax, could be save education. 
Our flat income tax doesn't yield the increased revenue that progressive systems do with greater productivity. 
The doctors argue that a progressive tax, aimed at reducing income inequality would be an attractive way to fund the system. 
It was explained that the progressive tax rates based on revenue provide low income enterprises with an advantage over their competitors. 
The Commission concluded that the progressive tax rates grant a selective advantage to companies with low turnover over their competitors. 
The letter writer's claim that a progressive tax would benefit Illinois' long-term economic growth is also false. 
Hoffman also argued that the state should end its graduated income tax, which charges lower-income individuals a smaller portion of their income than higher-income individuals. 
The state Constitution says taxes must be ""uniform,"" so one might argue that a graduated tax is illegal. 
It has its attractions in the same way that progressive taxation does: get more from those who have more. 
An argument could be made that progressive taxation is a violation of equal protection under the laws of this nation. 
It is entirely possible that progressive public spending can more than cancel out the regressive effects of a particular form of taxation. 
Conservatives complain that progressive taxation and social-democratic programs are ""punishing success,"" Robin Hooding the rich. 
No matter that the state Supreme Court has held since the 1930s that a graduated tax on net income is unconstitutional. 
","[4, 4, 4, 2, 3, 2, 3, 5, 5, 4, 3, 1, 3, 3, 4]",15,"[45567227, 45569485, 45458968, 45411178, 21785776, 34110399, 20512953, 30777913, 21017840, 45953041, 6340330, 33708599, 34609243, 22345789, 44094031]"
e2505033-1541-48d0-b1d3-2db7b6579db0,3263,We should end the use of economic sanctions,Summit,"For Iran, the key goal is the easing and eventual end of international economic sanctions. 
A peace treaty, diplomatic relations and end of economic sanctions all should be on the table. 
Removing the island from the blacklist means the end of certain economic sanctions against Havana. 
Iran wants an end to economic sanctions imposed by the West to pressure it to permit inspections. 
Iran wants more capability and a rapid end to international economic sanctions that have crippled its economy. 
China has urged other countries to end economic sanctions as Myanmar opens up its economy and ends half a century of isolation. 
In the end no new economic sanctions came, but the United States may hit Russia with targeted sanctions in the very near future. 
The EU will actually end all economic sanctions and the US will annul all sanctions related to the presidential jurisdiction, and will suspend Congress-approved sanctions, Araqchi said. 
That any sane person would support an end to economic sanctions against their own country is something that can never be in doubt. 
In the process, the IRI also manufactured the expectation that, with the end of economic sanctions against its nuclear program, the economic situation of the country would also drastically improve. 
Iran is also seeking an immediate end to the economic sanctions, while the international powers have said they want a phased withdrawal. 
So it is with the historic deal with Iran to end economic sanctions in return for defusing Tehran's nuclear ambitions. 
The removal of sanctions from Iran will allow Iran's economy to grow; witness the jubilation of young Iranians to the announcement of the end of international economic sanctions. 
Ankara is trying to persuade Moscow to end all of the economic sanctions imposed after the Turkish jet downed the Russian bomber. 
With the expectations brought by the end of economic sanctions imposed by the global powers, the country will be able to resume oil export to large buyers. 
International negotiators want to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb, while Tehran wants an end to harsh economic sanctions. 
The pro-military government hopes these those are minor enough to convince Western nations that it's time to end economic sanctions. 
In exchange for foreign investment, an end to economic sanctions and improved relations with the outside world, they are willing to soften the organs of this police state. 
The Zimbabwe National Elders Forum has joined hands with Faith for the Nation Campaign to petition the United States and European Union to end economic sanctions on the country. 
Pyongyang said it could revert to its former policy of developing nuclear weapons if the US does not end tough economic sanctions against the impoverished regime. 
The North Korean ambassador also urged the United States and international community to end economic sanctions against his country, but defiantly said his people would survive even if they continue. 
The bloc also demanded that the United States end its economic embargo of the island. 
It could include an end to military exercises between the United States and South Korea, the withdrawal of U. S.  forces from the Korean Peninsula, a formal peace treaty to end the Korean War, normalization of diplomatic relations, guarantees of non-aggression, an end to economic sanctions, and possibly economic aid. 
The United Nations, the Guardian continued, has urged an end to the embargo and other trade sanctions. 
Business Council of Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe National Chamber of Commerce president Mr Hlanganiso Matangaidze said what mattered most to Zimbabweans was an end to economic sanctions. 
The draft of the statement entitled ""The Necessity to End Economic and Financial Sanctions Imposed by the United States against Cuba"" is going to be read at the UN General Assembly on October 27. 
Under a deal reached with six major powers in July, Iran agreed to modify its nuclear program in exchange for an end to economic sanctions imposed on the country in 2012. 
","[4, 4, 4, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 2]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 6432269, 45569485, 45567227, 45677971, 45567220, 44094031, 45411178, 45405037, 45355658, 6340330, 15448937, 20512953, 33708599]"
825338d5-ac9c-4174-9180-bdc99d6a113e,3205,We should end water fluoridation,Summit,"Bellmore said he has no opinion about fluoridated water, but notes that the end of fluoridation in Mt. 
A decision to end water fluoridation in New Plymouth is being hailed as the beginning of the end for the practice in New Zeal and. 
The Fluoride Action Network, an international coalition to end water fluoridation, does not list any water system in Northwest Missouri as having high fluoride levels. 
The Communities for Thriving Water Fluoride-Free San Marcos coalition has been working to end water fluoridation in the city, and its wish might be granted by the end of May. 
End of fluoride Fluoride in water is such a waste and unnecessary cost for the slight effect on a few children's teeth. 
In 2011, Fairbanks and Palmer city councils decided to end fluoridation of the drinking water. 
There was also health minister Yael German's decision to end the fluoridation of drinking water. 
Many are now installing efficient fluoride-blocking water filters in their home and supporting movements that call for the end of water fluoridation. 
The council voted 7 to 1 to end water fluoridation after they received 1557 submissions with the overwhelming majority against fluoride use. 
Port Angeles - The water fluoridation survey results are in, and of the 43 percent who responded, most want an end to the fluoridation of city water. 
So there is a strong case for councils to issue similar fluoride warnings and dosage information, but if they did it would spell the end of water fluoridation. 
Mr.  Hasan is counsel to the Concerned Residents of Peel to End Fluoridation, a group that has been dedicated to ending the artificial fluoridation of Peel's drinking water. 
Liesa Cianchino, Chair of the Concerned Residents of Peel to End Fluoridation stated today: ""Artificial water fluoridation is a serious health concern. 
The petition is his response to the council last month voting 7-1 to end fluoridation of the city's water. 
A coalition of environmental, medical and health groups along with the Fluoride Action Network is urging the EPA to end fluoridation of the public water supply. 
The majority of councils in Ireland voted to end water fluoridation but the law prevents them from taking action. 
Ms.  Cianchino, who is the Chairperson of Concerned Residents of Peel to End Water Fluoridation, states that the risk of harm posed by water fluoridation greatly exceeds its speculative benefits, and that water fluoridation is both unconstitutional and a violation of the Ontario Safe Drinking Water Act. 
So, yes, Calgary's city council made a wise decision when it voted to end the fluoridation of city water. 
Independent group Fluoride Free Campaign wants to see an end to water fluoridation, describing it as an 'unnecessary health risk to people, animals and the environment'. 
Following the 2013 decision to end fluoridation Hamilton City Council told the public the six reasons why the councillors voted to stop adding fluoride to their water supply. 
Pinellas commissioners voted to end the fluoridation of its drinking water to about 700,000 residents of the county and most Pinellas cities on Dec.  31. 
Officials in Ford City officials voted in December to end fluoridation when its new water plant goes online this year. 
Regionally, Sprovieri has been on the opposite side of the mayor on certain issues, most notably on his push to end water fluoridation in the public drinking supply. 
According to the Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors, opponents fail about 80% of the time when they campaign to end a local water fluoridation policy. 
The court ruled that the new regulations will not only bring an end to mandatory fluoridation in Israel in 2014 but will also put an end to any fluoridation - mandatory or voluntary. 
New regulations, beginning August 26, will end fluoridation in Israel for 5. 3 million residents, says Fluoride Action Network. 
Cities around the country and world have opted to end fluoridation or never had it to begin with. 
","[5, 4, 4, 5, 1, 5, 2, 2, 4, 3, 2, 4, 4, 4, 3]",15,"[45405037, 45569485, 45567227, 45458968, 28813722, 45190823, 21785776, 34110399, 45355658, 15448937, 19838540, 20512953, 45411178, 44044795, 34609243]"
ff626fc7-e733-4562-aeee-698d4b2cf216,3223,We should fight global warming,Summit,"It is incumbent upon all of us to fight global warming and save the world. 
It has been added to the list of products that directly help fight Global Warming. 
It was the EU that had proposed the roadmap for a new binding agreement to fight global warming. 
At the national level, we have shrugged a surrender in the fight over global warming. 
From a country that leads in the fight against global warming to a country that ignores it. 
The Paris Agreement to fight global warming has been seriously damaged by the US withdrawal. 
In the future, filling up your closet could be one way to fight global warming. 
Investor action on climate is one of the key components of the fight against global warming. 
In other words, there is no incentive to fight global warming, as the benefits are not local, but global by definition (OECD, 1998). 
Read more: Politicians think globally, act locally to fight global warming  to combat climate change. 
US also needs to engage actively with these partners, PRC in particular to fight global warming. 
Global Oneness Day actively works on four cardinal principles: To fight global hunger and poverty; To fight global warming and climate change; To fight global terrorism and injustice and To ensure global self-empowerment and accountability. 
NCPPR, which has been funded by oil interests, advocates against policies to fight global warming because it denies that global warming exists. 
The agency said the company, which claimed to have technology to fight global warming, was a sham. 
The Times laments that we have forfeited leadership in the fight against global warming to the Chinese. 
When it comes to the fight against global warming, China is already the world leader. 
The agreement replaced the Kyoto protocols with a much more ambitious global plan to fight global warming and climate change. 
The decision is to support countries in their Paris climate accord goals to fight global warming. 
The biggest change consumers can make to help fight global warming lies in what you drive. 
The third event of its kind aims to fight global warming and boost environmental industries. 
As such their use must be curtailed for us to meet state emissions requirements to fight global warming - that is sanity. 
The President wants to cut emissions at power plants to flight-- to fight global warming. 
Oregon can join California and British Columbia as a leader in the fight against global warming. 
The first reason to fight global warming is to head off a global mess the United States is helping to create. 
Climate negotiators are to submit the latest draft of a potential accord to fight global warming on Saturday. 
The best example is the Copenhagen effort to get a global environmental treaty to fight global warming,53 which I would love to see. 
One way or another, the U. S.  will honor its commitment to lead global efforts to fight global warming by reducing our emissions. 
One indicator is about environmental activities by households and companies such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions to fight global warming. 
These absorb high doses of carbon dioxide and could thus help in the fight against global warming. 
The report tracks everything from air quality to the economy to housing to efforts to fight global warming. 
The results of that election led Gore directly to his current position as a crusader to fight global warming. 
The green climate fund is intended to help climate vulnerable countries to fight out global warming. 
The foundation says the letters show the public wants to continue the fight against global warming. 
People expect their leaders to highlight to them, which human activities actually contribute to global warming and what adaptive measures can be used to fight global warming and contribute to climate protection. 
It's not surprising one U. S.  state's effort to fight global warming would have such a small impact on global temperature. 
","[3, 3, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 3, 5]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 20225558, 6432269, 28810858, 45336993, 45361788, 45206691, 45189900, 45336988, 45405037, 13581319, 45458968, 45411178, 30777913]"
9a9c2159-4b2f-49b8-9b90-b894b0e63c30,3193,We should fight nationalism,Summit,"The fight against nationalism or patriotic nationalism or exceptional national identity is not to be confused with chauvinism or hyper-nationalism. 
Belarus, more than any other country in the world, suffered from its fight for nationalism. 
Putting that aside, I take her point to be that we need to fight Trumpist nationalism with some other form of nationalism. 
Until the Opposition throws up a leader willing to accept this and fight nationalism with nationalism, Modi will be unassailable. 
In a fight between nationalism, internal security and humanism, we must be on our guard. 
That, perhaps, the globetrotting economic elite can be an ally in the fight against resurgent nationalism. 
This is no trivial matter; the fight for Israel's secularism is important, but the fight against growing nationalism and racism is even more momentous. 
Mr Burnham will say: ""The party I lead will take the fight to nationalism wherever it is found. 
This stirs up the ethnocentric difference in the children and hence the fight for national unity is a no go area. 
European Commission President Juncker says ""we have to fight nationalism"" and ""block the avenue of populism"". 
Thanks to the French people, the world now has a new, powerful ally in the fight against rising nationalism. 
Fight - Fight - Populists - Side ""The fight in 2019 will be a fight between the nationalist populists on one side and. . . 
Mr Kandaso Napi, who is a community leader and businessman, is known for his fight for national unity. 
History has seen the fight for nationalism take on a complex series of battles won and also devastating losses in the area. 
Mr Macron said democracy is the ""best chance"" for the EU to fight against rising nationalism on the continent. 
If t is a second independence referendum, I will share a platform with any mainstream party which is prepared to work together to fight against nationalism. 
This can be helpful in the fight against nationalism, the German-Romanian novelist and poet Carmen-Francesca Banciu told DW. 
The party has said that the incident being played out as a fight between 'nationalism' and 'anti-nationalism' could affect the alliance, which had already gone through rough patches. 
In one of the posts he states that politics today no longer revolves around socialism against capitalism, but that the fight is between nationalism and internationalism. 
European Union institutions and the governments need to make use of this year, the year of European elections, to fight nationalism and extremism in the region. 
Guy Verhofstadt wants to join forces with Emmanuel Macron's French party to build a new European alliance to fight nationalism. 
The French leader's aide welcomed Five Star's choice, saying it showed that the fight against nationalism transcends political groups. 
To fight aggressive nationalism, the Europe Union must take up France's proposals for change, notably Macron's call for a eurozone budget. 
The globalist 'philanthropist' recently vowed to renew his fight against nationalism after transferring $18 billion of his own wealth into his Open Society Foundations in October. 
The fight for Nationalists who will drive the discourse and the engagement necessary in answering the Nigeria National questions must not be bugged down by petty sentiments and tribal colourations. 
New Delhi: In an interesting development, BJP MLA and the leader of the opposition in the Delhi assembly, Vijender Gupta, has said that the civic elections are not just about municipal issues but a fight between ""nationalist and anti-national forces"". 
Reports from Ukraine indicate that the ruling Regional Party established Ukrainian Front, an organization tasked to help with the efforts to lift the information blockade, assist with the negotiations between the authorities and the opposition, fight nationalism, and liberate the administrative buildings overrun by radicals. 
In his address, Bannon praised Le Pen's vision of a political fight between nationalists and globalists, even as a few party members warned that his support could damage Le Pen's efforts to cleanse the National Front of its racist stigma. 
","[1, 3, 5, 1, 5, 4, 5, 5, 2, 5, 3, 3, 3, 4, 2]",15,"[45190823, 20225558, 28813722, 45405037, 45181383, 45191873, 45272708, 45411178, 20512953, 15448937, 45206691, 45189900, 45191882, 44044795, 27934334]"
55e78f35-cc5b-42e2-a609-69acff7610f3,3199,We should fight urbanization,Summit,"These are the neighborhoods that, more often than not, turn out to fight urbanization, dense infill and everything else that is good and just. 
Meghan Patankar of ALFA Adventures said ""The fight between rapid urbanization and the environment is clearly visible in this area. 
Please see Lee Bott's personal account at ""Save Wainfleet - Fight The Urbanization Of Our Town"" on Facebook. 
Miller points out that the urbanization of land has far outpaced the urbanization of people. 
TheThe post FG calls for stakeholders' input in fight against rural-urban migration, food insecurity appeared first on The Herald Nigeria Newspaper. 
Urrego said that urbanization or growth of population in urban areas was increasingly threatening wetlands. 
Walking around the city, she realised that the trees were fighting battles of their own and began to document their fight with urbanisation. 
Citizens who attempted to fight back against the urbanization and expropriation through self-help mechanism of physical resistance or through judicial actions were threatened by the coercive force of the police, some being beaten and jailed. 
It would be fair to say that urbanization is an essential element of economic development. 
This is mainly due to the fact that urbanization projects are rising in the region. 
It has been estimated that urbanization is booming at a staggering rate across the globe. 
It also emphasizes the reluctance of state governments to recognize that urbanization is a reality. 
A massive expansion that would've brought more lodging, banquet and meeting space to 31 acres next to The Fontanel in Whites Creek has stalled, marking the latest chapter in the fight over urbanization versus preservation of rural character of that area northwest of downtown. 
It was observed that urbanization is increasing without planning and creating problems for the people. 
The former MLA objected to the statement in the draft bill that urbanization is inevitable. 
It seems that urbanization is only statistically significant in the case of this category crime. 
The paper notes that Urbanization is a global issue and an inevitable phenomenon in Nigeria. 
The movement of people requires infrastructure support and other necessities as part of that urbanization. 
The minister added that urbanization is more profound in tier II and tier III cities. 
There was consensus that urbanization is exercising growing pressure on agriculture and food supply systems. 
The projections indicate that urbanization combined with overall growth will contribute to the 2. 5 billion jump. 
This study adds to the growing evidence that urbanization impacts the brain to influence behavior. 
It has been forecasted that urbanization trends will create 13 additional megacities in India by 2025. 
The Minister wowed the audience by talking about how India and its policymakers took a decade to accept that urbanization is inevitable and how that sentiment has changed drastically today when everybody understands that urbanization is actually desirable. 
China hopes that urbanization will help make domestic consumption the main driver of its economy. 
Some suggest that urbanization and technology have fueled social tensions in the deeply traditional Palestinian society. 
Habitat III clearly identified the main challenges that urbanization has brought about around the world. 
Official media reported earlier this year that the urbanization rate exceeded 50 percent in 2011. 
Ensuring that urbanization contributes effectively to sustainable development involves addressing a number of major challenges. 
Another unexpected study finding was that urbanization seems to affect female and male bumblebees differently. 
Part of the logic for its birth was to fight against the urbanisation that had seen the loss of 4,500 hectares of vines over the previous century, as the city of Bordeaux grew ever bigger. 
Ajay Maken, Indian minister of housing and urban poverty alleviation, talked about how India and its policy-makers took a decade to accept that urbanisation is inevitable, but today everybody understands that urbanisation is actually desirable. 
This requires deliberate efforts to ensure that urbanisation goes with proper planning and adequate sanitation. 
","[3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 6432269, 45336993, 45206691, 45361788, 45189900, 45336988, 45458968, 28810858, 21785776, 31948170, 20225558, 45181383, 44044795]"
a24309ee-92b6-4817-b354-9f6e18a0f5c8,2122,We should further exploit green technology,Summit,"One idea is that environmental technology might feed a virtuous cycle of innovation and employment. 
Frequently he heard from department heads that environmental technologies did not really apply to their mission. 
It is fair to say that environmental technology has been slow to reveal itself as a sector vital to economic development. 
Wakhungu reiterated that green technologies will deliver a mix of economic, social and environmental benefits to the country. 
The official stated that environmental technologies have already being used in various sectors, particularly in companies associated with renewable energies. 
The source stressed that the environmental technology presents ways and ecological techniques that contribute to the improvement of the living quality and preservation of the environment. 
The Minister further added that green technology could create job opportunities and could add to income of villagers. 
Factories always claimed that environmental technology would simply increase their production costs, making Thailand a less attractive destination. 
NASCAR Green was launched to show that green technologies work and have real and measurable effect on reducing our collective environmental impact on our planet. 
With evolution of green technology, there is no product that green technology has not touched. 
By 2008, she says that environmental technology industry was generating approximately $300 billion in annual revenues and directly supporting nearly 1. 7 million jobs. 
This project shows that green technologies are environmentally effective and change consumer habits,"" Head of the EU Delegation to Belarus Andrea Wiktorin said. 
Hove further states that green technology will become more prominent in the future, and that Evry targets full climate neutrality before Q1 2019. 
Mukhriz said Malaysia foresee that green technology would help Malaysia remain competitive in the international marketplace as global demand for environmentally sound products increased. 
Our findings suggest that green technologies and efficient manufacturing, coupled with investments in global technology are actively being pursued. 
The fact is the government is incapable of imagining that green technology will develop, and fast. 
The fact is that green technology is not just good for the environment - it is also more beneficial for the people in that environment. 
This is because it has recognised that green technology is the new frontier and an area for exercising strategic leadership. 
The former president sided with the tech leaders, and the innovation that green technology brought about. 
If information asymmetries are addressed, the solutions that green technology SMEs can offer for physical risks will attract investment. 
Germany Environment Minister Peter Altmaier, who commissioned the study, said that green technologies have lot of growth potential. 
It demonstrates that Green-tech complies to the highest social and environmental standards available in the market. 
Najib said he was confident that green technology would be the driving force to a sustainable green economy. 
As managing director of Denbigh-based Hafod Renewables, he is zealous in his belief that green technology can address energy and climate concerns. 
It points out that green technology may well intensify the world's need for material resources. 
The Executive Director argues that green technologies investment is being increasingly recognized as having financial and economic benefits. 
Science is allied with public opinion around the world, Clinton agreed, pointing out that green technology generates jobs. 
RPAF stated that green technology of this nature would benefit the country greatly in terms of reducing vehicle exhaust emissions and fuel dependency. 
A Michigan University study of 25 garment factories in Bangalore has shown that green technology saves energy, boosts profits and productivity in industrial units. 
Atiur also pointed out that green technology may be an effective way to improve resource efficiency and coordinate different processes responsible for green growth. 
Many don't realize that green solutions provide advantages that go far beyond simply reducing environmental impact. 
There was a common agreement that green solutions for especially the transport sector are crucial for the green transition in our big cities. 
The climate change issue is also helping to ensure that green tech is in demand. 
","[4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 2, 1, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 6432269, 45538225, 21785776, 6340330, 20312760, 44690955, 28813722, 13581319, 45191873, 45183231, 45272708, 45181152, 45191882]"
7540a178-0219-4727-9845-59a6976d9cd7,3492,We should further exploit natural gas,Summit,"The reason is that natural gas is -- we looked at this, actually, in our research: That natural gas is structurally different from products like oil. 
Those that believe natural gas will be permanently low forget that natural gas is the number one most volatile commodity in the last decade. 
Whether or not you believe that natural gas is a ""clean"" fuel or that hydrofracking is a polluting and destructive procedure, you must believe that natural gas is not sustainable. 
All three commenters requested that natural gas processing plants be added; two commenters requested that natural gas transmission and storage facilities be added, and one commenter requested that natural gas distribution facilities be added. 
The argument put forward by the organization is that natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel as it is acknowledged that natural gas is less environmentally damaging than other fossil fuels. 
FitzGerald had argued that a natural gas liquids pipeline does not serve Kentucky customers in the way that natural gas does for home heating and cooking. 
Most of you know that natural gas meters record use by the cubic foot, but perhaps you don't know that natural gas is sold by the therm, which is 100,000 btu. 
Data came from 56 drilling companies that operated 8,800 natural gas wells in the Marcellus shale and 70 operators of 400 compressor stations that processed that natural gas. 
The fact that natural gas emits about one-fifth the NOX as coal and the fact that natural gas is now the top source of electricity generation in the U. S.  explain this decline. 
","[1, 4, 2, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 5, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 45167145, 15448937, 45401087, 45181383, 45190571, 45181384, 30777913, 6340330, 19838540, 28813722, 44044795, 45282792, 33708599]"
090f3cb7-7227-400c-8685-c9691f51d377,2465,We should further exploit small modular reactors,Summit,"There are -- there are discussions that the new small modular reactors might be able to do some of this load-following. 
That small modular reactors have never been approved for U. S.  use adds to the complexity. 
It is becoming increasingly likely that small modular reactors will become a reality in this nation. 
As we look forward we are actively preparing for any future 15 new reactor applications that include small modular reactor designs or SMRs. 
Let's discuss that proposed small modular reactor (SMR) on the INL Site for a moment. 
Hahn pointed out that small modular reactors had a flexible power generation and enhanced safety performance. 
There are thus good reasons to expect that small modular reactors, like large nuclear power plants, are just not commercially viable. 
Some nuclear proponents feel that small modular reactors (SMRs) - mini nuclear plants also can be an option for African countries. 
Westinghouse touts that its small modular reactor will produce the most power, using the least amount of material, leaving behind a small carbon footprint. 
Areva announced in February that it had signed a contract with NuScale Power, a Fluor subsidiary that is developing a small modular reactor design. 
Some nuclear proponents feel that small modular reactors (SMRs) - mini nuclear plants such as those used in submarines - could be the way forward. 
NuScale Power announced today that its small modular nuclear reactors can generate 20 percent more power than the company initially estimated. 
LYONS: Senator Bingaman, just the comment that the small modular reactors that are of great interest looking into the future in our program, each of the light water small modular systems that has been proposed is a highly passive system. 
The researchers noted that small modular reactors might play a significant role in US energy markets in the next few decades. 
Hopes that ""small modular reactors"" (SMRs) will save the dying nuclear power industry in the United States and avert climate change are unfounded. 
The Policy Exchange think tank argues that ""small modular reactors"" (SMRs) could play a ""crucial"" role in providing energy. 
The Tennessee Valley Authority suggests that small modular reactors allow for improved safety, lower costs and reduced construction time. 
A study from the Tri-City Development Council found that small modular reactors could save 40,000 gallons of diesel fuel a day to be used at the plant. 
Us nuclear company Westinghouse will fabricate the nuclear fuel for its UK Small Modular Reactor at its Springfields facility in northern Engl and, if the UK government selects that SMR design for research and development funding, according to Westinghouse. 
Ontario is also creating new export opportunities for nuclear innovations in a wide variety of fields that include small modular reactor technology, nuclear fuel research and hydrogen. 
The U. S.  Department of Energy says that small modular reactors, like the one the TDPUD was considering in Idaho Falls, are key to ""safe, clean and affordable"" nuclear power, with better containment and safety standards than traditional, larger reactors. 
Kennewick - a report by the Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council has found that small modular nuclear reactors have promising potential as energy sources in the state. 
Richard, in addition to being an international humanitarian, is also an expert on nuclear reactors, and has a company that designs modular nuclear reactors. 
Saeed Alam Siddiqui, a member of the advisory council of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), said that the small modular reactor (SMR) technology was the answer to power and electricity problems as it was matured and viable. 
Even within the U. S. , small utilities with little or no experience in operating nuclear plants need to fully appreciate the unique challenges and responsibilities associated with nuclear power and should not expect that small modular reactors will provide any relief in this regard. 
That was a modular nuclear reactor project they had lost significant amounts of money on just prior to the spin-off. 
","[4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 2]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 31948170, 45185975, 45185946, 45191882, 45336988, 45361788, 45336993, 45189900, 20512953, 45206691, 6340330, 19838540, 45355658]"
a09a6ad0-d724-4079-a475-7f65d8232f72,3758,We should further exploit sustainable energies,Summit,"This will be a demonstration project to show that energy sustainability is simple to accomplish. 
In the background of all this is the reality that clean energy is becoming cheaper. 
Billions of dollars of new resources to help build that clean energy future for Australia. 
It does not take an expert to tell that clean energy comes at a price. 
The truth is that the clean energy revolution is the economic engine of the future. 
Legislators must understand that clean energy development is not a partisan issue among their constituents. 
The higher subsidy would come from the same funds that clean energy projects rely on. 
Climate scope also revealed that clean energy dollars are flowing to more nations than ever. 
Booker discussed the promise that clean energy holds for the health and wellbeing of people. 
Federal and state policymakers should seize the tremendous economic development opportunity that clean energy represents. 
Kalo says that green energy like biogas helps in tree conservation and general environmental protection. 
Greenpeace chief scientist Doug Parr said it was worrying that clean energy investment had fallen. 
The agency noted that that green energy producers that use local equipment can get an up to 10% increase in their tariffs. 
Mr Yadav said that the green power will help in changing the face of UP. 
","[3, 2, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 2, 3, 4, 4, 3, 3]",15,"[20225558, 45190823, 29155723, 13581319, 20512953, 45181383, 45191873, 45181152, 45272708, 45411178, 45405037, 45355658, 45181262, 45181256, 45189900]"
2107c73f-c35b-46c0-8298-b04d5e303bfe,2401,We should increase fuel tax,Summit,"ALEXANDER: And I think the proposal that we had in the Congress was to increase the fuel tax. 
There have been proposals to increase the fuel tax, vehicle registration fees and other fees. 
Because of the way the Fuel Tax Act is currently worded, tariff proposals do not increase the industry's entitlement to fuel tax credits, even though they effectively increase the fuel tax rate. 
Revenues increased from $18 million to $18. 6 million, due to an increase in fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees. 
The measure adds taxes and fees for Hoosiers, including a 10-cent increase in the fuel tax. 
All of these people will be hardest hit by the GP tax of $7, the increase in fuel excise and the increasing cost of medicines. 
House Transportation Committee members also approved an additional amendment that would repeal the fuel tax increase in the event Congress votes to increase federal fuel taxes. 
The industry says this amounts to a 16 per cent increase in the fuel tax. 
The Legislative session resulted in no increase in taxes and no increase in the gas tax. 
State and federal legislators are loath to increase fuel taxes for fear of reprisals from voters. 
Any increase to the motor fuel tax in Missouri would have to be approved by the legislature, and subsequently be passed by voters. 
The legislation would phase out sales tax collections on motor fuel over several years but increase fuel taxes by a similar amount. 
Each penny increase in the fuel excise tax is estimated to raise up to $40 million. 
The bill would increase fuel taxes by 10 cents a gallon, while imposing new vehicle registration fees. 
The pressure on existing funding will continue to grow as construction costs increase and fuel tax revenues decline with more fuel-efficient vehicles. 
A seven-cent increase in the fuel tax, growing by one cent a year, will fund everything needed. 
It has recommended a 10 increase in the gasoline tax and a 12 increase in the diesel tax. 
The proposal to amend the state constitution would increase the sales tax to 7 percent from 6 percent, take the sales tax off of fuel sales and increase fuel taxes, raising pump prices 8 to 9 cents per gallon, based on current low prices. 
That proposal was to increase the fuel tax for transportation while cutting the income tax that goes to such entities as education, public safety and health care. 
This proposal also would eliminate sales tax on fuel, increase the gasoline tax to a flat 40 cents per gallon (diesel increased to 37 cents), reduce the real estate transfer tax to 1 percent and the income tax to 4. 3 percent. 
An increase in fuel taxes under a 2015 law raises about $400 million in addi tional funds for roads. 
The 6-cent increase in fuel taxes, designed to improve roads and bridges, will be phased in over four years. 
Recent news of state revenue growth of upwards of $1 billion has renewed calls for its use for roads, and not to increase the fuel tax. 
The deficit tax and the proposed increase in fuel excise have raised concerns that the government is avoiding difficult spending cuts from the audit commission by lifting taxes. 
In California, Proposition 6 would repeal the increase in fuel taxes enacted in 2017 as part of the Road Repair and Accountability Act. 
It would also trigger companion legislation that includes other laws that would increase fuel taxes, eliminate registration fee discounts and expand the Earned Income Tax Credit. 
The statewide Proposal 15-1 will increase our sales tax to 7 percent, and will increase our gas tax to fix our roads. 
The plan before the Senate would raise the sales tax to 6. 5 percent, increase cigarette taxes 50 cents per pack, increase the motor fuel tax 5 cents per gallon, freeze income tax rate cuts and reduce the value of some itemized deductions. 
","[4, 3, 5, 3, 5, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2]",15,"[21017840, 6432269, 45538225, 6340330, 20312760, 44690955, 45183231, 45272708, 45181152, 45191873, 45191882, 45189900, 45206691, 43984981, 33708599]"
58a10dee-b77a-4b4d-a135-6fc2710bd886,3196,We should increase immigration to the United States,Summit,"The program was started to increase immigration to the U. S.  from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States. 
The rate of increase of immigration to the United States remained steady in 2011, rising by 2 per cent. 
India is the country of origin with the greatest increase in unauthorized immigrants to the United States, with a 914 percent increase since 1990. 
An article on Friday about an increase in black immigrants to the United States erroneously included one country among the Central and South American countries that have emigrants in the United States. 
The rapid increase in women and girls at risk reflects an increase in immigration to the United States, rather than an increase in the share of women and girls at risk of being cut. 
Cohen argued that the lack of opportunities in Honduras and Central America broadly has led to an increase in immigration to the United States. 
This sequence of events could, ironically, increase immigration into the United States, as Mexico's economy tanks and Mexicans search for a better life. 
The Trump administration's view is that immigrants to the United States are costing this country. 
Later, Western testified that he found Pearce's views on immigration too ""harsh,"" and he recruited Cortes as a candidate after learning that she wanted to increase legal immigration into the United States. 
The total relects the overall increase in immigration into the United States but reveals almost nothing about the long term consequences of adding to population growth through an expansive federal immigration policy and lax border enforcement. 
That bill would substantially increase immigration into the United States, especially the number of low-skilled immigrants - something that Americans don't want, that serves no pressing economic need and that will make assimilation harder. 
There is widespread agreement within the United States that the U. S.  immigration system is flawed. 
Most Americans agree that immigration into the United States should be handled in an orderly fashion. 
The Independent Production Fund and Editorial Clio examine the policies that led to an increase in undocumented immigrants to the United States -- and the resulting backlash -- through stories of people separated from their families. 
What the bill will do, however, is grant amnesty to an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants (assuming there isn't significant fraud to further balloon the numbers), massively increase permanent immigration to the United States and admit millions of new guest workers over the coming years. 
A statewide poll of likely North Carolina voters finds strong opposition to a bill before the U. S.  Senate that would grant amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens and dramatically increase overall immigration to the United States. 
This is not to say that there were not also attempts to increase immigration to the US in numerous cases. 
Instead, she simply stated that US immigration policy was a matter for the US government. 
The campaign is designed to increase awareness of U. S.  immigration policies and enhanced enforcement on the U. S.  border, clearly and simply stating the facts behind U. S.  immigration policies. 
Hurricanes increase U. S.  immigration, with the effect increasing in the size of prior migrant stocks. 
The budget would dramatically increase U. S.  immigration enforcement, a hallmark issue for the president. 
Based on already approved immigration bills and proposals sitting on US Congress, an increase in US immigration barriers looks likely and will only strengthen the case for alternative solutions. 
The Congressional Budget Office's economic analysis of this legislation found that it would increase legal immigration to the U. S.  by approximately 1 million per year. 
For example, due to an increase in immigration to the U. S. , citizens of Bangladesh became ineligible to apply to the program beginning in 2013 (which could explain the drop in total applicants in 2013), while Nigerians became ineligible in 2015. 
Few could dispute that the American immigration system is broken, and has been for years. 
","[2, 3, 3, 1, 4, 3, 2, 1, 4, 2, 3, 2, 1, 4, 4]",15,"[13581319, 45567220, 45677971, 20225558, 45405037, 45569485, 45567227, 19838540, 45458968, 45190823, 28813722, 21785776, 43877630, 45355658, 44044795]"
04f4ea96-bd91-4ff2-a2f5-d528c4815bf1,3180,We should introduce goal line technology,Summit,"FIFA has announced it will up its attempts to introduce goal-line technology in the game. 
Platini said that the decision to introduce the goal-line technology is to be made by FIFA and IFAB. 
It was the latest ball-over-the-line controversy in Serie A which will introduce goal-line technology from next season. 
WHAT THEY SHOULD DO . . .  What They Should Do . . .  is stop mucking about and introduce goal-line technology in all AFL games. 
Tokyo - FIFA will introduce goal-line technology for the first time at the Club World Cup in an effort to accurately judge when balls cross the goal line. 
The SPL today offered their helping hand to FIFA in a bid to introduce goal-line technology. 
That's why FIFA has decided to introduce goal- line technology in this year's World Cup. 
In football, FIFA is set to earnestly introduce goal-line technology in competitive matches next year. 
The International Football Association Board will decide in March 2012 whether to introduce goal-line technology. 
FIFA plan to make a final decision on whether to introduce goal-line technology in early July. 
Redknapp said the blunder over Lampard's goal highlighted the need for authorities to introduce goal-line technology. 
The Bundesliga will introduce goal-line technology from the start of next season, the German Football League has announced. 
The decision as to whether to introduce goal-line technology to international football was yet to betaken by the international governing bodies. 
Last month, the Premier League voted to introduce goal-line technology from the 2013-14 season, using Hawk-Eye technology. 
It will come as scant consolation for Fulham that the Football League is to introduce goal-line technology to Championship matches from next season. 
Coutinho would have had two in the first half if he could have convinced the Premier League to introduce goal-line technology a game early. 
Shaun Harvey, EFL CEO, backed the development: ""I welcome the decision of our clubs to introduce goal-line technology into the EFL. 
With the German Football League stoically refusing to introduce goal-line technology, the referee and linesman's decision that the ball had not gone in will not be reversed. 
EFL clubs have agreed in principle to introduce goal-line technology into the Sky Bet Championship from the 2017/18 season. 
The Scottish Football Association will make a renewed attempt to introduce goal-line technology when the issue is discussed at a Fifa meeting early in the New Year. 
Frank Lampard's ""goal that never was"" against Germany in the World Cup sparked a frenzied debate as to whether FIFA should introduce goal line technology and in which format. 
Football's governing body FIFA has had two different systems tested at a Germany stadium as they look to introduce goal line technology into top-flight football. 
ATHE EPL will not introduce goal-line technology next season but tests into the accuracy of various systems could be complete in time for the 2012-13 campaign. 
FIFA has confirmed it will introduce goal-line technology in time for next year's World Cup finals in Brazil in what promises to be a landmark move in the history of the game. 
London - Having successfully persuaded FIFA to introduce goal-line technology, the English Football Association now wants cameras to be allowed to settle other contentious situations in games. 
Engl and midfielder Frank Lampard's disallowed goal against Germany in the 2010 World Cup, in which the whole world saw the ball cross the goal-line by a good half-metre except referee Jorge Larrionda and his linesman, was instrumental in FIFA's decision to introduce goal-line technology for Brazil 2014. 
SFA chief executive Stewart Regan last night insisted the latest Old Firm flashpoint showed why FIFA must introduce goal-line technology. 
After being piloted at the Confederations Cup in Brazil in the summer of 2013, the English Premier League became the first football league in the world to introduce goal-line technology. 
The EPL wants to introduce goal-line technology as early as next season if football's rule-makers -- The International Football Association Board (IFAB) -- sanction its use in July. 
","[3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 2, 3, 2, 3, 4, 2]",15,"[45567227, 45567220, 31948170, 45191882, 45405037, 45361788, 45336988, 45336993, 45189900, 20512953, 45206691, 45185946, 45190823, 45191885, 27770607]"
ac9275eb-d62a-40fc-92e3-6fad9a980ffc,3191,We should introduce recall elections,Summit,"To encourage the process of the right to recall, legislative change is needed which seeks to introduce recall petitions, for elected representatives in the Lok Sabha and in respective Legislative Assemblies. 
House Speaker Ken Martinez, D-Grants, said he could not remember any recent legislative attempts to introduce recall elections on a statewide level. 
Cook has alleged that recall organizers gathered signatures illegally for the petition seeking the recall election. 
Walker actually won that recall election by a larger margin than he had when first elected in 2010. 
The pace at which the group is collecting signatures all but ensures that a recall election will be triggered. 
State elections staff members on Friday recommended that recall elections be set for three Republican state senators. 
Before that recall election, Wisconsin has the next say in this Republican race for President. 
The House legal affairs committee on Wednesday began discussion of a bill aiming to introduce recall elections, a procedure by which voters can remove an elected official from office through a direct vote before that official's term has ended. 
The coalition agreement commits the Government to introduce a power of recall, allowing voters to force a by-election where an MP is found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing if 10% of constituents demand one. 
The 2010 coalition agreement included a pledge to introduce a ""power of recall"", which would have enabled voters to force a by-election if they could get 10% of an MP's constituents to sign a petition. 
City records indicate that a recall election would be the first in at least 80 years. 
The motion asks the court to instead order that the recall election be held Feb. 
An attorney representing Littlefield countered that a recall election would have been illegal under state law. 
The Coalition agreement of 2010 included a promise of early legislation to introduce a ""power of recall"", allowing voters to force their MP to face a by-election by raising a petition of 10 per cent of constituents. 
Cochran suggested cities toughen recall requirements and tell voters that recall elections cost money, USA Today said. 
Section 74 of the Local Government Code mandates that recall elections cannot happen a year before a regular election. 
The exit poll showed that 60% thought that the recall mechanism should be used only in case of misconduct by the elected official, and another 10% said that recall elections are never appropriate. 
The Wayne County Election Commission confirms that a recall petition for Detroit Mayor Dave Bing has been approved. 
Oregon law requires that a recall election be held within 35 days after receipt of the petition. 
Louisiana's election law states that recall petitions become public records after the first signature is collected. 
Ainsworth said he is researching laws in other states and would introduce a recall bill that includes a requirement for a petition signed by a certain percentage of registered voters. 
All three main parties had pledged to introduce a power of recall' as a way of assuaging public anger in the wake of the 2009 expenses scandal. 
That is not dissimilar to the Government's current attempt to introduce a recall mechanism for MPs, controlled by other MPs, rather than by voters - a rapidly collapsing attempt, which probably explains why ministers are keeping so quiet about recall for mayors. 
Katikamu South has 72,575 voters, which means that a recall petition will require 48,384 signatures. 
Board trustees contend that the recall petition doesn't include a clear statement of their alleged acts that constitute recall. 
Every retiree in this state needs to sign that recall petition and vote this moron governor out. 
Hill and Parham argued that the recall petition could happen to any member of council. 
A judge rules that a recall effort against Pacific Mayor Cy Sun can go forward. 
The resolution also reflected that a recall petition against Councilman Chas Kelley failed to get enough signatures to qualify. 
","[4, 4, 3, 3, 4, 4, 2, 2, 4, 4, 2, 4, 1, 5, 5]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 45191882, 45185975, 45191885, 45185946, 13581319, 45190823, 45953041, 34110399, 45411178, 6340330, 29155723, 15448937, 30777913]"
4b5b50dd-0f1e-427d-ba94-bb7ec68419db,3168,We should introduce year round schooling,Summit,"In ""Outliers,"" author Malcolm Gladwell took a deep dive into the differences in school performance between nations that had year-round school and the United States. 
The Canton City School District is taking a bold scholastic leap as they prepare to introduce year-round schooling next year. 
Lavergne agreed that the year-round school year could allow teachers to introduce new material rather than review. 
Superintendent Dave Benson has recommended that the year-round school close at the end of this school year. 
The number of single-track schools has increased with school districts citing how there's nothing in state law that requires year-round schools to be multi-track. 
My case was bolstered by the fact that our year-round school was on a 3-week break, so no school in the morning. 
About 3,100 district children started their school year even earlier than that - on July 9 - in a track that mimics a year-round school calendar. 
The idea that the process of redrawing school boundaries could be the right opportunity to introduce a year-round school into a community that is open to it came from School Board member Bill Fox (Leesburg). 
Wake County school administrators will recommend Tuesday that six year-round schools in Garner and East Wake switch to a traditional calendar in 2018 and that two year-round schools move to a multi-track year-round calendar. 
The school board has been told for over 10 years that year-round school will be required in fast-growing school districts at some point in time, while that time is here. 
A cyber school serving grades K-12, iCademy is a sister school to Innocademy, a charter school in Zeeland that offers a year-round school calendar. 
There are studies out there that show that year-round school calendars boost learning and there are studies out there that show that year-round school calendars don't boost learning. 
In the 1990s, the school district went all out to convince parents and the public that year-round school calendars were best for students. 
State College of Florida president Carol Probstfeld suggested that installing a year-round school schedule could provide teachers with a more consistent salary. 
The study also found that year-round schools increased a division's by an average of 3 percent. 
Some advocates have also argued that year-round schooling can serve as a springboard for high teacher pay, due in part to more efficient use of school facilities. 
As a public educator for more than 20 years, I agree with Jeremy Meyer that year round school makes sense; but it will never happen. 
State lawmakers created that grant program following a report from the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission that found that year-round school programs can improve academic performance. 
That means a year round school program, longer school days, and full time teachers paid full time salaries. 
Opponents counter that year-round school disrupts family life and deprives students of longer summer vacations. 
Recent studies found that year-round school, if it doesn't provide additional instructional days, is no better than traditional school calendars. 
A number of studies indicate that year-round school -- with short breaks spread throughout the year instead of a long one in the summer -- would help prevent summer learning loss in many students. 
One thing that year-round school calendars seem to have in common is a shorter summer break, and a greater number of shorter breaks, fairly evenly distributed throughout the year. 
District officials need a contingency plan to address overcrowding, and right now that's year-round school, Groff said. 
The DOE also reported that year-round school caused problems for families scheduling vacations, arranging day care during spring and fall breaks, and, if the calendar is not implemented at all schools, having siblings on different calendar schedules. 
For a little more context on what is meant by ""enrichment,"" it's thought that year-round school is a benefit for disadvantaged students who may have fewer opportunities over the summer, such as attending summer camp and the like, than other students. 
","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 3, 5, 5]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 31948170, 45191882, 45189900, 45206691, 45336993, 45185975, 45361788, 20512953, 45191885, 45336988, 45190823, 30777913, 15448937]"
af7eaa42-31d8-444a-98cc-693caaf75bce,1902,We should legalize ivory trade,Summit,"It added that legalizing ivory trade is an ineffective way to curb poaching in Africa. 
Proponents of legalizing the ivory trade assert that the 1989 ban is no longer working. 
If Taiwan will ban ivory trade, then it will be one country less in illegal ivory trade. 
There should be an end to the debate on a mechanism to legalize ivory trade in the future, he said. 
South Africa, Zimbabwe and Namibia will put forward a joint proposal for legalizing ivory trade. 
These tusks were supposedly ""legal"" - that is acquired from elephants shot before the international ban on the ivory trade. 
The international ban on ivory trade is relatively meaningless as long as legal domestic markets exist. 
An immediate ban of the ivory trade in Hong Kong is technically possible, and the delay to 2021 is ""legally unnecessary,"" a legal expert says. 
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) banned the international ivory trade in 1989 but allowed China to legally buy 62 tons of ivory in 2008. 
Avaaz is calling for a ban on all ivory trade in Europe, an end to ivory exports from Europe and an end to the trade in raw ivory. 
Activists say criminals exploit a legal trade in Asian elephant tusk to sell illicit stocks of African ivory and conservation groups the World Wildlife Fund and TRAFFIC have called on the Thai government to ban all ivory trade in the country. 
Elephant ivory cannot be traded internationally due to the international ban on ivory trade imposed by CITES since 1989. 
Mainland China banned its legal ivory trade last year, but there are concerns that a black market may take hold. 
China does not ban domestic ivory trade, but it sets a ceiling for the amount of legal market consumption at five tonnes each year. 
The US has announced new restrictions on trading ivory domestically in the run-up to the London Conference on the Illegal Wildlife Trade, with laws constituting a ""near ban"" on the ivory trade in the country. 
These include ivory products carved before a 1989 ban on international ivory trade, ivory from the tusks of extinct mammoths, and ivory bought from government stockpile sales in southern Africa. 
This could be ivory from elephants poached more recently than 1990, when the international ban on ivory trade came into force. 
IFAW is advocating for a complete ban on international ivory trade, the closure of domestic ivory markets and the destruction of ivory stockpiles. 
More than 85% have stated their support for a total ban on the ivory trade. 
There is gathering momentum for bans on ivory trade to help combat poaching and stop illegal wildlife trade. 
In 1989, CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) issued an international ban on the ivory trade. 
Exports banned The ivory trade is not illegal in Zimbabwe, but it is controlled and it is not permitted for export. 
Following the CITES ban on global ivory trade, Hong Kong prohibited the import and export of ivory, but allowed domestic trade in pre-1990 (or pre-ban) ivory to continue. 
In June, Hong Kong - the largest city market for ivory - published a bill to ban the ivory trade by 2021. 
Hong Kong and China have recently moved to place new restrictions on the ivory trade. 
All populations of African elephants were listed on Cites Appendix I in 1989, effectively banning international ivory trade. 
Southern African countries are keen to see the lifting of the worldwide ban on the ivory trade. 
Illegal poaching and slaughter of elephants in Africa continues despite a 1989 ban on the ivory trade. 
Countries in Southern Africa have been at odds with their East African counterparts which have been pushing for a ban on ivory trade. 
Wildlife authorities say illegal ivory smuggling in Africa increased after the temporary lifting of an international ban on the ivory trade in 2007. 
","[2, 2, 4, 4, 3, 4, 2, 2, 1, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 1]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 45567220, 45567227, 45538225, 21785776, 20225558, 45411178, 45191882, 45361788, 45206691, 45355658, 45405037, 30777913]"
15b77641-4895-4b76-b9d9-27d666424bcd,2083,We should legalize organ trade,Summit,"The Declaration of Istanbul called for a prohibition of organ trafficking and organ trade and transplant tourism. 
Many will also point out that legalizing the organ trade could lead to the blurring of the fine lines between permitted and illicit. 
In 2007, China issued its first organ transplant regulation, which bans the organ trade in any form. 
This in turn will prohibit Illegal organ trade, which is a menace for the society. 
China has banned the organ trade and live organ donations are permitted only with blood relatives. 
The law on organ transplantation bans organ trade and thus demands documents or material to attest to such if the donor and the patient are not related by blood. 
While both of these individuals are in favor of legalizing organ sales, the video also interviews a transplant surgeon who is against legalization. 
Bans on organ sales are frequently modeled as a price ceiling set at a price of zero (Mankiw, 2007. 
This is an equally powerful and logically persuasive case for the legalization of organ sales. 
Studies have yet to discover the long-term health impacts on both donors and beneficiaries, and legalizing organ trade could disrupt insurance policies, health regulations and healthcare plans. 
The resulting ordinance, which later became an act in 2010, put a legal ban on organ sale and allowed retrieval of organs from deceased donors for transplantation. 
Although the number of foreign recipients seems to have decreased after the enactment of a law banning organ trade (the Human Organ Transplantation Act of 1994), the bulletin claimed the underground organ market remained active in India. 
To address this problem, I suggest that the government legalises the organ trade, which would be a win-win situation for donors and recipients. 
In a crackdown on human organ trafficking, the Chinese police have arrested 137 people in connection with the illicit trade. 
Mr.  Mircov said he had no fear about an eventual operation or legal strictures forbidding organ sales. 
His story illustrates all too clearly that, while Pakistan may have laws regulating organ trade, the government has not been entirely successful in enforcing them. 
In 2007, the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissue Ordinance was the country's first act to criminalise organ trafficking. 
Prof.  Adeeb-ul-Hasan Rizvi discussed the Ethical Aspects of Organ Donation with reference to Transplant Law, and the role of Human Organ Transplant Association (HOTA) to prohibit Organ trafficking in the country. 
Among the needed reforms, Huang said, is a crackdown on organ trafficking and more regulations on how organs are procured. 
The Organ Transplant Law prohibits organ trafficking, and people who travel overseas for transplants are viewed with a harsh eye around the world. 
Maruti said that organ trafficking is violation of human as well as Right to Health. 
Medical advances cited A 1984 law that bans organ sales categorizes bone marrow and its subparts with vital organs like kidneys. 
The 2008 Declaration of Istanbul, to which Qatar is a signatory, prohibits organ trafficking and transplant tourism, and urges countries to develop national self-sufficiency in regard to supplying organs for transplantation. 
China has long banned human organ trafficking but high demand and low supplies have led to a black market. 
In 2007, China introduced regulations that banned organ trafficking, and cracked down on ""transplant tourism"" by non-Chinese nationals. 
As many as 137 suspects have been arrested in China in the latest crackdown on human organ trafficking, said authorities. 
The UAE is one of the first countries in the region to criminalize organ trafficking because it represents a profanation of human dignity. 
Further, this section argues that while some prohibitions are warranted, the ban on organ sales inequitably distributes wealth and autonomy between donors and third parties involved in transplantation. 
The new law expands the criminal definition of human trafficking, including prohibition of organ trafficking, and does more to hold accountable traffickers and those who engage in commercial sexual abuse of minors. 
","[1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 5, 4, 2]",15,"[45190823, 20225558, 45181383, 45191873, 45272708, 45181152, 28813722, 29155723, 45405037, 45181243, 45181256, 20512953, 45411178, 19838540, 45355658]"
dce1899a-ead7-4e98-8e91-08241e4625e5,2184,We should legalize public nudity,Summit,"What the legislation would not do is ban public nudity, which is legal unless you're in a state of sexual arousal. 
Other nearby cities like Berkeley and San Jose have passed laws prohibiting public nudity, but in San Francisco it remains legal. 
The legal opinion issued Thursday bolsters an emergency measure the city council enacted June 10 to ban public nudity. 
Ocean City officials say the new ordinance prohibits offenses involving public nudity or those in a state of nudity. 
There is no state law prohibiting public nudity, but there are towns that have local ordinances. 
The, um, penal code does not ban public nudity, as long as it is not indecent or disorderly. 
Depending on where you live, your city may or may not have a ban on public nudity. 
The nudity ordinance bans nudity in public places, defined as any place owned by or open to the general public - regardless of whether a fee is assessed to enter the place. 
There are laws, after all, that prohibit public nudity and sexual displays - which fully-clothed kissing clearly is not. 
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted on a law that would ban public nudity. 
Most famously, he clothed the naked through a law banning public nudity in the Castro district. 
The Board of Supervisors voted this month to ban public nudity except at permitted events. 
The activists argue that the ban on public nudity violates their First Amendment freedom of speech rights because their nudity is a political statement. 
Spain currently has no law prohibiting public nudity, but in fact considers the act a constitutional right. 
Switzerland does not ban public nudity but it does have public indecency laws and the court said banning nude hiking amounts to only a small limit on personal freedom. 
Some Dallas County cities prohibit public nudity, but the county has not ordinance for unincorporated areas. 
Kaminski said the city plans to look at an ""indecent exposure"" ordinance that not only prohibits nudity in public, but also bars the public wearing of clothing belonging to the opposite gender. 
THE BEACH L. A.  county prohibits public nudity so beaches are as close to naked as one can get around here. 
For example, the man who proposed the citywide ban on public nudity is called Scott Wiener. 
A draft ordinance prepared by Moore prohibits nudity in public places, which are defined as any place owned by or open to the general public whether or not a fee is required to enter. 
Queensland's wilful exposure laws prohibit nudity in public, so the naturists need private property to practise their pastime. 
Naturist get-togethers are rare and take place only at the house of a trusted fellow nudist as the law prohibits nudity in public. 
A legal challenge to female toplessness and a memo to a Maryland city's beach patrol instructing them not to bother women going topless on local beaches has resulted in that city council convening an ""emergency"" Saturday meeting to pass legislation banning public nudity. 
Later, he pushed for and won a ban on public nudity on city streets (except at events where people have grown to expect some exhibitionism). 
The case, Barnes v.  Glen Theatre 1991 about an Indiana law regulating public nudity isn t particularly significant. 
San Francisco's ban on public nudity would apply to streets, sidewalks and public rights-of-way, with exceptions for permitted events and for children under the age of five. 
San Francisco (AP) - Three naked protesters have been arrested by San Francisco police for violating the city's ban on public nudity. 
The Chancellor issued an edict banning public nudity at the university which will allow campus police to ask naked people to leave or be arrested for trespassing. 
As with many other social movements, this city was at the forefront of a ""body freedom"" revolution, with The Castro considered ""clothing optional"" until a controversial ban on public nudity in 2012. 
","[3, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 45567227, 45567220, 45336993, 45361788, 45189900, 45336988, 45411178, 21785776, 45181383, 45181384, 45190571, 45401087]"
1de78d74-4933-4a1b-8a3f-75bb374cef56,2166,We should legalize sex selection,Summit,"Proponents of this law note that even the United Kingdom and Canada have legal restrictions on sex-selection. 
Legal bans on sex selection do not seem to be effective, and are often harmful to girls and the mothers, she noted. 
In India this 'sex-selection' became such a problem that in 1994 an act of parliament had to be passed to criminalise sex selection. 
The PCPNDT Act prohibits sex selection and regulates prenatal diagnostic techniques to prevent their misuse for sex determination leading to sex-selective abortion. 
The PNDT Act prohibits sex selection in any form and also bans advertisements relating to sex selection, including advertisements on the Internet. 
So it is undeniably a restriction to prohibit abortion for sex-selection or any other reason. 
In India, the Pre-conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (amended in 2003) prohibits sex-selection or disclosure of the sex of the foetus. 
Sex-selective abortion laws in the United States, however, do not prohibit sex selection achieved through use of assisted fertility technologies. 
While I would decry such a decision, it is plain that prohibiting abortions for sex-selection is a restriction. 
Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act: This will prevent of sex selection before or after a woman conceives. 
In some countries, pre-natal sex determination and disclosure are illegal, while others have laws banning abortion for sex selection. 
India Centre has asked Maharashtra government to effectively step up implementation of the Pre Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex selection) Act, 1994 to curb sex determination and sex selective abortions. 
A PIL filed by an NGO had alleged that despite the legal prohibition, these websites are still getting things advertised in violation of the legal provisions contained in the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques Prohibition of Sex Selection Act. 
India in pursuance of these obligations enacted one such Law to curb the sex selective abortion as Pre-Conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques ( Prohibition of Sex Selection ) Act in the year 1994. 
The law to ban sex determination/sex selection - the Pre-conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act 1994 - was created to counter the misuse of reproductive technologies for elimination of female foetuses. 
India prohibits sex-selection abortions, as well as ultrasounds to determine the sex of the unborn child, but the practices still occur. 
In both India and China, unbalanced sex ratios have led to prohibition of prenatal sex selection for social reasons (91, 92 ). 
The purpose of this legislation is to protect unborn children from prenatal discrimination in the form of being subjected to abortion based on the child's sex or race by prohibiting sex-selection or race-selection abortions. 
The aim is to ban use of sex selection techniques before or after conception and check the misuse of prenatal diagnostic techniques for sex determination. 
This led to administrative corrections to prohibit ""sex selection"" tests by amniocentesis or by determination by ultrasound equipment. 
Titled the ""Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act,"" the bill says ""there is no place for discrimination and inequality in human society"" and would outlaw sex-selection and race-selection abortions. 
Countries with longstanding experience with sex-selection abortion--such as the Republic of India, the United Kingdom, and the People's Republic of China--have enacted restrictions on sex selection, and have steadily continued to strengthen prohibitions and penalties. 
Sex determination tests in India are illegal under the PNDT Act (Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994). 
Even as prenatal sex determination remains a pressing problem in the country, the Supreme Court of India has taken up cudgels against the poor implementation of the law against sex selective abortion, the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act of 1994. 
From a policy point of view, there has been an increased concentration on laws to prohibit sex selection, and the forceful implementation of the laws. 
America is the only advanced country that does not restrict sex-selection through law, and that must end today. 
","[4, 4, 3, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 1]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 45458968, 20225558, 45405037, 45181383, 45181384, 45190571, 45401087, 45538225, 6432269, 45190823, 44044795, 30777913, 45411178]"
d6cb8f2e-319a-49a9-8026-18b0dd1f27ba,3198,We should limit the right of self-defense,Summit,"Whether Article 51 recognizes a pre-existent right to self-defense or limits that right of self-defense is presently being debated. 
Number two, that Israel had the right of self-defense in the -- in the light of those attacks and we supported that right of self-defense. 
Romano is right when he says that the right of self-defense is an old principle. 
The founding fathers recognized that the right of self-defense and defense of freedom are paramount. 
The Second Amendment is a recognition that the right to self-defense is a God-given right. 
Gun owners object that this would limit their right to self-defense, and point out Massachusetts already has strict gun storage laws. 
That fact shows why it's unreasonable to limit the right to self-defense while the law has no hold on criminals and dangerous nuts around us. 
In upholding the ammunition limit as reasonable, Shwartz disputed that the right to self-defense entitles a gun owner to carry large-capacity magazines. 
This book also points out that the right to self-defense was always considered a right in common law and not a right that required constitutional protection. 
Article 51 articulates that a State has ""the inherent right of . . .  self-defence ifan armed attack occurs,"" and the lack of conditional language could indicate that the framers did not intend to limit the right to self-defense to ""if and only if' an armed attack occurs. 
A state-funded institution should not be allowed to impose rules more strict than state law, especially rules to limit one's right to self-defense. 
All she asks is the ability to defend herself and for free people to support that right to self-defense. 
The ICJ has found that the right of self-defense may only be exercised against a significant attack. 
In all instances, the strict rule is that the right to self-defense exists only against a state - and no other entity. 
Several dozen retired general and flag officers are urging the Supreme Court to hear a case that could vastly limit troops' right to self-defense in combat zones. 
U. N.  organizations, by contrast, have in the past argued that gun control is mandated by international human rights law, and that the right of self-defense does not exist. 
Indeed, when a person experiences an actual threat, the need to exercise that right of self-defense becomes more immediately primal and deeply felt than any other constitutional right. 
There is no cavil with the proposition that right of self-defence is a fundamental right guaranteed by law. 
Stand-your-ground recognizes that the right to self-defense extends beyond the home and is an essential liberty of free people. 
It is true that the right of self-defence is available under Islamic Law but it is also established law that the plea of self-defence is not available to an aggressor. 
The test for excessive self-defence and defensive homicide are similar, both requiring a belief that defensive force was necessary but where the response was objectively not reasonable. 
Even otherwise, it is an established principle of law that right of self-defence if accrued cannot be weighed in golden scales. 
State statutes provide very broad terms as to what can be considered defensive force and how people may carry out that defensive force in a dwelling, business or property. 
In any assault case, self defence is a valid legal defence - if it is deemed that ""reasonable force"" was used. 
For MacDill Air Force Base, Florida, the 6th Security Forces Squadron is that defensive force protecting more than 42,000 military personnel, family members, and civilian employees. 
It's hard to argue that defensive force Rapheal Davis, the increasingly versatile Vince Edwards and freshman phenom Caleb Swanigan shouldn't start. 
It is claimed that reasonable force' had been used in response to the threat of assault. 
Jurors were instructed that reasonable force could be used to prevent a forcible offense against others. 
Ruling party MPs have said that ""reasonable force"" may be used to clear the occupied building. 
","[2, 1, 5, 4, 5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 1, 2]",15,"[45953041, 20512953, 21017840, 6432269, 30777913, 45411178, 6340330, 45569485, 45567227, 44094031, 45355658, 45458968, 44044795, 33708599, 45405037]"
e183a90e-d9a4-4a89-890e-cdbe4277432a,2482,We should limit the use of birth control,Summit,"Tackling lies one by one: The amendment does not in any way limit birth control. 
Some women have uncomfortable side effects that limit which birth control method they would use. 
In Congress, I will fight any attempts to limit access to birth control for American women. 
If the bill passes, it will limit birth control options and ban all forms of abortion. 
Just do not push your views an everyone else and limit access to birth control. 
Democrats say the legislation is nothing more than attempt to limit access to birth control. 
Cockrum is most concerned that there will be legislation introduced that will limit access to birth control. 
Their vocal position in the past, combined with their effective lobbying efforts to limit birth control commercially for women, made birth control illegal. 
Karlamangla S, Women rush to the doctor for birth control, fearing Trump will limit access to contraception. 
The Senate plan would cut $3 million from that program and limit the birth control it could provide. 
Birth control methods for women, in their childbearing years, who take tamoxifen to prevent a recurrence, need to limit their birth control options to the IUD and condoms. 
Wanting to get rid of or limit access to birth control is attempting to have a prohibition against sex. 
The executive order on religious liberty could seriously limit birth control coverage in the interim. 
Critics have expressed concern that they will also limit access to birth control, medical services for transgender people, and more. 
Catholic-affiliated clinics, which limit birth control options, are included in a new state list of health care providers that Iowans are instructed to turn to for subsidized birth control services. 
The group is launching an investigation citing that 2 of Heartland's  clinics limit birth control access for patients. 
Those who want to limit birth control and abortions need to realize that we all end up paying for these unintended pregnancies. 
As for the church's attempt to limit birth control coverage for non-Catholics, it would be wiser to tend to its own flock. 
Don't limit birth control access One has to question the intelligence, morality, and even the sanity of a decision to limit women's access to contraception. 
Hawsey said she disagrees with the speculation that the amendment could limit access to birth control or fertility treatments. 
His administration has also attempted to repeal the Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act, a move that would limit access to birth control and contraception. 
Republican majorities are pushing policies to limit birth control and abortion access throughout our country, including Wisconsin. 
The order also questioned the reason for the two rules, which was to limit the birth control mandate in order to preserve religious liberty. 
Mississippi has some of the nation's toughest abortion regulations, but opponents of the measure successfully stressed that it would limit birth control. 
Northam, Fairfax, and Herring will fight to expand access to abortion and affordable birth control for all women, while their opponents have vowed to ban abortion, oppose Medicaid expansion to 400,000 Virginians, and limit access to birth control. 
Wash Post: ""The legislation would limit payments for birth-control services, an indirect way of defunding Planned Parenthood, long a GOP talisman. 
Women's rights: The Republicans have passed over a hundred bills nationwide trying to restrict abortions and limit access to birth control. 
South Carolina legislators are considering a bill, the ""Personhood Act,"" which would effectively ban all abortions in the state and limit access to birth control and in-vitro fertilization. 
Pro-abortion rights forces have been alarmed at what they see as a determined effort by the Trump administration and GOP-controlled Congress to not only ban abortion, but limit access to birth control and women's health care. 
Some opponents of the cuts viewed them as a move by officials with a conservative political agenda to limit access to birth control for teens and rely on abstinence-only sex education. 
","[3, 3, 2, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 5]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 31948170, 45336993, 45206691, 45361788, 45189900, 45336988, 45181384, 45190571, 45401087, 45181383, 45190823, 30777913]"
8aa21488-32d7-455f-b63c-3d161bf07883,2110,We should lower the age of consent,Summit,"One proposal to address this is to lower the age of consent from 18 to 16. 
It has also decided to lower the age of consent for sex from 18 to 16 years. 
Sir - Some children have sex under the age of 16; so lower the age of consent to 15. 
The new legislation does not lower the age of consent to sexual acts to 12 years. 
For instance, the minimum age of marriage with parental consent is lower than the age of sexual consent in Gabon and Tanzania. 
The effect of the legislation will be to lower the age of consent for anal sex to 16 years of age, the Criminal Code age of consent for sexual activity. 
A proposal to lower the age of consent for sexual activities to 16 from 18 has also not been accepted. 
In jurisdictions where the marriageable age is lower than the age of consent, those laws usually override the age of consent laws in the case of a married couple where one or both partners are below the age of consent. 
Other European countries like Germany and Portugal have a lower age of consent at 14. 
The Commission has allowed member states to legislate if they want the lower age of consent. 
In my opinion, that's what a lower age of consent does - separate the young from the pack. 
In August, Cuomo signed a bill to lower the age of consent for organ donations. 
Mr Dromey also denies backing an NCCL drive to lower the age of consent to 14. 
In February, there was an effort to have the National Assembly lower the age of sexual consent for girls from 18 to 16. 
The Centre's decision to lower the age of consent for sex from 18 to 16 is a bad call. 
The GOM has agreed to lower the age of consent in rape cases from 18 years to 16 years. 
Some would not be classified as criminal under European laws, which set lower ages of consent than do American laws. 
Professor Ashton pointed out that in countries with lower ages of consent, young people have sex at a later age and teenage pregnancy rates are lower. 
Democratic lawmakers in Indiana have tried, and failed , in the past to raise the age of consent for sex to 18.  Indiana is not the only state that has a lower age of consent for sex than for sexting. 
In November the government pushed through legislation to lower the age of consent for sex between gay men in Britain from 18 to 16 (in Northern Ireland the age was lowered to 17). 
It was when the then Labour Government was on a nanny-state health kick and also campaigning to lower the age of consent for gay sex. 
Currently in fact, is a discussion on the Law of Domestic Violence based on gender, which will lower the age of sexual consent to 16 years also. 
This lower digital age of consent had also been recommended by children's organisations such as the Children's Rights Alliance. 
Other countries made different choices: Germany kept the age of consent to 16 years old, while Ireland, Pol and and Spain chose to lower the age of consent to 13 years old. 
It is learnt that the Law Ministry also opposed the amendment to lower the age of consent for sex from 18 to 16 years in the proposed anti-rape law. 
The Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2013,, which proposes to lower the age of consent from 18 years to 16 years, was cleared by the Cabinet on Thursday. 
In 2000, after months of debate, the Parliament Act allowed the same government to lower the age of consent for homosexual sex from 18 to 16. 
No. "" Ashton said that countries that have lower ages of consent see young people get involved in sex later and they also have much lower teenage pregnancy rates. 
","[4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 5]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 45336993, 45189900, 45361788, 20225558, 45336988, 45458968, 45185946, 45411178, 31948170, 45191885, 29155723, 45190823, 44044795]"
5bf7b53e-9f67-4223-a77f-e6ed828e85a5,3208,We should prohibit slum tourism,Summit,"It would be hard to deny that slum tourism does bring some benefits to Dharavi, even if they are few and far between. 
Frenzel argues that while slum tourism often evokes moral outrage, critics rarely ask about what motivates this tourism, or what wider consequences and effects it initiates. 
Last year's winner of the World Responsible Tourism Awards was Reality Tours And Travel, a slum tour in Mumbai, which works to eradicate the negative stereotypes that 'poverty tourism' has been accused of glamorising. 
The award demonstrates that even though slum tourism was not to everyone's liking, if executed responsibly it can encourage enterprise and improve the lives of the slum dwellers. 
The lack of skills is another challenge that emerging township tourism entrepreneurs have to manage. 
There is no hint that he is slumming in the horror genre - his love of scary movies is apparent. 
It might be only me, but I feel that Jacobi is slumming in this silly role. 
Our warblers, hummingbirds, and tanagers are all basically tropical birds that are slumming it up north. 
Recent statistics had proved that township tourism products were among the most frequently visited attractions by overseas visitors to Durban. 
The data collected and examined affirms that the slumming process in the four cities is significantly accounted for by rising urbanisation. 
Indeed, they have an impressive cast that includes two slumming Academy Award winners and one nominee. 
In an interview, Mr Ncube highlighted that township tourism is unique to Africa as tourists from the developed world are seeking urban spaces with a rich human history that is rarely found in other continents. 
The report, entitled Tourism as a Driver for Peace - produced with the Institute of Economics and Peace, a global think-tank measuring peace - states that township tourism in SA has led to both informal and formal skills acquisition by community members in Alexandra township. 
Some are going to say that Franco is slumming here, and is only onboard as an actor so the film would get the green light. 
Lang conceded that one way of seeing immersive experiences is that of ""poverty tourism,"" and he said he had had that concern originally as well. 
Reading Zone One, I had the sense that Whitehead was slumming, and there's nothing more loathsome for a reader than the sense of being patronised. 
In 1993, most thought Julia Roberts was slumming by marrying Lovett, but now, after listening to the Lovett catalog and seeing his live shows - even my wife, a huge Roberts fan, admits that maybe it was Lyle that was slumming after all. 
For Zin, that meant slumming it in the Indy newsroom, attending staff meetings and interviewing nearly every employee in the building. 
The whole idea that you're slumming it making children's TV is just bizarre; they are such a demanding audience. 
Perhaps it's just that slumming represents a few weeks' respite from their ordinary, over-organized lives. 
Not that he's slumming it: Sir Trevor is getting around in a private helicopter (thanks to Heli Air Monaco in the credits). 
This is mainly due to the cast never giving the impression that they are slumming, despite how the script is based on what is essentially an airport bookshop paperback. 
The Labour MP told Radio Times magazine: 'Channel 4 has discovered that poverty tourism does more for ratings than celebrity culture, missions to explain or any highfalutin attempts to hold government to account,' he added. 
The tours are taken by local residents who lead groups of just six people on a two and-a-half hour journey through its corridor-wide streets, showing them the resourcefulness of Dharavi's residents in a bid to eradicate negative stereotypes that 'poverty tourism' has been accused of glamorising. 
Levine keeps the film on the right side of the silly/sweet divide, and he gets smart, committed performances out of his cast; only Malkovich, as the disapproving dad, lets on that he's slumming. 
","[2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 1, 5, 1, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3]",15,"[45953041, 45191885, 45458968, 21017840, 15448937, 20512953, 45167145, 28813722, 19838540, 6340330, 30777913, 45355658, 34110399, 45401087, 45181384]"
631d976c-fb87-4a13-8bd2-93029f670e44,3237,We should prohibit unisex bathrooms,Summit,"Mr.  Browne says that unisex toilet training, by contrast, contributes to clean sanitary toilets and bathrooms. 
It was also found that gender-neutral toilets will save water, after a survey that showed that women flush public toilets up to three times in one sitting. 
In 2013, Chen Yijun, a deputy director with the City Appearance and Environment Quality Monitoring Center, told the Oriental Morning Post that unisex toilets would eventually make up 25 to 30 percent of all public toilets in downtown Shanghai. 
Let""s hope that unisex toilets might encourage all parties to up their game in this regard. 
The council claims that unisex toilets will benefit children who are confused about their gender as they will no longer need to worry if they are using the correct toilet. 
Opponents often complain that unisex toilets take facilities away from men and women and hand them over to the transgender minority, when in fact they are available to everyone. 
Dr Allan Walker called on Glasgow City Council to produce evidence that unisex toilets reduce bullying. 
The issue arose again during Long Term Plan discussions and requests that toilets at the Mt Somers Hall be upgraded so that a unisex toilet suitable for disabled people be accessible from the hall or adjoining reserve. 
As written, the initiative would not only restrict which facilities transgender people could access, but would require all multi-occupancy public facilities as either for men or women, essentially outlawing unisex bathrooms in the state. 
Loughborough University has confirmed that gender neutral toilets have started to be included across campus. 
Cogen says that gender-neutral bathrooms will not only benefit county employees, but the public, too. 
It pointed out that gender-neutral toilets ensured privacy and eliminated discomfort for trans- and gender-variant persons, who often found themselves in uncomfortable situations when using conventional gender-segregated toilets. 
Gender neutral changing rooms and bathrooms are frequently debated, with a Daily Mail columnist claiming that gender-neutral toilets are 'trans tyranny' earlier this year. 
Supporters have said that the ``bathroom bill'' label is offensive and that the measure would not sanction unisex bathrooms. 
The union heard that gender-neutral toilets could replace traditional male and female loos in schools to accommodate transgender children. 
Another student said that they feared that introducing gender neutral toilets would lead to more cases of women being harassed. 
During the session, Dalli announced that gender-neutral toilets will be installed in every government ministry, in a pilot project to safeguard rights of transgender people. 
There is no recent evidence to support that transgender people are any more dangerous than anyone else, or that unisex bathrooms induce more violence. 
Labour MP Caroline Flint intervened in a debate in December about trans equality to claim that gender-neutral toilets put women at risk. 
At the time, Chinese language newspapers reported that Zhao opposed the policy on the grounds that gender-neutral bathrooms would lead to ""public moral issues,"" including rape, on school campuses, drawing the ire of LGBTQ rights advocates. 
ERIC (The Children's Bowel & Bladder Charity) says schools are finding that unisex washrooms are helping to encourage a safe and neutral space for students. 
UC Berkeley was ahead of the curve, of course, in implementing new regulations requiring gender-neutral bathrooms and changing rooms on campus. 
Disability activists argue that gender-neutral bathrooms can be beneficial for people with disabilities, especially those who may often require assistance from family members who are not of the same gender, according to the Huffington Post. 
The Texas Senate has passed a bill that bans gender-neutral bathrooms and forces trans people to use the bathroom of their ""biological sex"". 
The Financial News reports that gender-neutral bathrooms are planned for the first building the company has designed outside of California. 
If the employer does not have single-user restrooms, the law does not require that an all-gender restroom be made available. 
For restaurants that have gender-neutral bathrooms, it's a topic that appears occasionally on Yelp reviews. 
","[3, 2, 4, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 5, 3, 2, 2, 4, 1, 3]",15,"[20225558, 13581319, 19838540, 45677971, 45567220, 45405037, 45355658, 28813722, 44044795, 28810858, 45569485, 45567227, 45190823, 45411178, 28513847]"
b881ba93-fd19-4b79-9d0c-19da7a02c1ba,802,We should protect Antarctica,Summit,"A number of other conventions protect Antarctica""s environment and prohibit activities such as mining. 
Australia is signing up to an international treaty to protect Antarctica from damaging oil spills. 
The 20th anniversary of the signing of the agreement to protect Antarctica from mining has been marked in Hobart. 
Already, at 4 years old, she has expressed a desire to study and protect penguins in Antarctica. 
The treaty binds the international community to protect Antarctica as an unpolluted, uncontested centre for scientific research. 
The expedition is organized by the 2041 Foundation, which aims to protect Antarctica while teaching others about its importance. 
China is willing to, together with the international community, better understand, protect and utilize the Antarctica. 
Indeed, the decision to protect Antarctica's Ross Sea shows what we can achieve when countries unite. 
Tougher environmental controls to protect Antarctica from a growing number of tourists visiting by ship and plane are set to become law. 
The Treaty, which came into force in 1961, ensures international cooperation to protect and preserve Antarctica for peaceful purposes. 
Protecting it would help drive multinational efforts to protect Antarctica, according to the swimmer and ocean campaigner, who is working to secure marine protected areas around the Antarctic totalling the size of Australia by 2020. 
The British Antarctic Survey is seeking to protect its Antarctica research facilities and staff against climate-change impacts. 
The expedition highlights the effects of global warming and raises awareness on the need to protect Antarctica from drilling, mining and other activities when the international protocol to protect it expires in 2041. 
Auckland - Proposals to protect Antarctica's Ross Sea by creating the world's largest marine protected area (MPA) have failed to gain support. 
Xi said China hopes to continue to cooperate with Australia and other countries to further protect and explore Antarctica. 
When it comes to the future, Mr Russ is hopeful that the MPA will help protect and conserve Antarctica's legacy. 
Australia and other Antarctic nations have today reaffirmed their commitment to protect and preserve Antarctica as a natural reserve devoted to peace and science. 
Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli on Tuesday called on the international community to better protect Antarctica and strike a balance between protection and utilization. 
Fortunately, in 1959, 12 nations already active in the area-including the United States-created the Antarctic Treaty, a unique agreement to protect Antarctica from ourselves. 
As countries with conflicting agendas strive to further national interest, the ability to protect Antarctica's ecology weakens. 
The attraction is more about Antarctica than penguins -- SeaWorld has had penguins for decades, but the world needs to care about and protect Antarctica, said Brian Morrow, corporate creative director. 
It is the first such meeting organized by the Asian country and the involved countries will discuss the measures to protect Antarctica, the impact and management of Antarctic tourism and will sign bilateral cooperation agreements. 
The plan of creating the world's largest marine protected area (MPA) to protect Antarctica's Ross Sea ecosystem has failed, as the 25-member Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) concluded in Hobart. 
After the expedition, the team ave led the globe to meet with world leaders, urging them to ratify the 1961 Antarctic Treaty in order to protect Antarctica from oil and mineral exploration. 
Dr McGee says it will be interesting to see how Antarctic law interacts with international climate change legislation, as the treaty regime is not developed to protect Antarctica from global threats. 
The growth between our countries is exemplified by regularized strategic and defense consultations, joint efforts to protect Antarctica's maritime ecosystem, and strategic dialogues on the Pacific Islands. 
After five years of failed negotiations, an international agreement to protect Antarctica's marine ecosystems could come in the next two weeks. 
The flags were created as part of the school's Polar Explorer Programme and were inspired by the co-operation shown by the countries who work together to protect and explore Antarctica. 
","[4, 4, 5, 1, 3, 4, 5, 4, 2, 5, 5, 4, 3, 3, 2]",15,"[45567227, 45569485, 45458968, 28813722, 34110399, 45411178, 15448937, 20512953, 21785776, 44044795, 30777913, 45355658, 34609243, 33708599, 44094031]"
fefd6705-cf35-45f3-a290-e698e40380ae,2654,We should protect whistleblowers,Summit,"So the FBI's so-called whistleblower protections did not protect these whistleblowers simply because of a technicality. 
A new Whistleblower Protection Authority would have far-reaching powers to support and protect whistleblowers, and conduct investigations. 
The Nigerian Senate on Wednesday passed the Whistleblower Protection Bill which seeks to protect whistleblowers from discrimination from employees or employers. 
Best Practices for Laws to Protect Whistleblowers and Support Whistleblowing in the Public Interest, 2013. 
This is similar to some state whistleblower protection laws that protect whistleblowers who make reports to their employer, or even just to a supervisor or manager. 
For them, I have passed a new law to protect whistleblowers at our VA hospitals from retaliation. 
There are federal and state laws in place to protect whistleblowers against retaliation by employers. 
Krieg responded that the department has to protect both whistleblowers and those accused of wrongdoing. 
The proposed changes to the Protected Disclosures Act aimto protect whistleblowers from losing their jobs or being mistreated. 
For example, the law does not protect FBI whistleblowers who report wrongdoing to their supervisors. 
If it is difficult to protect whistleblowers from retaliation, and if retaliation against whistleblowers is difficult for a court to ascertain, financial rewards for whistleblowers can be seen as compensation. 
On the fear of whistleblowers reprisal, Mrs.  Lanelle said Parliament must make it its priority to protect whistleblowers. 
Both federal and state statutes have been put in place to protect whistleblowers from retaliation. 
OSC is an independent federal investigative and prosecutorial agency that is supposed to protect whistleblowers. 
It is for this reason that there needs to be flexibility to protect ""whistleblowers"" where a public interest defence is applicable. 
Equally important: this bill will protect the whistleblowers who speak up when they see misconduct. 
Punjab Government has notified the policy to protect the whistleblowers and the Right to Information activists. 
The corruption I reported, and my fellow attorney/investigators recognized in OSHA's Whistleblower Protection Program, reflects a collapse of the effort to protect nation's safety, health, and financial security by failing to protect whistleblowers. 
If there is anything that we agree on in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, it is that we must protect whistleblowers. 
It codified the agency's office to protect whistleblowers and mandated training on the subject for all employees. 
Further, employees view institutions as having a legal obligation to protect whistleblowers from retaliation (4. 58). 
Commission is setting new EU-wide rules to protect whistleblowers and clarifies mechanisms and obligations The European Commission is proposing a new law to strengthen whistleblower protection across the EU. 
For example, India is considering a law that would protect whistleblowers who disclose corruption by any public servant. 
The hotline number also aims to protect whistleblowers and their families from repercussions of reporting corruption cases. 
The third bill to be cleared was the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, popularly known as the bill to protect whistleblowers. 
The Office of Special Counsel, a federal agency set up to protect whistleblowers, is looking into her case but would not comment. 
The second is the model law to facilitate and encourage the reporting of acts of corruption and to protect whistleblowing and witnesses. 
Last month, McCaskill reintroduced legislation to protect whistleblowers in the intelligence community by extending whistleblower protections to intelligence contractors, who are often doing similar jobs to federal employees. 
The basic objective of the legislation will be to protect whistleblowers against reprisals from employers for having made a disclosure. 
It would protect the whistleblower who brought concerns to the state and would carry no additional cost for taxpayers. 
The Dodd-Frank Act provisions also protect whistleblowers from retaliation for reporting CEA violations to the CFTC. 
All possible retaliatory actions must be clearly defined in law and must be robust to protect whistleblowers. 
These include legislation to address corruption in public office, enforce standards and accountability in the judiciary and, protect whistleblowers. 
","[2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 3, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4]",15,"[20225558, 13581319, 45190823, 29155723, 45181383, 45181152, 45272708, 45191873, 20512953, 45206691, 45189900, 45191882, 45355658, 45181243, 44044795]"
8de48fe1-8e65-4435-b19f-06151d5c5393,3052,We should raise the corporate tax,Summit,"Gillum said he would not raise taxes on ""regular people"" but would raise corporate income taxes. 
Raise personal income tax for the highest 5 per cent of earners, and raise corporation tax. 
So I would argue that get rid of the corporate loopholes, raise the corporate income tax. 
To tackle the deficit he can either raise income taxes, raise corporate taxes, raise sales taxes, raise carbon taxes or cut education and/or health spending. 
One way that this could be addressed would be to raise the corporate tax rate. 
It would lower personal income taxes and raise corporate taxes so corporations pay the same percentage as individuals. 
Essentially he would propose cutting taxes on one end, but he would raise business, the corporate tax rate on the other. 
In Colorado, they will be asked to raise taxes on income over $150,000 and to raise the corporate income tax rate to increase K-12 funding. 
So, personal income tax rates are much easier for governments to raise than corporate tax rates. 
The proposed package would raise the corporate income tax rate from 4. 8 percent to 8. 4 percent. 
The Liberals say they would raise corporate taxes and end tax breaks for oilsands development. 
To fund these expenditures, the new government will likely aim to raise the tax burden for corporations by limiting deductions, or it may raise the corporate tax rate outright. 
The ballot question seeks to raise corporate tax rates from 4. 63 to 5 percent, and sales and use tax from 2. 9 to 3 percent. 
Overall, changes in state tax bases have made the state corporate tax system more favorable for corporations and are reducing the extent to which tax rate increases raise corporate tax revenue. 
HB 293 (Amendment 1) would make permanent the 3. 75% individual income tax but raise the corporate income tax to 6 percent. 
The NDP would also raise corporate taxes by 1. 5% to 13% - the PCs have pledged to lower rates to 10. 5%. 
As amended in the tax reform committee, House Bill 107 would raise the state sales tax from 6 percent to 7. 25 percent and temporarily raise the corporate income tax from 6. 5 percent to 7 percent. 
The European Commissioner for Financial Affairs has assured the EU will not raise our corporate tax rate. 
This is because Democrats want to raise the corporate tax rate to fund social programs. 
The bill would also permanently raise the corporate tax rate from 5. 25 to 7 percent, combined with a 2. 5 percent personal property replacement tax. 
Jeremy Corbyn has promised to raise Corporation Tax from 19% to 26%, while the tax on dividends in the UK is now 25%. 
A group of unions called Citizens for Fair Taxes wants to raise the corporate income tax from 6 percent to 11 percent. 
If adopted, Amendment 73 would modify the flat state income tax rate to establish income tax brackets, raise state income taxes for those earning more than $150,000 per year, and raise the corporate income tax rate. 
Raise corporate income taxes by $44 million in the first year and $75 million in the second. 
If you raise corporate taxes, the price goes up or other costs, like employee benefits, are reduced. 
The budget measure, which the Senate passed on Tuesday, will raise the personal income tax in Illinois to 4. 95 percent from 3. 75 percent, and raise the corporate income tax rate to 7 percent from 5. 25 percent. 
This law would raise the top corporate income tax rate from 20 percent to 27 percent by 2017. 
Labour plans to raise corporation tax to fund a reduction in business rates for small firms. 
Another would also raise the corporate business tax rate from 9 percent to 10. 35 percent -- which would expire after one year. 
The measure would raise individual and corporate tax rates from 4. 63 percent to 5 percent and Colorado's sales and use tax rate from 2. 9 percent to 3 percent. 
","[2, 3, 4, 2, 2, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 1, 3, 4, 2, 5]",15,"[20225558, 45190823, 29155723, 20512953, 13581319, 21088425, 45181383, 45191873, 45272708, 45181152, 45181262, 45411178, 45405037, 45355658, 15448937]"
d2165ed1-318d-4183-8704-9fc12f916820,2689,We should subsidize Wikipedia,Summit,"A Wikipedia editor supposedly suggested that a Wikipedia article on the case be scrubbed completely. 
Wikidata serves more than the relationship between Wikipedias and the language communities that the Wikipedias serve. 
The way that we are organized is that Wikipedia is open to anyone to edit. 
The expert noted that Wikipedia and Youtube can be the next to be shut down. 
It added that Wikipedia would be ""at risk"" and asked users to phone their MEPs. 
It is also worth mentioning that Wikipedia pages can be edited or updated by almost anyone. 
Indian languages are also a part of the several languages that Wikipedia features content in. 
The fact that Wikipedia has proved it is possible to do something like this is pretty inspiring. 
Points of difference A feature that Wikipedia does not share with the classical blockchain is encryption. 
The list of terrorist attacks was so long last year that Wikipedia needed to into . 
Wired reported that a Wikipedia edit war had erupted over the gender of the tabby cat. 
There was no reference to Irish politics that Wikipedia couldn't have guided a person through. 
The business pages that Wikipedia will competently create are certain to garner credibility for any company. 
A Roskomnadzor spokesman told Interfax that Wikipedia had long been on the banned websites register. 
It should also be pointed out that Wikipedia encyclopedia was cited as a general re- source. 
The sepsis sequelae example above simply shows that the Wikipedia entry is not up to date. 
The online debate got so heated that Wikipedia locked the page to prevent back and forth edits. 
My hunch is that Wikipedia's earlier, sullied reputation was because anyone could edit its contents. 
One of them is that the Wikipedia system frequently breaks down over extremely contested subjects. 
In 2005, Mr.  Seigenthaler discovered that Wikipedia entry about him contained false and defamatory information. 
Physicians around the world are outraged that Wikipedia's editors have grouped acupuncture with these disciplines. 
Tory MP Charlie Elphicke said it was incredible' that Wikipedia was making this material available. 
An interesting issue worth mentioning here is that wikipedia is free and written collaboratively by volunteers. 
What's even more interesting is that Wikipedia seems to exert a moderating influence on its contributors. 
The Mail joins the National Enquirer among the few outlets that Wikipedia has called out in particular. 
The trick is not to become over-reliant on tech company funding and keep Wikipedia for all, says Lih. 
Accessible doesn't necessarily mean academically credible, just as we teach students that Wikipedia isn't a reliable academic research source (a fact that Wikipedia itself explicitly discloses). 
Over an eight year period, Aaltonen and Seiler found that Wikipedia articles benefitted from length. 
Baldwin joins Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales and venture capitalist Annette Campbell-White as the third member of the board that is entrusted with overseeing the Wikimedia Endowment, a permanent source of funding to ensure Wikipedia thrives for generations to come. 
The Wikimedia foundation was founded in 2003 by Jimmy Wales as a way to fund Wikipedia and its sister projects through non-profit means. 
Of course, you're funding not just Wikipedia but its parent Wikimedia's larger goals and programs , which you may or may not care about. 
If we Google ""Willie Soon funding,"" Wikipedia informs us that Soon received over $1,000,000 from petroleum and coal interests since 2001. 
With all proceeds from the sales of the shirt going towards the Wikimedia Foundation , the collab will directly fund Wikipedia's pages created and edited by volunteers around the world. 
Niels will join the board that is entrusted with overseeing the Wikimedia Endowment, a permanent source of funding to ensure Wikipedia and the Wikimedia projects thrive for generations to come. 
Behind the launching of the Wikimedia Endowment, a perpetual support fund for Wikipedia, is the goal to raise $100 million over the next 10 years so as to improve the encyclopaedia's independence and bolster its growth. 
","[1, 2, 4, 5, 3, 1, 2, 3, 2, 1, 4, 2, 4, 1, 3]",15,"[20512953, 45953041, 21017840, 30777913, 6432269, 45411178, 6340330, 45569485, 45567227, 44094031, 45458968, 34609243, 15448937, 33708599, 44044795]"
da0a2740-dcff-415c-9ab0-61e6787beb87,2678,We should subsidize distance education,Summit,"ASU is the university with which Starbucks partnered to offer subsidized online college education for its staffers. 
SUBJECTS: Academic performance and assessments, Computers and information technology, Education of the disadvantaged, Education programs funding, Educational technology and distance education, Elementary and secondary education, Higher education, Licensing and registrations, Performance measurement, Science and engineering education, Teaching, teachers, curricula. 
Things like funding for agricultural schools and education, early childhood funding and general distance education matters will also be high on the agenda during the conference. 
Regular, vocational, self-financing and distance learning courses, which have not been approved by the state government, University Grants Commission (UGC), Distance Education Bureau or other regulatory bodies, will not be conducted in any university. 
World Bank has provided more than K60 million to fund Flexible Open and Distance Education (FODE) and Reading Education (READ PNG) projects this year. 
Another $132,000 will fund a distance learning project of the New Engl and Music Camp Association that focuses on performing arts education. 
The university admitted that its internal receipts generation was largely dependent on self financing schemes and distance education programmes. 
The funding will improve distance learning and professional development options for local students and educators in Western New York, Schumer said. 
Beijing has also granted additional funding for distance learning and digital education that allow students to learn from teachers on computers and mobile devices. 
One new benefit announced earlier this year by Starbucks is a program to subsidize online college education at Arizona State University for its employees. 
Prisoners Education Trust supports 2,500 prisoners each year to access education that would not otherwise be available by funding distance learning courses in a wide range of subjects and levels, including sports and fitness courses. 
The district is hoping for increased funding for career and technical education programs, an increase in the age of students that schools receive funding for educating, and funding for distance learning programs designed to operate with students in different schools learning from one teacher at the same time. 
Recently it launched a program to subsidize online college education at Arizona State University for its baristas; the first 1,000 or so began classes Oct.  15. 
Rural Business Enterprise Grants also may be used to help fund distance learning networks and employment-related adult education programs, Vilsack said. 
A $500,000 grant from the U. S.  Department of Agriculture to Woodland Community College will fund distance education hardware to allow the school to deliver college courses to Lake and Colusa counties. 
Such mobile funding also offers great potential for the future of online education, such that students could be able to use either a portion of their educational funding for supplemental virtual education or all of their educational funding for full-time programs. 
Committees will study access to higher education and degree attainment, facilities funding and online education. 
Zijing Education is a brand under PBC School of Finance and is the online education platform of Tsinghua University PBC School of Finance. 
This fellowship program does not provide funding for distance-learning or online programs or for degrees heavily dependent on distance-learning components. 
According to Tribal Education policy, students are eligible to receive funding for distant education courses, however the institution must accept the Pell Grant. 
It will use the funding to bring distance learning course, particularly math and science courses, to middle and high-school classrooms. 
In other action, the board approved the district's participation in the Mineral Area College funding for distance learning telemedicine grant. 
That is why today I am pleased to announce that USDA will be providing grants to fund 108 distance learning and telemedicine projects in 39 States across the country. 
Last week, the big announcement was UT-Battelle's $450,000 gift to the Knox County school system to help fund distance learning initiatives. 
The grant announced last week was part of a $20. 4-million USDA Rural Development grant that will fund 65 distance learning projects across the country. 
","[1, 2, 2, 4, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 3]",15,"[20225558, 45190823, 13581319, 20512953, 29155723, 45181383, 45191873, 45272708, 45181152, 45405037, 6432269, 45206691, 45191882, 45411178, 6340330]"
9c06d2b4-6174-451f-8ce5-5966bc4a3510,3201,We should subsidize embryonic stem cell research,Summit,"Draft rules provide for stem cell research funding, including embryonic stem cells but some member states have been lobbying for embryonic stem cell research to be excluded. 
The facts are that no such ban on stem cell research for CLI exists, only on embryonic stem cell production and that federal funding has disallowed embryonic stem cell research. 
The abortion section also applauds adult-stem-cell research but opposes federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research. 
The impetus for creation of the California stem cell agency was based on a restriction in federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research. 
Romney opposes federal funding of embryonic stem cell research but would not ban the use of stem cell research on excess embryos in fertility clinics. 
The federal government currently provides funding for embryonic stem cell research based on just a few stem cell lines; other states and private groups, meanwhile, are funding research based on other embryonic stem cells. 
The ALSA says it currently has one donor funding research with embryonic stem cells, and additional research is being conducted with adult stem cells. 
The organization said it is not funding any grants or awards that involve embryonic stem cells, but its policies permit funding research using embryonic stem cells when it meets certain criteria. 
The Canadian Cancer Society does not currently fund embryonic stem cell research, but has in the past. 
A plain reading of federal law would specifically prohibit funding of embryonic stem cell research. 
The president declared in 2001 that Washington should limit its funding for embryonic stem cells to existing lines of such cells. 
It remains controversial to use public money to fund research on embryonic stem cell and fetal tissue. 
In one of his first major decisions as president, Bush restricted funding for embryonic stem cell research. 
Concern about the treatment of embryos in stem cell research led former President George W.  Bushin 2001 to restrict federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. 
President George W.  Bush in 2001 limited federal funding for embryonic stem cell research to only those stem cell lines that were in existence prior to Aug.  9 of that year - effectively restricting researchers to the use of 19 stem cell lines. 
That if the government were to begin funding research into embryonic stem cells, many, many diseases could be cured. 
US President Barack Obama allowed public money to fund embryonic stem cell research in 2009. 
The legislation was in response to Bush administration restrictions on funding studies involving human embryonic stem cells. 
Harold Varmus appoints an oversight committee to draft guidelines for federally funding embryonic stem cells. 
Banning federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research would have ""disastrous consequences"" on the study of a promising and increasingly popular new stem cell type that is not derived from human embryos, according to a University of Michigan researcher and his colleagues. 
President George W.  Bush restricted federal funding for embryonic stem cell research to work done with cell lines derived before August 2001. 
At the center of the debate over government funding of embryonic stem cell science is the issue of the potential destruction of human embryos. 
A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit that sought to block federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research. 
This is the President who, in one of his first acts, signed an executive order restoring taxpayer funding for embryonic stem cell research. 
Obama lifted restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, thus allowing the government to be in the business of killing nascent human life. 
The previous Administration allowed the National Institutes of Health to fund human embryonic stem cell research on cell lines created before an arbitrary date, August 9, 2001, but prohibited research on cell lines created after that date. 
A U. s.  appeals court ruled on Friday that the Obama administration can continue the taxpayer- funding for human embryonic stem cell research. 
","[3, 2, 2, 2, 4, 1, 4, 1, 4, 3, 3, 5, 5, 1, 4]",15,"[19838540, 45355658, 13581319, 20225558, 20512953, 29155723, 44044795, 34110399, 45190823, 45677971, 45567220, 28810858, 15448937, 45405037, 45458968]"
a0a6592a-7b3d-4587-a372-4f6d357166b8,2124,We should subsidize higher education,Summit,"The old way of subsidizing higher education was to build a state college and finance it. 
Asking more of the middle class, already squeezed by higher and higher taxes and soaring, non-subsidized higher education costs, is not the answer. 
So this might be a good time to ask whether we really ought to be subsidizing higher education -- particularly elite higher education -- as much as we are. 
Taxpayers are subsidizing higher education at greater and greater costs while institutional performance has not kept up. 
Taxpayers have long subsidized higher education so that it is affordable to all who are qualified, not just the rich. 
That hypothesis posits that, the more the federal government subsidizes higher education, the more expensive college becomes. 
The government has created a system where taxpayers subsidize higher education (the producers) and then turn around and subsidize the students (the consumers). 
The state of Kansas needs to fund higher education more adequately so that higher education is affordable. 
The federal government heavily subsidizes higher education through a complex system of grants and loans. 
The five-year project has three main components: quality of higher education, financing higher education, regulation and management in higher education. 
It explains how to finance a college education and other aspects of higher education, she said. 
Economic growth is not a magic totem to which all else must bow, but it is one of the main reasons we subsidize higher education. 
This can be linked to government subsidizing higher education with direct funding and indirectly with low-interest student loans. 
Governors and lawmakers approve different levels of state funding to subsidize higher education from year to year. 
The second is the federal government's willingness to subsidize higher education at any price its administrators demand, no matter how high. 
In our recently concluded summit on higher education, several issues were discussed to include financing higher education. 
The federal government should subsidize higher education, but if were giving $140 billion in financial aid to institutes of higher learning, we need to make college more affordable, not less. 
The government has said the amount advanced to students by the Higher Education Loans Board is insufficient to finance higher education. 
The state is also making available a nearly equal amount through the Higher Education Capital Improvement Fund, the Higher Education Facilities Trust Fund, the Higher Education Technology Infrastructure Fund and the Higher Education Equipment Leasing Fund. 
Although tertiary education is an investment for the lifetime, but financing higher education does not come cheap. 
The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education is examining new proposals to fund the higher education system. 
Mr.  Thomson is not on the budget committee and was not a part of the rearranging process to fund higher education, but he is chairman of the higher education committee. 
The report precedes the planned completion this autumn of a Higher Education Authority study into how best to fund higher education in the future. 
In the last budget, the central government proposed the setting up of the Higher Education Funding Agency (HEFA) to fund higher education. 
If the banks are going to finance higher education, higher education institution would have to borrow funds from banks on interest for which complete autonomy is needed. 
Our focus to funding higher education is a top priority to ensure that all Hoosiers have the opportunity to further their education. 
The commission also called on the government to find more money to fund higher education. 
Nzuza also pointed the Commission to examine the education model used by Cuba for solutions to funding higher education. 
Attendees can meet with Carrington representatives to learn more about financing higher education as well. 
Subsidised higher education cost would also erode students' motivation to strive for excellence in gaining the returns in terms of scholarships and a more exclusive institution to pursue higher education. 
One is they need to fund post-secondary education at a much higher level for both of us. 
","[3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 2, 2, 4, 2, 1, 1, 1]",15,"[45567227, 45567220, 45191882, 45185975, 45191885, 45185946, 13581319, 31948170, 45190823, 45953041, 34110399, 29155723, 30777913, 45169947, 27770607]"
7bd8a3d7-eaa8-443a-9ea7-d6cd75435473,2767,We should subsidize investigative journalism,Summit,"Support for this story was provided by The Fund for Investigative Journalism and Investigative Reporters and Editors. 
How they did it: Chabin was awarded a diversity fellowship and grant from the Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism and the Fund for Investigative Journalism. 
Fund - Investigative - Journalism - FIJ - Partner ""[The Fund for Investigative Journalism (FIJ)] is proud to partner with the Schuster Institute [for Investigative Journalism at Brandeis University] on these diversity fellowships. 
This story was supported by the Fund for Investigative Journalism, the Fund for Environmental Journalism and The Joyce Foundation. 
This project was supported by the Fund for Investigative Journalism, the Fund for Environmental Journalism and The Joyce Foundation. 
The Fund for Investigative Journalism and the former George Polk Center for Investigative Reporting have supported her work. 
Sonia Paul is a freelance journalist and a senior fellow with the Fund for Investigative Journalism and Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism at Brandeis University. 
Reporting for this story was supported in part by a grant from the Fund for Investigative Journalism. 
Doxpop and the Fund for Investigative Journalism provided support for the reporting of this story. 
The grants are a collaboration between Brandeis University's Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism, the Fund for Investigative Journalism, and the Ford Foundation. 
This report was made possible with the support of the Fund for Investigative Journalism in Haiti. 
This reporting was supported by InvestigateWest donors, the Fund for Investigative Journalism and the Thomas V.  Giddens, Jr. , Foundation. 
Mark Olalde's mining investigations are financially supported by the Fund for Investigative Journalism, the Fund for Environmental Journalism and the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting. 
This article is part of a yearlong Investigative Series Report supported by the US-based Fund for Investigative Journalism (FIJ). 
Her reporting was made possible in part by a grant from the Fund for Investigative Journalism and a fellowship with the Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism at Brandeis University, with support from the Ford Foundation. 
This story was supported by grants from the Fund for Investigative Journalism and the Society of Environmental Journalists. 
The Fund for Investigative Journalism supported some of the data-gathering and the fact-checking for this story. 
Editor's note: Reporting for this story was supported by a grant from the Fund for Investigative Journalism. 
FairWarning's reporting for this story was supported by a grant from the Fund for Investigative Journalism. 
This story was supported by the Fund for Investigative Journalism and is part of an international investigation involving journalists inAfrica, Europe and the United States. 
For more information about this project, which was generously supported by the Fund for Investigative Journalism , please visit our about page . 
Previously Calvan managed operations at the Fund for Investigative Journalism , a nonprofit in Washington, D. C. , that supports independent investigative journalists. 
ZAM also supports, through the African Investigative Story Fund, investigative journalism on the African continent and publishes the resulting stories worldwide. 
The Greens/EFA group has also published today a report on Alternative models of financing investigative journalism . 
Through its Puffin Foundation Investigative Fund, the Investigative Fund supports investigative journalism in the independent media that seeks to highlight voices and stories ignored or marginalized by mainstream outlets. 
Kris receives support from the Pascal Dec roos Fund for Investigative Journalism for his field research. 
Referring to investigative reporting as ""the guardian of the public interest,"" Mr.  Logan's foundation, the Reva and David Logan Foundation, provided funding for investigative journalism projects and the efforts of journalists. 
The Fund for Investigative Journalism has awarded reporting grants to 16 freelance and independent journalists, several of whom report for nonprofit news organizations. 
Steady income from advertising and subscriptions allowed for lavish cross-subsidization: Sports scores and business data attracted newspaper buyers and subsidized investigative reporting and opera reviews. 
It is supported by The PIttsburgh Foundation, the Heinz Endowments, The R. K.  Mellon Foundation, The Hillman Foundation, The George Polk Grants for Investigative Reporting, The Fund for Investigative Journalism and The Colcom Foundation. 
","[3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 1, 3, 4, 1]",15,"[45183231, 45272708, 45181152, 45191873, 45191882, 45189900, 45206691, 45181384, 45190571, 45181383, 45401087, 43877630, 6367365, 45190823, 45483811]"
d3370c5e-9332-4f86-bdf6-df1bb561e389,2122,We should further exploit green technology,Human expert,"We should absolutely further exploit green technology. Because, global warming is a threat not just in the narrow sense, it's not just a threat in that we have to cut co2 emissions from our cars, it's not a threat in that we have to use more renewable sources of energy, or not cut down so many habitats. It's more , it's more broad in the fact that every aspect of our daily lives in various ways needs to change in order to make sure that we can actually the earth is livable in the future, because the earth is in danger. So, I think that in order to make sure that this happens, we need to have a wide range of solutions and a wide range of technologies. So this is where I think that green technology comes in and why it's important that we further exploit it. Way I think that the first way in which umm green technology can actually directly help umm combat climate change, is that it can help in , just the technology of doing things like maybe purifying water in a better way so you can you saltwater instead of having to access like draining water out of like lakes and things like that. Maybe you could be automatic switches for turning off lights when you're not there, maybe it could be things like that to monitor over used, maybe it could be other things like improvements on the way we heat efficiently, or on the sources of heat that we use altogether that could be done more efficiently. I think that all of these things can be incredibly helpful, and one of the biggest reasons why, is because I think that people are going to be very unwilling. Even though it's required that people change the way they're actually living their lives, it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to actually change their lives. So because of that, you want to make sure that the transition can be smooth as possible, and that's why having good technologies that can exist as replacements is important. So this is why for example if you know that meat consumption is incredibly bad in what it does for the environment and you wanna replace it, you're not gonna get people to stop eating meat. So what you want to do is you want to create the best like replacement item possible so that people may not even be able to tell the difference. So if maybe you can use chemical engineering to create synthetic meat or something like that that tastes good, people would be willing to not eat meat, and that would be good for the environment. Things like this, these are direct solutions that can have massive impacts, but these solutions require money, and the reason they require money is because people just aren't always willing to donate enough because people can be economically shortsighted at times. People are just willing to spend the money on the thing that's already available, and when a lot of people are already getting into that or it's already existed for a while, economies of scale and things exist, it's very easy to keep relying on the mechanisms that you already have. This is why I think that green technology plays a very important role in ultimately spearheading the kinds of switches that we can get. So, all of that is true and all of that is important, and a reason why it's important is because of the degree to which climate change is an actual threat. Because recognize that, if we have inherently fragile resources, scarce resource, things like access to fresh water, things like what we use for fuel, those things are scarce and when we over use them, then we're in a very bad situation. But also more directly than that, we also see the impacts of global warming manifests itself in natural disasters. You could have like , more hurricanes than ever, historical heat waves or historical blizzards, you could have earthquakes that happen from things like fracking, you could have flooding and starvation from temperature fluctuations and icebergs melting. All of these are directly attributable to global warming, and all of this, which is the worst things, the worst impacts that we could have, all of this can be ameliorated if we invest more in green technology. So for all of those reasons, very proud to propose.","[4, 5, 5, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 5]",15,"[45181384, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45483811, 29155723, 43877630, 45336993, 45361788, 45336988, 44094031, 31948170, 26649250, 27934334, 32850083]"
f90f76da-1250-42b1-b8b7-311b212a4fe9,2124,We should subsidize higher education,Human expert,"We should subsidize higher education for two big reasons. First, we should subsidize it because it's very good for the economy overall and secondarily, we should subsidize it because, on the more individual level, it's also obviously economically good, but it's also very important for social mobility and individual empowerment. So, let's talk about what we mean by subsidizing higher education. Obviously, subsidizing higher education does not necessarily mean entirely free education. However, obviously, we are going to defend a world in which we substantially increase public subsidies for higher education, compared to the status quo. We also don't think that this necessarily has to be available to everyone. We think that we're we're perfectly comfortable in giving out greater subsidies in the forms of greater need-based aid, rather than just more general lowering of prices of education, and also increasing the extent and availability of public loans for education. Oftentimes in the status quo, public loans for higher education have much more generous terms of repayment and much more generous interest rates than private loans do, and but they're oftentimes not available to give as much money which fully covers the cost of public education. So that's another thing which we want to correct for. So, why is subsidizing higher education good for the economy? When you exist in a highly developed country, you predominately are going to see your economy be a service sector based economy or a more technologically focused based economy. And this creates a problem because it means that there's going to be a lack of a comparative lack of cheaper labor-based jobs or cheaper manufacturing-based jobs. This means that oftentimes the economy necessarily requires that most people have a higher degree of education, a higher extent of education for working in just like higher quality jobs. So this means that a necessary condition of your employment is oftentimes going to be getting a college education. And in the same way in which the reason why we fund low primary and secondary school is because those are necessary parts of your employment in a lot of cases. This is very similar for higher education so that makes sense too. So, we obviously don't want a whole bunch of people unemployed, because a whole bunch of people unemployed is lost productivity, and it's also just a drain on resources which isn't very good either. But additionally, this is also important because there's going to be when you don't have as much money that you're making, you're also just going to have less money that you're going to be able to pay for things. So, when you have a higher paying job work or if you're more educated, you're gonna make more money, and that means you're going to be able to consume more, which is also good for the economy. Additionally, and this also ties in to the feasibility point, we think that this is going to be a long-term investment that is going to pay off. And it's going to pay off because more and more people are going to once they're like better educated are they're able to work better jobs, they're able to innovate more, this is going to be better for the economy so this is going to cover the costs of the subsidizing more. But we additionally, in the short term, think that there is certainly available money for this. Maybe just spend less on the military and more on education and helping people. That sounds pretty good to me. So, the next thing that I want to talk about is about individual empowerment of people. And on the individual level, it is still often too difficult and too inaccessible to afford a college education. And this is particularly true given that college education around the world, but particularly in america, sees its expenses rising rapidly which prices out a whole lot of people, even people in the middle class. And this creates a big problem because it means that you're oftentimes, if you're not able to even afford college, you're locked into essentially the cycle of poverty, or you're not going to be able to have as engaging discussions or you're not gonna be able to have as like engaging an educated population as well, which means you're also more likely to have foolish political decisions like the election of donald trump, or denying climate change, or things like that. So it's very important on the individual level as well to make sure that people can go to college, to make sure that they're productive intelligent and beneficial citizens and so that they can be empowered to break out of the cycle of poverty. So for all of those reasons, we definitely think that you should subsidize higher education.","[4, 5, 2, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 3, 4, 5, 4]",15,"[45567227, 45567220, 45185975, 45191882, 45411178, 31948170, 45191885, 13581319, 45185946, 20512953, 29155723, 20312760, 45190823, 15448937, 33708599]"
8b79c1dd-f867-409f-9c32-122ac558cb9e,2166,We should legalize sex selection,Human expert,"We should legalize sex selection because first and foremost, it's something that already happens anyway so you might as well allow people to do it in a more technologically advanced and safer way and secondarily, because it's a matter of choice and it's a choice that people have the right to make. So first let's talk let's start by talking about why the banning of sex selection is kind of unenforceable and it's unenforceable because you're able to usually determine the gender of a baby before the period where you can legally have an abortion ends. So in a world in which all of the worst arguments on the other side are true, where people like don't want to have a baby of a particular sex for a malicious reason, maybe because they think that like women are inferior or because you live in a patriarchal society where only men can like own property or like do certain kinds of work or things like that. Even if all those worst things are true it's already something that happens in the status quo and it's already something that people can do because in most places, in a lot of places at least, abortion is legal, abortion is effective, and it's successful. So if people want to so people can just get an abortion. So I think that using technology to essentially decide like what gender your baby would be essentially like manipulating like using like technological methods to manipulate like the like gender of like the embryo and things like that or things all those kinds of like technology are just like the next step in ways in which people can achieve like their choices in life, which I think is fine, because I think that we should give people the benefit of the doubt that by and large especially in places where there's more advanced technology is going to be available in a lot of western countries, I think that by and large we should give people the benefit of the doubt that people may just want to have a baby of a particular gender for a rather benign reason like maybe someone doesn't want to have three boys, maybe they want to have like one girl just to see what it's like. Maybe someone has just grown up always wanting to have like a boy. Maybe people have like a personal reasons to do to like have different kinds of genders of babies because that's what they want to do. That's perfectly fine no matter what your reason is because the way in which like having a dependent, having a child, is like a rather important thing in your life and you should be able to have like control over how it happens because it is such a big and your life. So for all of those reasons, we should legalize sex selection.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 2]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 45567220, 45567227, 28810858, 45181383, 45401087, 45189900, 45336988, 21785776, 20225558, 20512953, 45190823, 45411178]"
54d37140-cbef-4656-9f5f-e66ae4199c00,2184,We should legalize public nudity,Human expert,"We should legalize public nudity, for a few big reasons: first, because I think that banning public nudity is inherently immoral, because it restricts the way in which people are able to express themselves with their body, in a way in which doesn't really actually affect other people, and secondarily, because I think that it fosters a culture of body shaming, which leads to a lot of bad norms with regards to like, mental health, but also stigma as far like safety for the body, things like that. So, let's start by talking about the immoral nature. I think that generally, if you want to live in a liberal society, that is accepting of individual lifestyles, the ideal that we should focus on is, as long as it doesn't actually hurt other people, and as long as, if there is some kind of perceived harm to other people, that harm is actually legitimate, then you should defer to allowing people to express themselves in the individual ways in which they choose. And that's important, because individual ways in which people express themselves are like a very like inseparable part of their identity. It's a very important part of like well being and identity. So, these things are very important. So, now let's talk about why there's nothing wrong with public nudity, and about why any perceived harm for this are just an illusion. Because, recognize that, this is in many ways a distinctly western, the like the idea of banning public nudity, is distinctly western concept, and at that, not only a western concept, but a very religiously rooted in like, judeo, christian, islamic values. What do I mean by this? If you go to like some places in africa, you're going to see that it's very common that, people dress with little to no clothing, and that there's a lot of like body painting that exists, and like other kinds of body art, and things like that, and that, this is the way in which people express themselves, as opposed to just like wearing clothing and covering up. So, I think it's important to recognize that, all of this is contextualized based on the culture that you live, and the culture that you grew up in. Most people in western society, from the day that they were born, had clothes put on them, and were told every day: you need to wear clothes, you can't just go outside naked, you can't put your body out this way. And over time, obviously this becomes a very powerful part of your identity, it becomes like a very powerful notion of shame, but, that doesn't actually mean that it's valid, and it doesn't mean that it's correct. So, if people want to not wear clothing, they should have the right to do that. The fact that it may offend somebody, that you're not wearing clothing, shouldn't actually matter. It doesn't actually hurt you, it only hurts you in like a perceptual sense, because you grew up with a certain expectation or lifestyles. But, that's no different than like someone being gay, and having a like a gay wedding hurts you. It hurts you in like the ethereal sense, because it goes up against the values that you grew up with, but it doesn't actually lead to any like harm to you in and of itself. So, that's why I think it's like a very very important, on like a principal level, to make sure that you allow people to go into the public in the nude, if they want to, and that this is actually very problematic notions. But, I also want to talk about body shaming and stigmas, because I think that that's important too. So recognize that, when you're brought up, from the day that you're born, in a culture that emphasizes a need to cover up your body, a couple of things happen. First and foremost, you're going to there's going to be a lot more stigma with issues related to the body and your sexuality. You're going to be much less likely to have sexual education, you're going to be much more likely to do like less safe things to your body, because there's like a social pressure and stigma against having open discussion about the body, and against open discussion with relation to sexuality, because like, that's the root of not wanting public nudity. It's like a fear of sexuality of humanity. So all of these things do lead to like more of a prevalence of unsafe sex, more of a prevalence of unsafe pregnancies or STI, all these things. I also think that, secondarily though, there's problematic mental health issues, that are associated with this too. And that's because, from the day that you're born, you're constantly questioning your body, constantly told to, like, shame your body, to cover up your body, which is, in a lot of ways, unhealthy. It's not something that's natural, and it's not something that we should be doing. So for all those reasons, very proud to legalize public nudity.","[4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 5, 3, 5, 5, 5, 5]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 45191873, 45183231, 45181152, 45272708, 7756990, 45282792, 45336991, 44044795, 34110399, 30398579, 45483811, 44255568, 20170210]"
ac5f5a77-b9f7-47f2-8708-e474bd4a90fd,2483,We should ban anonymous posts,Human expert,"We should ban anonymous posts because anonymous posts create a culture on the internet of harassment and it silences discourse and it additionally also leads to devaluing of discourse and overall worse discussions about substantive issues in society and I think that those are very bad things that the government directly has a business in regulating. So first let's talk about what I think is the most severe issue and that's that anonymous posting creates it makes it a lot easier to have harassment. And I think that the reason why this happens is because when you don't have to actually attach your identity to what you're posting, you feel more emboldened to do things that you may otherwise be more unwilling to do. So obviously there's crimes on the books about things like stalking, about harassing, about publishing private information about people. These are all things that are illegal in the status quo, however when these things are done via anonymous posts or false identities, it makes it so that it's incredibly difficult to so that it's actually incredibly difficult to enforce these laws because the internet is just so widespread. The internet just like so like easy to use and accessible to so many people that it becomes and since all of your information, everything is oftentimes on the internet nowadays, whether you have hackers or just bad people, they're able to get access to this information and do incredibly bad things to you. And I think when you ban anonymous posts in addition to more directly targeting the postings itself, you're also targeting the sites that allow that serve as a platform that enable these kinds of harassments and things like that to happen in the first place. So no longer well like places like 4chan or like r/alt_right on like as a subreddit or things like that no no longer will like these kinds of like anonymous areas be able to function as essentially incubators for the worst kinds of people in society. Because now they're not going to be able because the sites don't want to get shut down, the sites are going to be worried about their own legal repercussions and their own interests. So they're not going to have as so if you ban anonymous posts then they're obviously not going to let their own people get involved in these kinds of things and you can put the onus on these platforms to conduct like identity checks and things like that. So that way you actually have enforceable anti-harassment laws and more enforceable privacy laws and things like that. And I think in like the internet age where all these things are very prevalent problems, this is a very real policy issue that we need to solve. But the next thing that I want to talk about is I want to talk about trolling and the impact that this has on discourse and the like. Because I think this is very important in that people, because of the threat of harassment or the threat of violence and things like that, are possibly not as willing to express their views on the internet which is a primary platform for communication nowadays. So like any time for example you criticize maybe donald trump supporters on twitter or things like that, you can open yourself up to anything from death threats to like your identity being hacked or your accounts being hacked and all kinds of things like that. So it makes it more unlikely that people won't even feel comfortable expressing themselves. So that suppresses discourse which is obviously something that is pretty bad. But I also think that it makes it more likely that you're going to see things like trolling, you're going to see things like that that are going to further degrade the discourse that we have in society which makes discussions more uneducated, discussions more hyperbolic, less ground in reality and informed, higher prevalence of fake news because people are more willing to like spread around false lies and rumors and things like that if there's no shame or stigma attached to like them putting their face not themselves. I think that banning anonymous posts can get rid of a lot of these problems. So for those reasons we should ban anonymous posts.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 3, 2]",15,"[45185975, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 15448937, 45355658, 20512953, 45458968, 19838540, 21017840, 45405037, 45169947, 6340330, 34609243, 34110399]"
18be5694-bf01-427c-826c-320d65dc20a5,2588,Assisted suicide should be a criminal offence,Human expert,"We should criminalize physician-assisted suicide because it is ultimately impossible to check against abuses, and the ways in which it can be abused can ultimately have incredibly pow-profound impacts on disadvantaged people in society. So, let's break down first, how this is actually going to look, because when you recognize the diseases that people often have when they're contemplating physician-assisted suicide, we're talking about diseases that it's very difficult or impossible to cure or treat, and treatments for these kinds of diseases can oftentimes be incredibly expensive, incredibly difficult, or things like that. So, here's why this presents a problem. Because there's a whole lot of people who may not be able to, it could be more like of a financial hardship for them if they're going to be paying for this money. Now this presents a problem because then they could feel pressured into taking this they could be pressured into opting to die simply because it seems like a more financially feasible option, is a way to opt out of treatment, especially if you're only going to die in a few more months anyway. I think this is very very bad however because, especially when you're at the end of the life, life is the most sacred thing that you could possibly have. It's it's the root of everything that you could ever value and the last few months that you live are the most precious months and are months that should never be deprived of you and there however in it's it's it's a time to be so it's essentially it's time to do some of the things you wish you could have done throughout your life and this is your last chance to do them, to say goodbye to people. It's very important in a lot of ways to make sure that you don't feel pressured into prematurely ending this time, and that I think is a very legitimate fear that can come out of that. And there's no real way to check against that because it's impossible to really tell or determine if somebody is doing something because they generally feel genuinely feel at peace with a decision they're making or they're doing it because of some other kind of exterior pressure, something that we don't think should be a legitimate grounds for someone choosing to die therefore. But the next thing I want to talk about is not just coercion because of socioeconomic status but because of the ailment that you may have itself. You can have especially for a lot of aging people you could have alzheimer's you could possibly have a patient who has some kind of like some form of autism or there are some other kind of way in which the patient isn't able to fully conceptualize the magnitude of the decision that they are making. This is another very clear set of circumstances where you can't actually consent to what is being done to you, and this is also another tricky set of circumstances because you may wnd up with somebody who says "" oh, well this is fine. There's no problem with this, this is legal, this is going to be easier, I'm going to die anyway, blah blah blah "". But the problem is is that if they're not able to have a full cognition of this, then they're ultimately having their life taken away from them without their consent. Something that is obviously quite bad. The final thing I want to talk about is about ethics in general because I think that the goal of medical ethics and the goal of medicine in general should not be just to minimize suffering in such a way, to minimize suffering through death or things like that. I think that that in many ways that's just a wrong way of looking at it, and the way in which you should go about this is minimize suffering while you can live yourself. So if there is fear that someone is going to spend their last few months in pain, try instead of focusing on ending that pain prematurely, you want to make sure that there's a focus on better and more like new or better ways in which to end suffering. So for example, instead of giving somebody a cocktail of a billion prescription drugs, maybe let them use medicinal marijuana or alternatives like that that could be nice for chronic pain. There's I I think in a lot of ways even if it doesn't currently exist, this could also foster more research and development and those kind of things. So for all those reasons, physician-assisted suicide should be a criminal offense.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 2]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 20225558, 6432269, 45336988, 45189900, 45361788, 45206691, 45336993, 28810858, 45405037, 13581319, 21785776, 29155723, 44044795]"
e1dd0984-6bea-4b26-85d7-16978b93964f,2613,We should abolish the two-party system,Human expert,"We should abolish the two party system because the two party system is not incredibly complex in the views that it allows people to represent compared to the complex and diverse views that people often have in a political culture, and additionally the two party system makes it more likely that you're going to see polarization and hate and lack of progress in policy making as opposed to coalition building and progress and cooperation. So let's start by talking about why a two party system is incredibly bad for just a basic representation of people in government. And the biggest reason for this is because there's more than two perspectives on issues. And besides there just being more than two perspectives on any given issue, there aren't just two kinds of people: people who believe one set of issues uniformly on one thing and people who believe in a uniform set of principles on the other side of an issue. In reality of these things are much more complex. People believe in issues to varying degrees, people rank issues in varying degrees of importance, people have different opinions on issues. There's a whole slew of ways in which people are just complex. And the two party system kind of just simplifies this in the worst way possible by grouping people into two parties: you're either on one side of the political spectrum or the other. And it doesn't really give you room for actual political complexity. And that's a big problem because people, for the most part, want want a government that is more directly representative of them. And what this means is that there's less of an opportunity for people who have views that don't necessarily align completely with the one of the two main parties. Those views are much more likely to be silenced. Because there's not going to be a like there's not really a platform for them to speak up on, because there's only two parties and whatever those to party lines are, that's where the bulk of the discourse, the bulk of the conversation, the bulk of the policy making will revolve around. So that's a really bad thing for representation of diverse view points. But I also think that the two party system is really bad for cooperation and coalition building, and the biggest reason for that is because it's oftentimes an explicit like requirement or necessity of governance that a multi-party state is going to have to rely on other parties to build a governing coalition. And the reason for that is because if you have multiple parties you're usually not able to get a majority of seats in a parliament or a congress. And since they're not able to get a majority of seats in the parliament or congress, you need to rely on similar minded, but not necessarily the exact same parties, in order to build a coalition to govern. This means you necessarily have to reach out to people with somewhat divergent views. This means that you're necessarily going to have an engagement between diverse issues to come towards common ground rather than simply having like an a government and an opposition and they're all uniform blocks. You have more complexion, you have more like coalition building for different groups, you have more actual opportunities to have debate over what's in the best interests of different groups in the in society, rather than just blanket support or opposition for a group. And I think that that means that things are more likely to actually happen. You're more likely to see progress, you're more likely to seek consensuses and things like that and all those things are actually really good for effective governance. So for all those reasons, abolish the two party system.","[4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 20225558, 45190571, 45181383, 45401087, 45181384, 45538225, 6432269, 21785776, 45458968, 45405037, 13581319, 30777913, 45336993]"
5d4d6000-f075-49f9-be07-ef196ac2370c,2621,We should disband the United Nations,Human expert,"We should disband the united nations because it's incredibly ineffective in solving the world's problems and when you're overly reliant on one mechanism to solve the world's problems, it blinds you to other possibly more effective and beneficial ways to solve problems. So let's start by talking about why the united nations is incredibly ineffective because there's a lot of reasons. The biggest one is that a lot of the stuff that it does doesn't have a whole lot legally binding force in a lot of ways so a lot of actions it takes, it can't really force you to do anything. So every time the united nation condemns someone for something or another, that condemnation doesn't really come with weight itself. The only way in which the united nations actually has any kind of enforcement power is one of two ways: military support via individual member countries usually because even the united nations like peacekeepers are often donated troops from like individual countries armies or economic impacts of things like sanctions. But here's the problem, those things need to be jointly agreed upon for them to have efficacy there and there's problems with that. The first problem is that obviously the world is a rather large and diverse place and a lot of people are going to have a lot of differences on the way in which conflicts and problems should be solved, but additionally you have, especially with the security council, you have oftentimes powers that are ideologically opposed to one another, diametrically opposed, and that means that you're not actually going to be able to really build consensus on the best ways to result in actions. So what ends up happening is that most things get vetoed, most things are seen as hopeless from the start, and a whole lot of things aren't ultimately getting done. So what happens is that nothing gets done. Genocides keep on happening, other kinds of injustices keep on happening, and the UN can publish report after report about those things, but these problems don't actually get solved. And I think that's a problem because when you look at the united nations, you have this kind of assumption that the united nations is this great body that's going to try to be this communal forum where everyone can air their differences and try to collaboratively reach conclusions. And that's nice and all, but I think that it's fundamentally flawed because the system that we use, people aren't held to the same standard. So a country like america doesn't have to have the same obligations as as far as morality as say like uganda would. So that's important because the result is that you see discouragement amongst like countries both big and small. People realize that the united nations doesn't actually have any kind of binding force and yet there's still the expectation that you can make the united nations work. All we need to do is cooperate. But the problem is that there's an assumption that like you can force the cooperation and that will make the united nations work, when it's quite possible that we need to disband the united nations and have a different system, a different system that forces cooperation. One that's going to maybe not be as as dependent on individual superpowers, one that's going to be more willing to actually take bold actions to establish international norms, things like that. So for all those reasons we should disband the united nations.","[5, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 2, 5, 4]",15,"[45953041, 45191885, 21017840, 15448937, 45167145, 19838540, 30777913, 6340330, 28813722, 45181383, 45401087, 45190571, 34110399, 45181384, 34609243]"
45fa4b1f-2ad8-4458-a89f-d3683dea3b56,2678,We should subsidize distance education,Human expert,We should subsidize distance education because it ensures more access to education and that's incredibly important. So the first way in which it ensures more access is just by making the literal act of going to school a whole lot easier which is great. It makes it a whole lot easier because first right now there's oftentimes a real concentration of schools in specific locations that may not be accessible for a whole lot of people. Like let's say that you live in a developing country you're probably not going to be able to go to some college in the united states and maybe it's not possible for you to go to the couple of colleges that exist in like a big cities or things like that. Additionally but it's oftentimes easier to get access it's oftentimes pretty comparatively easy to get access to say the internet. But this is even true in other kinds of contexts like for example schools tend to concentrate in america a most of the elite schools tend to concentrate in the like northeast area. So it's increased costs of going to college there if you don't already live near the area. Additionally there's a time problem. A lot of people have jobs a lot of people have other kinds of obligations maybe people have to take care of family members and they can't really leave home there's a whole other kind there's a whole slew of reasons why people may not have the time to get involved in a traditional education setting. Maybe not even go consistently to night school. Distance learning allows you to learn at your own pace oftentimes it allows you to learn in a more customized fashion which is incredibly good. But it also increases access in terms of money in terms of financial costs and this is obvious. College is incredibly expensive. You can spend tens of thousands of dollars on tuition in a ton of colleges a lot of this ends up happening going to student loans which is pretty bad for a whole lot of people. A lot of people may not have the credit to afford it to get access to student loans. A lot of people may not be able to afford the interest rates. A lot of people don't think they're going to realistically make enough money post graduation to pay off student loans. A lot of people are just freaked out of the about the idea of borrowing like tens and tens of thousands of dollars before they even start their life off. Those are pretty reasonable things and reasons why it ultimately discourages people from getting an education. And ultimately that's the worst outcome and it's the worst outcome because a less less education means that you're probably going to have lower career earnings it means that the workforce is less educated and your workers are less skilled. There's less innovation and creation. There's less economic growth there's a whole lot of reasons why you want to encourage economic why you want to encourage education. But additionally distance learning is also something that can be uniquely helped by subsidies. And it can be helped by subsidies because right now there's already a a large like demand that's being met for traditional colleges like there's no real shortage of traditional colleges. But there is a real shortage of quality alternative options. Obviously there's some alternate in the status quo like there's coursera there's like harvard open course and things like that. But these things are oftentimes limited and they're going to stay limited because there's less of a demand for them and less economies of scale for them and all these things can be corrected if you have more subsidies so for all those reasons you should subsidize distance education.,"[3, 5, 4, 5, 4, 2, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4]",15,"[28813722, 45567220, 45677971, 45569485, 13581319, 43877630, 45181256, 45181253, 45181262, 45181243, 45189900, 45206691, 45191882, 34609243, 28513847]"
3a5f68b9-a8ab-40a6-abb9-1104825b4329,3168,We should introduce year round schooling,Human expert,"We should have year round schooling because it'll be better for the students who will be able to better enjoy their vacations and it'll also be better for actual learning. So for starters, year round school obviously doesn't just mean that you go to school everyday of the year and you get rid of the summer. We probably should have a similar number of days off, a similar number of vacations for people but now those can be better spread out. So instead of getting just those three weeks, a spring break, and a winter break, and a couple of random holidays, now you can actually get more substantive vacation. So maybe instead of getting just thursday and friday off for thanksgiving you get the whole week off. Maybe instead of just getting instead of getting two weeks off for winter break you get a month off. Maybe you get a month in the summer instead of three months and it would basically be a redistribution of the days off. And I think that that would probably be a whole lot better for a couple of reasons. First, because I think kids will like it more. Most kids aren't going to be like losing the sacrifice of going to summer camp or something like that because most kids can't afford that and most kids, when they're going on some kind of trip or vacation, it's usually something that's a lot shorter, it's usually something that you can do within the confines of a month. You don't really need a whole summer to do that. And most of the time, the people that get affected the most are people who are just kind of sitting around all summer because they don't really have opportunities to do a whole lot of other things with their time over their summer. Their parents work, so they're kind of just sitting around and they would probably be a whole lot better served. And I think people, the students themselves would probably like this is if they were given more breaks where they can recharge their batteries. Because being a student is pretty stressful. You have a lot of things, you're taking a lot of classes, you have to do work when you get home usually you have extracurricular activities, you may have a job too, it's certainly no walk in the park being a kid especially if you're like being pushed academically or you're doing a sport or something like that. You have a lot of things that you're usually doing so getting vacation days is nice and it's nice to have more than just a couple of days a year or two big breaks a year and then summer break. It would probably be nice if those things were more spread out because people get burned out and in order to recover from the burn out you don't really need a whole summer, you only need maybe a couple of days or a week and that's something that I think from a health standpoint would be a lot better for kids. But also there's the obvious benefits of memory and learning because one of the biggest complaints that a lot of teachers have and it makes a whole lot of sense is that people forget things and you have to spend a and you have to spend like the first month or two of school just reviewing old material because when you completely because because when you spend three or more months just not studying or not really doing anything for school, you're probably going to forget those things and that's going to be pretty helpful in harmful or detrimental to your learning. But the final thing is that the idea of having a summer vacation and the winter break and things like the current system of vacation is pretty archaic. It was like designed around the harvest basically like there's no real reason why we have vacations when we do. It's just kind of something that's always existed so there's no real reason why we shouldn't try to get some reform through. So for all those reasons we should have year round school.","[4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 2, 3]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 31948170, 45336988, 45206691, 45336993, 45361788, 45185975, 45191882, 45190823, 6340330, 44044795, 15448937, 45411178, 38202325]"
f6d7829e-3e07-4885-9a75-125854ccd4cf,3185,We should adopt socialism,Human expert,"We should adopt socialism because socialism is fantastic on a moral level and on an economic level. So let's start by talking about what socialism in most forms actually looks like. And by and large it's classified as extensive public support networks, and making sure that basic goods and services are available to everyone in a really equitable fashion. So this looks like things like social security, like intensive pension plans, strong labor unions so they can advocate for workers rights, universal healthcare, maybe even universal basic income. These kinds of policies that would fall under the umbrella of socialism basically. So why are these things good? So first and foremost most of these things are just things that people should have a right to you and are necessary to people's lives. When you're talking about something like healthcare, you look at places like america, which are one of the only developed countries in the world that doesn't guarantee access to healthcare or have some kind of public option. You look at things like the ability of people to stay alive, the ability of people to literally be healthy and be happy is something that comes with an exorbitant price tag. And even if it's not from like a market perspective, something that's like efficient, obviously this is something that's so important to the like basic human happiness that it's something that you want to try to guarantee access for. You know, we guarantee a lot of rights in a lot of parts in places like america. You have a right to freedom of speech, you have the right to vote, you have a lot of rights. Right to religion. But rights to things like healthcare, rights to financial security, these kinds of things are far more important in a lot of ways. You could live without a right to religion. You could live with that. But you can't live if you're dying because you don't have the ability to stay healthy, because you can't afford medicine. You're not going to be able to meaningfully access your right to freedom of speech if you're like constantly working and you don't have the ability to actually speak out politically, because there's a fear of political consequences of speaking out. You're not going to be able to take advantage of a whole lot of like basic level things of happiness in life. And there is a whole lot more to life than simply just like living for your job, living for work and things like that. And I think that socialism makes it possible so that people can actually be comfortable in the lives of their living because they don't have to worry about putting food on the table and starving or having their kids being starving. They don't have to worry about being homeless, you don't have to worry about these kinds of things because the state provides it for them. And beyond that, sure, there might be some levels of inequality. There might be some people who have more luxuries than other people, but in terms of the ability to actually survive on a day to day basis, that's something that I think that everyone just morally has an equal claim to. So socialism should be adopted for for those reasons. But beyond that it's good for the economy too. When people are when people have more money they can fuel consumption. Rich people by and large just kind of like park their money in bank accounts or in investments or upgrade things and aren't upgrade goods, so like instead of a toyota you got like a maserati or something. So you're not really creating new consumption and it's more of transferable consumption or no consumption at all. And that's good because economies are primarily driven by the consumption of goods and services. So we get more of that through socialism and more purchasing power. But also there's just gonna be more research development and innovation and more creativity. Because you're going to have more people in the work in qualified workers, you're going to have more educated workers, and more people that are able to participate in the economy. In the same way in which like there is a huge economic gains when women were able to participate in the workforce, right now a lot of poor people are locked into certain kinds of jobs because they can't get access to certain kinds of training and education to get out of it. And that gets solved with socialism. So for all those reasons, adopt socialism.","[3, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 1, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4]",15,"[20225558, 45190823, 45181383, 45191873, 45181152, 45272708, 29155723, 45181262, 28813722, 45405037, 45206691, 45191882, 6432269, 20512953, 45355658]"
609f1afd-3bc7-4609-a055-39eb2ed40b7b,3191,We should introduce recall elections,Human expert,"We should have recall elections, because they're incredibly important for ensuring accountability of our politicians. And I think, the first reason, why they're important for ensuring accountability, is because it makes sure that politicians can't just lie and get away with it. Politicians tend to promise a lot of things on the campaign trail, they promise that they'll fix your problems, that they'll get rid of your enemies, and all these kinds of things. Most of the time, they don't actually do that. And, while we expect that politicians can't possibly do everything that they ask, sometimes politicians can do the opposite of what they say, or they can just directly violate and break their promises, which is very obviously bad, because people vote politicians into office under the expectation, that they're going to do the things, like that they vote for them to do. So, if politicians don't do that, if they change on some issues, then people should have the right to reevaluate if they still want this politician to be in a position of power. And, without the ability for people to actually check politicians this way, there's no reason why they can't just say one thing on the campaign trail, and then completely change their mind. But, the second way, in which I think that this ensures accountability, is because otherwise accountability is going to be, as far as like impeachment, or condemnation, or censoring, or silencing, or whatever, that's going to fall on people's peers, the politicians peers, rather than on the people itself, and that's a big problem. So, for example, when you look at like impeachment trials in america, they are like one of the most partisan things ever. Donald trump possibly deserves to get impeached over the, like, russia thing, but it's probably not going to happen, unless he did something super super egregious, because there's partisanship at place, it looks bad for the party, if the if a member of that party in a position of power gets kicked out of office. However, the people don't have the same kind of loyalty to the individual. They may have loyalties to the party as a whole, but they don't have the same kind of account loyalty to the single individuals, in the same way that their peers do, or possibly dependent on these people for support , or have to work with them, or things like that. So, by introducing recall elections, you take the power away from their peers, and you give it back to the people, which, besides just being the more democratic option, is much much better, as far as actually enforcing good practices as well. But, the final thing that I want to talk about is recall the debate shouldn't be about what the benefits of recall election are, really the debate should be about it should be about what grounds, under which shouldn't we have recall elections, rather than should, because I think that recall elections are a right that we have, and the presumption should be in favor of that. And, I think that this is because people in positions of power, in a democratic society, do not have any kind of right to that position. They have that authority, purely based on the fact that people think that they are worthy of representing their opinions, because people cannot like people have lives to live, they can't just like vote on everything, and be involved in politics on a full time basis. So, people give, in a very profound way, control over their lives over to these politicians and these politicians have a lot of power. People should be able to take away that power, within reason, whenever they want. And, for all those reasons, I am very proud to say that we should introduce recall elections.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 31948170, 45538225, 45405037, 45336993, 45336988, 45189900, 45361788, 45206691, 45181384, 45190571, 45401087, 21785776]"
c47ad860-0e4e-4fa6-b6e7-0e5d0c42f439,3193,We should fight nationalism,Human expert,"We should fight nationalism because it is incredibly difficult to critique the state and ultimately try to get better policies when you have a lot of nationalism and additionally because nationalism is immoral and it's something that ought be fought. So let's start by talking about why it is in order to essentially live up to the ideals of democracy in a free society, it's necessary to fight nationalism. And I think that the first reason for this is because when you have an overwhelming sense of nationalism, it ultimately corrupts policy and it corrupts decision making in incredibly profound ways. And I think that the way in which this happens is in that politicians, people who can be like perceived as like strong men or or just individual people, essentially appeal to oftentimes the worst impulses of people. The ideas that we need to preserve particular ways of life, the idea that you need to be greedy and put yourself and your own self interests before others, the idea that descent and critiquing things like the military or police forces are un-american or un-nationalistic, things like this are ultimately incredibly bad because obviously, first and foremost, I think that a lot of them are bad which is basically the second thing we're going to talk about. But also it has a very important impact on suppressing discourse and ultimately denying an ability to really dissent is meaningfully against unjust actions. And this is the case because when you're being labeled as anti-american or anti against against your own people, it becomes more difficult to state your arguments because instead of it becoming a discussion about the issues itself at hand, it becomes a discussion about your identity and a discussion about whether or not you're even like rationally looking for the betterment of society as opposed to some kind of insidious actor that's trying to undercut the the good of your own country. And I think that that's a big problem. But additionally I also think that nationalism is immoral. And I think that it's immoral in a fundamental way in that it's very greedy and exclusive. Nationalism is often predicated on the idea that you need to put the nation and national pride, amongst other things, and that this is a very important thing. And I think that this is a bad thing several fold. First and foremost, I think that national loyalty and identity and things like that aren't things that simply should be owed to a state. You don't owe allegiance to a state. And you ought not. And the reason for that is because it an allegiance should be something that is earned and it's earned on the basis of representing the values of what you think are good. And if a state doesn't do that then you are within your right to go against that and fight against that. And ways that suppress you from doing that are immoral. Additionally, it's an oftentimes incredibly greedy mindset that leads to you messing up a lot of people in a lot of places. It can lead to things like colonialism or imperialism or wars and things like that with the intent of getting your own resources enriched and things like that. It can be seen as exclusionary because you don't want to see a risk to your alleged way of life, or you don't want to let in other people from other countries because you see that as a threat to your own life and things like that. And I think that it creates this kind of false narrative about what the actual impacts are. So for all of those reasons we should fight nationalism.","[5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4]",15,"[45677971, 45567220, 45569485, 45567227, 45538225, 45458968, 45191882, 45206691, 45181243, 45181256, 45181253, 45181262, 45189900, 30777913, 44044795]"
f18cd558-9260-48eb-8016-804199f88e7c,3198,We should limit the right of self-defense,Human expert,"We should limit the right of self defense because people are incredibly bad actually evaluating real danger and making good decisions that are good for preventing death and injury and this reality gets in the way of ultimate in acting your ideals of justice as a just society making sure that due process is followed and all these kinds of things. So let's start by talking about why you need to limit the right to self defense because in the status quo in a lot of places self defense is given an incredibly wide degree of latitude. It's very easy to claim self defense to get out of a lot of crimes especially throughout america and especially throughout the american south and I think that that's very important because people aren't very good at actually evaluating threats and there's a lot of reasons for this. First and foremost of those is racism. A lot of people because people grow up in a society where you're constantly being told that like muslims are terrorists, that black people present threats to you and things like that, that you're more likely to impose threats on to other people even if they don't exist and examples of this are really obvious especially in america where you see police killing unarmed black people on a regular basis and these are trained professionals, these are police officers. Now imagine the average individual who doesn't even have police training and isn't even trained at isn't even supposed to be trained in de-escalating situations or being better able to actually identify the degree of a threat level. So I think that most people are going to assume that the threat may be higher. I think that secondarily oftentimes people are going to be very fearful and uniquely illogical in a situation where self defense may be necessary because if you think that there may be a danger to you or somebody else around you you're going to be very likely to act quickly without thinking especially if you have a weapon on you or something like that and I think that's very bad because it can lead to a rash decision making. Rash decision making that could lead to you injuring somebody who didn't deserve to be injured, leading to you injuring yourself because you escalated the situation. Maybe it was a robbery and obviously robberies are bad but a robbery is worse if the person robbing you ends up shooting you because you try to fight back or things like that. There's all kinds of reasons why I think that like limiting the right of self defense will make it so that maybe people are going to be more likely to instead of trying to fight maybe the emphasis can be on calling for help or fleeing or a duty to de-escalate. But additionally I think that the inexperience and lack of qualification is uniquely important because in addition to just like the racism point, you're talking about people who could come from like a wide range of backgrounds and qualification and things like that and most people don't have any kind of training in de-escalation, don't have any kind of training in actually understanding conflicts and threat levels. So all of that is very important because it prevents the ideals of justice in a just society from being enacted and the reason for that is because in a just society you're innocent until proven guilty and if in the act of self defense or crime if maybe like there's a robbery going on the robber gets shot, obviously that person is still committing a crime but the like punishment for robbery isn't like roadside execution by a random person society. We still have due process checks. We still believe that guilt isn't just that you commit a crime but it's going through a series of procedures to actually establish guilt and additionally there's also the principle of proportionality where it's important to make sure that the punishment is proportional to the crime. That's why we have things like laws and all these kinds of legal checks in the first place to make sure that the criminal defense system and the justice system are fair systems and those require that self defense and individual citizen actions are done in the most minimal form possible. So for all of those reasons, we should absolutely limit the right of self defense.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 6432269, 45569485, 45567227, 45411178, 45567220, 45677971, 45458968, 44094031, 20512953, 15448937, 6340330, 30777913, 27770607]"
e3a2257e-20dd-4b36-a286-5873cfc4df39,3208,We should prohibit slum tourism,Human expert,"We should ban slum tourism because slum tourism doesn't actually do all that much good, it it creates a false image of actual help and only makes things worse and it is kind of degrading to a whole lot of the people who are actually being like toured essentially. So let's start by talking about why I don't actually think that s; tourism is all that helpful. Because the best case scenario is that people say that it creates awareness and people say that there is direct economic benefits of tourism blah blah blah. Here's the problem: when you're talking about slums, especially nowadays when you're talking about oftentimes developing parts of the world, places in like sub saharan africa, poor places in southeast asia, you oftentimes talking about incredibly poor countries that and well and specifically incredibly poor parts of cities, that have incredibly high degrees of poverty. Poverty that isn't even imaginable by the western standards that the people touring possess. The fact that people live on pennies a day, if that at all, the fact that people are truly struggling and need incredibly amounts of help. That they don't just need like the couple of dollars, at best, that they can make off of selling some trinket that you take home with you. Because that's not real economic help and that's not sustainable. That doesn't really put food on some of these tables and it doesn't make sure that like clean water is available, that medical treatment is available, that jobs are available. Like these aren't realistic ways to actually fix an economy. So you're really not doing all that much. And I think that even if you are doing a little bit, which you're probably not, this is still creating a kind of economic dependency on essentially like western tourism that isn't necessarily all that great for an economy to actually like self sustain itself. But I think that beyond beyond the like obvious not sufficient economic benefits, I think that this is actively harmful in a way that it makes people feel better about themselves by not actually fixing the problem. Because I think that that's really what slum tourism is designed to do. It's not really designed to actually help people, it's designed so that western people on the tour feel good about themselves, and they feel good about themselves essentially by slacktivism. They are now more aware of the problem, and when you're aware of the problem you're doing things to solve a problem. But I think that's a problem because those are very very different things. And I think if you actually wanted to be helpful rather than just simply tour in a place, you would actually dedicate a significant amount of your time or a significant amount of your money to actually fixing the problem. Or you would do some kind of public help job or you would actually lobby the a government to make some kind of meaningful change. That's the actual way in which you actually help people's lives. But realistically, when you're talking about slum tourism, it's basically just like a superficial look at a culture, a superficial look at the way in which things are operating, that isn't actually doing anything to help these people's lives. So for all those reasons, we shouldn't allow slum tourism.","[4, 5, 3, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 20225558, 45458968, 45405037, 45181383, 45401087, 45181384, 45190571, 45538225, 6432269, 45361788, 45336988, 45336993, 44044795]"
3f19bf26-d692-4990-a0a5-24c6835bab41,3212,We should adopt the teacher tenure reform,Human expert,"We should adopt teacher tenure reform because the current setup of teacher tenure ultimately leads to worst teachers being able to keep their jobs. It makes it so that it's harder to get newer teachers into the workforce and also I don't really think that teachers actually deserve tenure anyway. They deserve higher pay in places like america sure, but tenure itself is not something that I think that they deserve. So let's start by talking about why I think that tenure is bad and that it keeps worse it it essentially insures job security for worst teachers. So being a teacher is I think something that is obviously incredibly important that your training the future youth of society, so you want to make sure you're getting the most qualified people possible doing that job. Therefore, I think that the biggest criteria of evaluation is the efficacy of doing your job and that's interesting because once a teacher gets tenure it becomes that simply doing your job not that effectively or maybe even only being like slightly below average at your job but otherwise you want to replace that person. These people these teachers are possibly not going to be very good at their job and I think that's very important because this means that you can't really replace these teachers because tenure creates a lot of legal blocks to doing that and it also makes it so that teachers unions are going to use the large degree of power that they often have to prevent these teachers from getting fired. This means that oftentimes teachers who have just been around for a long time teaching are able to keep their jobs unless they usually commit acts of like severe misconduct. I think that's a problem because like while obviously teachers who do commit misconduct should get fired, that's not the only criteria that makes for a bad teacher. If somebody is ineffective at leading classroom conversation, if they can't inspire their students to do their classwork, if they aren't able to get the most out of their students, those are important qualities in a teacher too and those are qualities that teachers should be checked upon pretty consistently and I think that tenure makes it a lot harder to do that. But besides that I also think that it makes it harder to get newer teachers into the workforce and that's very important because when you insure that these older teachers, even if they're not very good at their jobs, are going to be doing their job regardless, the flip side of that is that better teachers and newer teachers aren't able to get these jobs and the reason they can't get those jobs is because they're they're the teachers with tenure are locked into those positions. So that means that the people who are suffering the most are our children. The people who are supposed to be getting a good education are going to be getting the short end of the stick on that one. But the final thing that I want to talk about is about whether teachers even deserve tenure in the first place because the idea about like the need for teacher tenure reform I think we should attack the assumption that this is something that teachers are entitled to it in the first place because in tenure is very much limited to academia. It's not really something that you see in most professions and even in like academia it's generally limited to like university faculty or at least it should be and I think that's important because if you're teaching at a public school or things like that like you're not it's not the same as being on a faculty of a university or things like that where obviously the expectations are a lot higher, where the needs to like of tenure could be very different but when you're an individual professor, when you're just an individual school teacher I don't really know why you would need like this special kind of job security that prevents you from being fired if you don't do if you do a below average job which is something that very very few occupations in all of american society and probably most societies would experience. So for all those reasons, we should adopt teacher tenure reform.","[5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 3, 4, 5, 4, 2]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 45167145, 15448937, 45401087, 45181383, 45190571, 45181384, 30777913, 19838540, 28813722, 6340330, 44044795, 45282792, 45355658]"
d31e297a-311f-42ca-ad82-fa1a7ea2380f,3227,We should abolish capital punishment,Human expert,"We should abolish capital punishment because it's a barbaric way of punishing people. It's irreversible, which is bad if you wrongfully convict somebody. It deters nothing, and it's really expensive and an inefficient way to punish somebody. So, let's start by talking about why it's just a barbaric and inhumane way of punishing people. And I think that this starts from the basic premise that no matter who's doing the murdering, murder is immoral, human life has some kind of value to it and that we should be focusing on rehabilitation and second chances in almost all circumstances and , at the very least, we shouldn't be proliferating murder in any kind of way. And I think, in the most basic sense, this just comes from the like the idea that human life has some kind of value and that there is nothing that somebody can do that is just so absolutely horrible that they just simply do not have any kind of claim to life anymore and that there's always a way in which like you can try to like work with people, try to help people, rehabilitate people, or give people second chances. There is all kinds of people throughout like history who have done horrible things and, sure, in a lot of cases, you can't really do all that much to rehabilitate those people, then I guess you're going to throw those people in prison for the rest of their lives, but a whole lot of people change over time. People oftentimes do change over time. Like you ask any person if they're the same person now as they were five years ago or ten years ago or twenty years ago, you're probably going to have most of those people say, "" no, "" and that's because people do change over time. And I feel like just the murdering of somebody for something that they did at one point in their life just seems like an inherently unfair and immoral thing to do, because their life has value and that they always can become a different person, a better person, at some point in their life. But beyond that, I also think that there is this is obviously horrible if you wrongfully convict somebody, because then you're literally murdering an innocent person. And this is horribly uncommon. Like, in places like america, there's entire organizations, like the innocence project, that are that are solely devoted to getting wrongfully convicted people off of death row because it's such a commonplace thing. Whether it's because of rampant eyewitness misidentification because people are, well, oftentimes people are really bad at being eyewitnesses, especially for people of different races, people oftentimes can't tell the difference between black people like different features and things like that. People are oftentimes difficult at judging features, especially at night, especially under duress. Oftentimes DNA , even like they're not not just DNA, but oftentimes forensic testing can be inexact or flawed, fingerprints can be partial matches at best and sometimes can have like like wide error margins, most arson sciences or like ballistic sciences on guns are just junk sciences. Oftentimes people wrongfully confess because they're under pressure, because they're being overcharged with something, because they don't think that they'll get a fair trial because juries are oftentimes racists or willing to convict people, because prosecutors are more willing to make sure they convict somebody, anyone, than risk a case going cold and their reputations being on the line. There's tons and tons of ways in which wrongful convictions happen, which is why you get so many people that are exonerated that were on death row, and that's why the innocence project has been doing its work for such a long time, and it's going to keep being able to do its work for such a long time. Additionally it doesn't it doesn't really deter anything. A lifelong prison sentence is a pretty horrible thing and certainly a good deterrent for most people. And when you're talking about murderers, when you're talking about possibly terrorists, when you're talking about drug kingpins, you're talking about people who are probably already at peace with the fact that in their line of work, they may die. I feel like these are people who are uniquely at peace with their own mortality and probably aren't going to be deterred by the fact that the state might execute them. So for all of those reasons, we should abolish capital punishment.","[5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4]",15,"[6432269, 45567227, 45567220, 45953041, 13581319, 45538225, 45411178, 45206691, 45336988, 45361788, 45189900, 15448937, 45336993, 45458968, 6340330]"
12c12af0-7408-494e-849e-fedbff81e55a,3661,We should abolish foster care,Human expert,"We should abolish foster care and replace it with a system where there'll be mandatory adoption for people who previously would have been put into foster care. The way we're going to set this up is the same way in which you have to register for like a military draft in a lot of countries, the same way in which you're automatically put into maybe like a jury selection pool, same way and that's going to work if you're able bodied, if you're financially capable, you're going to be put into this lottery system and if you're and if you're selected you're going to be forced to adopt somebody. And I think that this is going to be absolutely great for a lot of reasons. So first and foremost, I think that almost all of the possible alternatives are going to be better than foster care. Oftentimes when you're talking about foster care you're talking about a system that's under funded, a system where a lot of the children are lacking guidance, lacking lacking love and support that is necessary for their development, lacking a lot of basic services and like things that they would need to get by better lives. And I think that by and large these things can be replaced better by an adopted parent and adopted parents are going to be able to do a better job. So why is this the case? For for the most part even if you're forcing the adoption of somebody since this is probably going to be happening at like a younger age by and large since you're forcibly adopting somebody generally love isn't something that has to like come right away or exist from the very second. It's generally something that comes over time because it's the bonds that are created over time by like experiences over the years, watching growth over the years, forming an emotional connection with the other other human being, things like that. So I think then in a lot of circumstances this love and care is going to happen over time. But moreover I think most people have a basic capacity for empathy and understanding and things like that which are going to make it that like this is clearly a human being who's in need in the same way in which like people under most people understood say like the obligation of getting drafted like like by and large most people comply if they didn't want to do it necessarily. People look at is an obligation because it does social good. I think that even more so than the military in a lot of cases, adoption is something that people can look at in the same way because it's something that is like a moral obligation to really like help another human being. And I think that most people respect that. But beyond that I think that a lot of people this is mostly going to affect people who would otherwise be naturally conceiving because if you're like like capably like physically capable, financially capable, you're probably somebody like who like maybe considering having like a naturally born baby. And I think that like encouraging adoption over natural birth is like definitely a good thing that you should do in a society given that there's a lot of people who are being neglected right now who deserve that love and support they could be getting. Moreover it makes sure that there is like more like controlled population growth all other kinds of stuff. So for all those reasons we should abolish foster care and replace it with mandatory adoption.","[4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 3, 4, 2, 4, 5]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 6432269, 45569485, 45567227, 45567220, 45677971, 44094031, 45411178, 45355658, 44044795, 19838540, 45405037, 6340330, 44690955]"
354fec19-0d9a-465d-b4db-c68016450fa1,3730,Community service should be mandatory,Human expert,"Community service should be mandatory because it's incredibly good for the public and it's something that you in a lot of ways should have an obligation to do. So let's start by talking about what this will actually look like. I think that a reasonable way to impose mandatory community service is that everyone in a country, no matter who you are as long as you're capable of doing it, maybe if you're sick or like terminally sick or incredibly young you can get out of it, but pretty much everyone should have to do community service and you have to do it for a certain number of hours or days based on where you are in the individual country in question. So why is this something that would be a very good thing? So I think that right now there's obviously a lot of things that need doing in terms of public sector. Garbage needs to be taken out sometimes people like like littering happens and it doesn't go in garbage cans, but you have to like work in soup kitchens, you can try to help like build public housing, you can volunteer like social services or things like that, be like a police like a police phone operator, things like that, to like route emergency calls, like there's all kinds of things in which like you could reasonably do for a volunteer basis that would probably be pretty helpful for a whole lot of people. So there's obviously things that need to be done. And I think that right now we see an incredibly large degree of budget shortfalls in most most governments. There is an incredible unwillingness to give money to governments to pay full time workers for these kinds of things so I think that, in most cases, a lot of these jobs don't always get the adequate funding that they could do that they deserve so there is shortfalls and that various important public services get underdone which is a problem. So why is mandatory community service a good good obligation that you have and a good way to solve this problem? And I think that first and foremost it's just kind of a basic give and take with society. You take a lot from society whether it's you get safety from society from their existence of police forces and fire departments, you get basic sanitation, you get like things like that, they build infrastructure up, like society obviously gives a whole lot to you that makes your day to day life possible. So giving back to that society by performing various public services on an inconsistent but on an inconsistent basis every year or so is something that I think can be is something that I think you owe to society for all that it's given to you. But I think beyond that you also want to look at the like cost benefit analysis of like the good that you can do you verses the burden that this puts on you. Because ultimately this isn't really that big of an obligation. It's not going to be like like a full time job or anything like that, it's basically just going to be a couple of days a year in total. Year is like three hundred and sixty five of them you can probably give up like point five percent of your time to helping people. I think that it's kind of ridiculous to argue that this is some kind of unreasonable burden that we're putting on people. It's a pretty basic thing and I think that it's a minimal violation of any kind of like like choice that somebody may have or autonomy that somebody may have. So for all those reasons we should have mandatory community service.","[4, 4, 3, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 2, 4, 4, 4, 3]",15,"[6432269, 45538225, 20312760, 44690955, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 43984981, 45189900, 9559045, 45206691, 45191882, 27934334, 34854490]"
0c414e78-b427-4fed-92f8-c25f6dead7d5,3758,We should further exploit sustainable energies,Human expert,"We should further exploit clean energy sustainable energy because it's a matter of life and death and if that's not enough, if death isn't a good enough reason, it's also a good economic reason which for anyone who doesn't think you're going to die then you probably care about money so there's that. So let's start by talking about why this is necessarily true. And this is true because fossil fuels are one of the leading contributors to global warming. And this is because fossil fuels have incredibly wide ranging demand and also application. Whether you like want like basic cooling or refrigeration or heating or cooking or transportation like almost everything requires energy. So obviously energy is important, we all know that. But energy goes into a whole lot of things too. Like if you're like trying to make plastics which like make almost any kind of supply, you're probably using oil cause oil is a big ingredient in plastics. That factory is also running off of electricity, the trucks that are delivering those goods run on electricity, when your car goes to the store that is stores running on electricity and you have to use it to run your car. Maybe you're going to plug in whatever you buy into an outlet or something or it's going to connect to the internet or whatever. Obviously energy is everywhere and incredibly important. So if we could make that cheaper, better, and more environmentally friendly then you're solving a whole lot of problems. So how are we going to do this? Well for starters, eventually you're going to run out of a lot of these non renewable resources. Oil reserves are going to dry up, all of the coal all of the coal is already going to be mined and these things are going to be all problems. We already see this start to unfold where we're constantly going to new locations to find oil, we're going to like deeper levels of like getting oil, we're getting oil from like new places, extracting it from rocks instead of just like drilling into the ground or all kinds of different ways in which we have to get oil or whatever. And as this gets like progressively and progressively harder to find these non renewable resources, it's only going to get more expensive and that's like like like independent of the impacts it has in the environment, the fact that it contributes to climate change which makes it so that it's harder to grow food because weather is more extreme and crops only grow at certain temperatures, makes it harder that like city it makes it like more likely that cities will flood because see levels will rise and because of other kinds of natural disasters from like forty year rain events that happen every couple of years like what we saw in texas and puerto rico and other kinds of places like that. So obviously those are already good consequences. There's also the economic consequences where in the long run, as like a long term investment, sustainable energy is just going to be better. Because rather than constantly having to like drill for more oil or mine more coal, you're just going to have a solar panel that's going to get energy from the sun and the sun is always out. Or sun's always contributing energy even if it's not out per se. Or if the sun isn't out it's probably windy or cloudy and or you're probably by like an ocean or some kind of river or water so you can adopt like wind turbines or hydroelectric power something like that. Even nuclear energy could probably be considered sustainable in the sense that it's very very much sustainable and it in a lot of ways functions and non renewable resource because you're probably not going to run out of it really ever. All of these would be like much better alternatives. They can oftentimes be in the long term will probably be cheaper both with economies of scale further research and development things like that. And it's also going to just make it so that people are going to have cheaper supplies of energy in the long run which is just good for the economy because like I was saying, since energy goes into everything from transportation to like shipping to like consumption to cooling to heating and whatever, when energy's cheaper everything about life is cheaper. So for all those reasons invest and further exploit sustainable energy.","[2, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 4, 3, 5]",15,"[45190823, 20225558, 28813722, 45405037, 45181383, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 45189900, 45206691, 45191882, 45411178, 6432269, 6340330, 19838540]"
a2bb5491-496e-4997-b131-fff3d0709e19,1161,We should ban cosmetic surgery,Human expert,"We should ban cosmetic surgery. When we talk about cosmetic surgery, we're discussing cosmetic non-reconstructive surgery, with a possible exception for surgery for disfiguration, things like cleft lip. We think returning people to normal looks is is fine if they're born disfigured, and obviously if they've been through a car accident etcetera, that's fine, that's medical. So, two arguments as to why we should ban cosmetic surgery. One is on the propagation of unnatural beauty norms, and two is on public deceit. Let's talk about the propagation of unnatural beauty norms. So government are going to come in here opposition are going to come in here and they're going to argue that these women don't feel beautiful, they don't feel powerful, and opting in rationally to these surgeries make these individual women happier. And and they're one hundred percent right about that, to a limited extent about how much these people actually feel happier afterwards, obviously. But here's the problem. They end up perpetuating a cycle. We think there is a collective action problem, whereby society chooses the top of the crop of beautiful women, and portrays those women to the rest of society as a standard. The rest of society applies that standard to itself, feels bad about itself because it can't meet that standard, end up developing a lot of terrible terrible things, such as eating disorders, such as teen suicide, such as depression. And then some of those people, either by cosmetic surgery or by moral luck, become beautiful and repeat the entire cycle. So for each individual within society, it does in fact make sense to have this surgery and become the cream of the crop, that one beautiful person. However for society as a whole, they are harmed by people opting in to this cycle and thereby perpetuating it. We think the worst case scenario alternative is that some people are beautiful simply because they were born beautiful, and those people are still paraded. Even within that, we think the emotional stress and harm done to the rest of society in a situation in which they know that there's nothing they can do about it, that it's just a question of genes and how you're born, means that they're less obsessed with it, less depressed with it. The same way, few people walk around being depressed about how bad they are at basketball. Even under that scenario, and that is a scenario by the way that assumes that some people are born as beautiful as can be attained through intervention by a surgery, which we think is unlikely at least within large numbers, we're better off blocking this market problem, solving this collection active collective action problem by not allowing people to get plastic surgery. The second argument we're going to make is that this constitutes deceit. Assessing people based on their looks is in many cases wrong and frowned upon. However, within relationships, it is in fact quite legitimate to assess people based on their looks and decide whether or not you're attracted to someone. One of the reasons for this, in fact we think the main reason for this is evolutionary and primal. The looks of your partner have a large determining effect in the looks of your children. We think what ends up happening is a lot of people are deceived into a relationship that includes marriage and childbearing, based on false information presented to them due to surgery. Now they'll say oh, this is just a few, but note most people end up getting married, so of all of the people who have plastic surgery, we think it's quite a few of them who end up getting people to sign marriage contracts and have lifelong children, based on false information. For these reasons we think you should propose the motion and ban plastic surgery.","[2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 3, 5, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[45185975, 45191882, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 13581319, 45458968, 20312760, 29155723, 15448937, 20512953, 45169947, 34609243, 28813722, 21785776]"
82c257b2-8e23-47b5-91ca-eec95d709810,2110,We should lower the age of consent,Human expert,"A legal age of consent was never meant as a punishment, it was meant to protect underage children from being taken advantage of. Note, that the legitimacy in such a law, an overly protectionist law, requires that that protection be overwhelmingly necessary. A particularly high bar is set, when there is a blanket policy, telling all people of a certain age, that they must refrain from an activity, in order to protect some of those people, who may not be able to make that decision over themselves. Our mechanism in this debate is somewhat nonspecific, in that we don't think we have the exact details in order to make a specific age. Roughly we think, it should be lowered from eighteen to somewhere between fourteen and sixteen, presumably varying to some extent between cultures. Our assumption is as follows: eighteen was the correct age for consent. The correct age is based on a, a person's body being ready for sex, meaning having gone through puberty, and b, ability to understandingly consent, meaning, there's some form of cognitive grasp, of what it is that an individual is consenting to, and what they're entering into, the ability to give that proper consent we think, that in both those realms, changes have overcome society in such a way, that the ability to give that consent is now reached at a younger age. Let's talk about those two things. So firstly, regarding bodily preparedness. People in general, and girls specifically, are maturing at a younger age nowadays. The reasons for this are an overuse of products and food, which contain hormones, and those hormones in turn make puberty come earlier. So, over the past few decades, girls have been getting their periods earlier and earlier, growing breasts earlier and earlier, men's testicles have been dropping earlier and earlier. So on that end we think, as far as physically becoming adults, people are doing so at a much younger age nowadays. Secondly, let's talk about societal changes, we think there are two such changes: one, as society is becoming more sex positive, and open toward sex in general. This means, that they're discussing sex more, this means that they're displaying sex more, this means that it's no longer shunned or taboo. What this means, is that the issues of sex are more accessible to younger audiences in general. The second thing, is that specifically they're being made accessible, actively, for younger and younger people. Younger and younger, TV shows are using sex to captivate younger audiences, younger people are being used as sexual icons, I would note justin bieber being portrayed as a sexual icon, beginning at the age of thirteen for example. All of this means, that parents, and an education system, are all equipped and dealing with the issues of sexuality earlier, which enables the necessary cognitive tools and social framework, for a younger individual to opt in to sex. So, because we no longer have reasonable cause to prevent them from acting based on their urges, we beg you to propose.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4]",15,"[45191882, 45185975, 45191885, 45185946, 45411178, 45953041, 31948170, 45190823, 21785776, 13581319, 45355658, 29155723, 15448937, 30777913, 20512953]"
7ec0d50c-844a-4c9f-aa80-e5624f18c9b7,2122,We should further exploit green technology,Human expert,"We should further exploit green technology. As far as we're concerned, all forms of green technology should be adopted just as quickly as we can afford to adopt them. This means green energy created from sun or from wind power or from water power. This means machines that are more energy efficient. So if that's electric cars for example, or certain types of more efficient factories for manufacturing, whatever it is. The reason we think we should do this is that the damage from abusing the environment is potentially enormous. That means we expect to see things like ice caps melting, like entire species of animals going extinct because their environment has changed too much, like entire cities or maybe even states going under water. All of this is horrible damages, and we'd like to avoid it as much as possible. So, a few arguments. First, we think the damage caused by global warming is often irreparable. This means that once damage is done, it cannot be undone. So a few examples of this. When the hole in the ozone layer was made, mankind did not know how to fix that hole. When a specific genus of animal goes extinct because of the changes to its environment, that animal is never coming back. If the ice caps start melting, those areas are not going to suddenly grow back. All of this means that we need to start battling climate change as soon as possible. Now, we recognize that the technology which we have to do this with currently is imperfect. However, because it's so irreparable, it is crucial that we start using even this imperfect technology in order to -le climate change. A second argument we're going to make is on how we improve upon this technology. See, there are two streams of thought. One says, wait till the technology is good enough, then implement it. We say that's not as good. Why? A, because of all the damages you've already created while you were waiting, but b, because up until the point where this technology is in use, investment in it seems like a long shot. Meaning, the return on investment that you get is in a very long time from now and you cannot deduce properly when it's going to be, because it depends on the quality of the product and when the government decides to adopt it. How does adopting green technology affect the creation of green technology. At the point at which governments come up and say look, we're trying to implement as much green technology as possible, we want the best of the best and we want to do it now. Corporations and businesses are now massively incentivized to improve upon and tweak any form of green technology, because it's all going to be necessary for the market which is now wide open. This means you get substantially more venture capitals investing in green technology, you get substantially more scientists looking into how to improve green technology, you get substantially more corporations developing the end product of green technology. If until now only tesla made proper electric cars, because nobody knew when electrical gas stations were going to be a thing, tomorrow every car company knows that that's the next step and that they should make an electric car now. For these reasons, happy to propose.","[4, 3, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 3]",15,"[45483811, 43877630, 29155723, 31948170, 45361788, 27770607, 45191885, 45336993, 20312760, 38202325, 45185946, 34609243, 34854490, 45169947, 45185975]"
583b2598-8de0-485b-b3dc-6b48ca9b10d8,2125,We should ban organic food,Human expert,"We should ban organic food. Now, by banning organic food we obviously don't mean banning the food itself. If somebody grows a cucumber at home, there's nothing wrong with that and that shouldn't be bad. Rather, the category of food called organic food is what should be banned IE the label. So we don't mind if people keep growing the food the same way they're growing it, but they have to call it food, not organic food, and there is no there will be no such thing as a government supported label of organic food. Let's talk about why we want to get rid of this label. Two arguments on the side of the house. One is scare mongering created at the expense of scientific evidence, and two, is on disincentivizing the growth of organic food due to the harm of organic food to the market as a whole. Let's get started with scaremongering. So one thing that is crucial to understand right off the bat, there is no scientific evidence to support organic food being any better than regular food. In fact, there is substantial scientific evidence to point to it being worse due to it being a, less full of vitamins and such that are pumped into GMO's, and b, less protected from various forms of germs and bacteria, meaning more likelihood of getting somebody sick due to eating these organic foods. The problem is that using psychological marketing tactics, they've managed to create a prism in which organic means and triggers a psychological notion of more natural, IE more healthy. We think this notion is false. We think medicine, for example, is entirely unnatural and exceptionally healthy, given the potential alternatives of illness and disease. Crucially, we think this distinction is not rationally made, but rather sub consciously made. So over the years they've managed to cultivate enough of a following to believe that organic essentially means healthy, that people see the word organic and don't even think about what it actually means, rather understand it as healthy. We think what this means is that in spite of the scientific evidence, the label of organic allows sellers to dupe buyers into purchasing their product against their better judgment and without rational understanding and analysis. So in order to protect these consumers, we think the label, and therefore this form of marketing, should be gone. The second thing is we want to disincentivize organic foods as a whole. Look, we recognize that they have minor advantages to some extent, in certain situation, to certain people, we think those are largely outweighed by the negative sides of organic foods. Crucially though, we also think they are bad for the market because the cost of growth of organic food and the area in which it needs to be grown is substantially larger. This means that if you take any given organic farm you can potentially grow about ten times more food if you weren't growing organic foods there. However, for the individual grower, if they can mark their food as organic and make ten times more money for a tenth of the production, for them it is worth it. However, for the market it is substantially worse since they're getting substantially less yield from the same amount of ground and farmer hours, as far as the market is concerned. So by disincentivizing this, we're essentially creating a market in which more food is produced at a lower cost for all of the buyers, therefore thereby feeding more poor families. For these reasons, we beg you to propose.","[4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 20225558, 45181384, 45458968, 45181383, 45401087, 45190571, 45405037, 45538225, 6432269, 13581319, 43877630, 45190823, 44044795]"
df279c23-069c-4324-aa5d-a80614295a2b,2143,We should ban abortions,Human expert,"The question on abortions tends to boil down to one crucial question. Are fetuses people? We think though, that it boils down to an even smaller question. Are fetuses people when it comes to getting rights? That's what we're gonna talk about in this debate. Let's map this for a moment, see what we're talking about, what we're not. We think abortions as a whole should be banned. We think a few exceptions should be made to this ban, and those exceptions are cases of self-defense, both physical and extreme cases psychological. What does that mean, it means just like you have the right to kill someone who's trying to kill you, or threatening to kill you, if a fetus is doing the same to a woman, she has the right to act in self defense and kill that child. We think in cases of fetuses that came about due to rape, the psychological harm potential of that fetus is so great that that counts as self defense as well, so the woman would be allowed to get rid of that fetus. That's basically it, maybe there are few more cases here and there which I think it counts a self defense and therefore it's okay. What's our stance in this debate, we think one thing is clear to everybody. You don't get to kill people, you don't get to kill them because you don't have enough money to take care of them, you don't get the kill them because it's inconvenient you don't get the kill them because you're too young to deal with them, people are people. Why is that the case? Because people have rights. Right that you're not allowed to take away from them. We think, that fetuses are people when it has to do with rights. Why? We say our criteria for giving rights to human beings is potential ability to fulfill those rights. This means that since potentially one day this fetus, in all likelihood even, will be able to walk, will be able to talk, will be able to think, will be able to choose, that fetus gets the rights afforded to cognizant human beings. Why is that the rationale by which we give people rights? And here, it's crucial to understand. Rights are a given thing, they are a societal construct that humanity has come up with in order to defend itself, both from other people and from governments as a as a whole. People aren't really born with rights or, in our case, created with rights, but rather they are given rights by a societal norm that accepts that these rights ought to be theirs. The reason we do this in order to protect, and the reason, crucially, that we do this for potential ability, is in order to deny an incentive to deny ability. What does that mean? It means, if being crippled means you lose rights because you no longer have the ability to do certain things, you are therefore incentivizing people to harm individuals in order to cripple them, destroying the initial rationale of giving them right in order to protect them in the first place. In fact, potential right often get greater protection. Where do we see all of this come down look at children. Children, cannot think for themselves in all reality, however they still have the right to self defense and the right to life. In fact, we give them additional protections over those rights. The same is true of handicapable people. People who are in all likelihood not even going to get those abilities back, but because potential exists, we afford them those rights and protect them even stronger. The same should be true for fetuses. We beg you to propose.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 3, 5, 2, 5]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 6432269, 45336993, 45336988, 45361788, 45206691, 45181384, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 20225558, 29155723, 21785776, 30777913]"
4a303e69-d95a-4be9-86eb-43bdb340a95e,2449,Organ donation should be mandatory,Human expert,"Organ donations should be mandatory. How do we see this working? At the point where an individual dies, that individual's organs go to a registry, statewide registry or a national registry, whatever it is and from that registry, they can then be granted without the individual's permission, without their family's permission, to anyone in need of an organ. The transplant list remains essentially the same way it is today, I. E. People get transplants based on need, based on severity, based on whether or not they're alcoholics, for example, things like that. Crucially, we think there should be an opt out as opposed to an opt in, meaning today you have to actively sign to allow people to use your organs, tomorrow everyone is automatically signed to allow people to use their organs, and you can go through a committee, for example, to opt out if you have particular personal reasons, such as religious justification, for not being allowed or able to donate your organs after death. We think it's likely that for religious reasons we'll exempt people, obviously for medical reasons we'll exempt people. If somebody's organs are tainted, we're not going to use them. If there are other reasons that are good enough, maybe we'll exempt people that way too. Crucially, notice that in countries with opt-out programs today, such as denmark, for example, organ donation is at anywhere between eighty five and a hundred percent, meaning that even when you let people opt out for no reason, most people still end up donating their organs. Two arguments we're going to make today. One, on property and autonomy after death. Why they, to an extent at least, cease to be and therefore, why these organs at the point of death no longer belong to you, and two, on market failure. Crucially, on property and autonomy after death. They're going to tell you that even if you don't maintain property or autonomy after death, you can deliver it away before death. That is to say you can, much like you don't maintain your money after death but create a will, in which your money goes to the person or persons to whom you want it to go, you can do the same with your organs. Note that falls on our side of the house. Why? A, it means the organs are going to someone. B, it means the initial state is that the organs don't maintain under your control, much like with property. If an individual does not write up a will and has no remaining heirs, for example, his property is not buried alongside him, right? That property is taxed and taken by the state. So that argument also falls on our side of the house. Why is it that you don't maintain autonomy after death? We say autonomy is something that is given to individuals with the ability to choose. This is the reason that animals don't have autonomy, because they can't make rational choices. This is the reason that children, to a great extent, don't have autonomy, because they don't have the cognizant cognitive facilities that enable them to make actual real-life choices. This is a reason that fetuses aren't even considered human beings and can be aborted because they don't have that autonomy of choice, therefore they don't have autonomy over their body. We say at the point that an individual dies, they lose autonomy over themselves. This means that their faculties no longer belong to them. This means that their organs no longer belong to them. Now, to whom do they belong? A, we say they belong to the state because the state facilitated their existence for a long time. They did tihs through healthcare, they did this through through education. But b, at the point at which they belong to nobody, we say the state is the best actor suited to give them to the people who most need them. So even if they belong to nobody, they should go to the state. Secondly, we say there's a market failure. We say most people, if asked ten years after their loved ones died, would give away their organs happily. The problem is you have to ask them at a point where they are so emotionally distraught that they can't imagine ripping into their loved one and taking something out of their body. So, if people could make rational decisions regarding this, maybe we wouldn't need, as a government, to so so-called intervene. It's not really intervention because it never really belonged to them after the point of death anyway. But given that people can't even make this decision rationally by themselves, we're happy to say that it's a good place for a government to intervene in the market. For these reasons, please propose.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 2, 4]",15,"[21017840, 7756990, 45183231, 45272708, 45181152, 45191873, 45336991, 45282792, 44044795, 45483811, 44690955, 27934334, 26649250, 43984981, 45355658]"
19a35959-cfb1-4e84-8935-b19c5fd69a4d,2458,We should abolish the needle exchange programs,Human expert,"We should abolish the needle exchange program. By this we include NSPs, NEPs, and any other program that assists drug users in their drug use. Right off the bat, we accept the fact that this is a net benefit for drug users and potentially a net benefit for society in avoidance of other drug related costs. Here's what we're going to say: a utilitarian perspective is the wrong perspective to take regarding states affiliation with drug use. Why? We think that there is a distinction to be made between states and individual when regarding moral calculuses. States are required to take utilitarian perspectives under the notion that each individual is equal within the state and therefore harm to one individual is equal to harm to another and the same goes with benefits. Individuals however do not have that same calculation. An individual is not allowed to decide that committing a certain type of crime, for example, creates overall benefit to society and is therefore something that should be allowed to do. Rather, even if you steal medication in order to help somebody needy you still go to prison or get punished to some extent for stealing that medication. Therefore, individuals are subject to more of a kantian deontological morality. What is this mean regarding drug users? Drug users are individuals who have opted out of the states support system. What does this mean? The state owes the individual based on a social contract. That social contract creates both obligations and rights. Those rights include things like being perceived as equal in the eyes of the states and therefore entering in to the moral calculation of utility within the state. However, drug users, in places in which drugs are illegal, or people who have actively opted out of this calculation. Why? Because they haven't committed those obligations that they have towards the state. They have in essence said to the state we do not accept your authority over us in rules and regulations. Where do we see something similar happening? Note that when we put people in prison, often it is at massive cost to the society. Note further, it is almost always at individual harm to those people. Why then do we do it nonetheless? Because those people have opted out of the states protection and therefore no longer warrant those same rights. Now you'll say, but overall it protects society because we keep those people away. Two things: a, we're entirely unsure that the way prisons are implemented are helpful to society overall. B, even if as a whole they are certainly there are many cases in which for example putting business leaders in prison for infraction they've committed harm the business to an extent that is a macro economic harm to society as a whole and yet we still do not consider that when putting these people in prison. What does all of this mean when it comes to drug users? It means that at the point at which an individual has opted out of the system in which the state needs to consider that individualists part of a whole therefore, in a utilitarian manner when they've opted out the state needs to consider actions toward those individuals in a deontological way, the same way it does with prison. In that sense drugs are wrong, needles are bad, and therefore should not be given by the state morally. For these reasons, please propose.","[3, 3, 1, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 6432269, 20225558, 45336988, 45189900, 45361788, 45206691, 45336993, 28810858, 13581319, 45405037, 45411178, 21785776, 45458968]"
14dcf228-e7f8-4ef4-b3f2-e43417ac12fa,2480,We should ban racial profiling,Human expert,"We should ban racial profiling. By this we mean any form of taking into account race on part of the police or other enforcement agencies when deciding to stop, when deciding to frisk, when deciding to accuse or suspect or anything to that effect. A few points we're gonna make. First, we say it is ineffective versus the alternatives. Even if it is true that there is some sort of statistical correlation between race and crimes in particular areas or particular places etcetera, we say it is more accurate to base yourself on things like facial tics, things like erratic behavior, things like sweating more. Small signs that point to who is likely going to commit a crime in the near future. Now, they'll say on the other side of the house sure, but that's difficult to do, it requires a large amount of training, to which we should say they're absolutely correct. That is more difficult, it costs more money. We say it's absolutely worth that more money for two reasons. One, because it means that the job is done substantially better. And two, because it means that you don't have to trample over individuals' civil rights in order to do it. This is crucial to understand, cause the second point is racial profiling is just morally unjust. What do we mean? The rationale behind law enforcement says the law has the right to take away civil liberties of individuals, because those individuals have abandoned their claim to those liberties at the point at which they've committed a crime. Now that's extended to a certain extent for lesser things under lesser evidence, in order to be able to question people. However, crucially, at any point, even in order to stop someone, you have to have minimal evidence in order to do so. Crucially, that individual has to give up that right of his to not be stopped, not be bothered, and generally speaking they give up that right by producing whatever it is that the minimal evidence is that's being produced. Given that an individual cannot control their race, they're not producing this evidence, at which point they haven't given up their civil right to privacy, their civil right to freedom. This means you also have absolutely no right to stop these people based solely on race. Lastly, let's talk about why this is counter-productive. Two reasons. One, you create antagonism within the group at the point at which you paint them and eh in a single brush and otherize them from the main population. If you tell african americans that they are suspicious just because they are african americans, that they have to live life knowing that they can be stopped at any point, pulled over at any point, frisked at any point for no reason other than their skin color, they end up internalizing that, they end up acting out based on that, they end up in a situation where that prophecy becomes true because they feel like they're being attacked and grouped based on their race, so they group and attack back based on that same race. So it is counter-productive to prevention of crime. Secondly, we say it's counter-productive in the efficacy of studying any sort of effect of race on crime, and general public opinion of crime. How did this happen? No one can be convicted until the point where they're stopped, frisked, arrest arrested, etcetera. This means if you're stopping, if you're enabling stopping people just based on skin color, then the number of people who get funneled into people who are convicted, is disproportionately skewed towards people of color. This means that the statistics themselves of who actually commits more crime are massively skewed, because of the original assumption that they in fact commit more crime. This means prevention becomes harder, this means studying becomes harder, and crucially, it means that in the first place, it's highly likely that even the statistics we have showing that these people may commit more crimes are inaccurate statistics, skewed by illegitimate methods. For all these reasons, oppose racial profiling and support the motion.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5]",15,"[45191882, 45185975, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 13581319, 45190823, 20312760, 34110399, 45411178, 6340330, 19838540, 30777913, 20512953, 38202325]"
ea8df717-e86c-4da5-a57c-aa36a7039679,2572,We should ban algorithmic trading,Human expert,"The problem with algorithmic trading is that unlike in most forms of sales, for example, when a stock exchange trader sells or buys, he's not just reacting to the market, he's also changing the market. Now, the way this is solved is by ensuring that each individual can't, without good reason, shift the market too drastically. Algorithmic trading breaks that barrier and allows people to affect the market in negative ways. We're going to go into more detail about that. Before that, just to be clear on what we're talking about, we're talking about programs that automatically by and or sell stock in very large quantities. So for example, we'd be fine with an algorithm that just helped the stock broker do his job a little bit at a time, but not ones that can do it on such large scale. So why does this problem arise? Stock is a very fickle thing. It's affected by mood swings, so to speak. What does this mean? It means that if, for example, on any given monday morning a whole lot of people suddenly start selling a whole lot of google stock, google stock doesn't just get sold and bought, it also drops because people are afraid of the reason behind why so many people are selling google stock. It means that they're losing trust in the stock, that they no longer think it will maintain its value or go up in value. Rather, they think it's likely to go down in value and that's why they're dumping it now. This is why if particularly large corporations who handle a lot of stock for a lot of people are able to, for example, sell a lot of amazon stock very quickly in one day, that stock takes a hit. This means that they're able to affect the price on the market. Now, two reasons this is massively problematic. One, because it is unduly harmful to the corporations themselves that the companies who because of an algorithm used by the trading brokers, can lose millions of dollars. Two, it gives the larger companies an unfair edge within the stock trading game because they literally have an inside effect on the price of the stock. So they can drop a whole bunch of stock, that stock then drops in price, and they can buy it back for cheaper, which is what these companies have been doing in recent years with algorithmic trading. Now, note that this also specifies why it is algorithmic trading that is the problem since that is being used by corporations that handle a lot of stock from a lot of different sources, as opposed to, for example, if google decided to sell its own stock to an investor in large quantities. That, a, doesn't show the same lack of trust, and b, doesn't have the same problem of an outside source affecting the stock price. For these reasons, we think it is irresponsible and unfair to allow algorithmic trading, and we wish to ban it.","[4, 4, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4]",15,"[21017840, 6432269, 45538225, 6340330, 20312760, 44690955, 45183231, 45272708, 45181152, 45191873, 45191882, 34854490, 43984981, 45189900, 45206691]"
5a47a396-a60b-4598-9aae-cc297531b097,2588,Assisted suicide should be a criminal offence,Human expert,"Simply put, we don't think proper consent can ever exist for assisted suicide, certainly not enough so, so that we can be sure it was something that was consented into, and therefore we think it should be a criminal offense. One tiny bit of framing. Assisted suicide is only ever an issue for individuals who cannot commit suicide themselves. This means we're talking about deathly ill people, intensely crippled people, things like that. We're not talking about healthy young people who decide that, hey I want your help shooting a gun into my own head, we think that's crazy in and of itself, but simply, in that instance, enough alternatives exist at the very worst, so that assisted suicide shouldn't be allowed simply for those reasons. Why do we think that there is no ability to properly consent into assisted suicide. Broadly speaking, we think the people who can, so to speak, opt into assisted suicide, fall into two different categories. The first category is people literally unable to consent, so people who are in a coma, or people who are unable to speak or sign, literally unable to give their active consent. The second category of people is people who psychologically are unable to consent. We think this category covers pretty much anyone in such a mental state. Meaning, if you're at such a difficult physical and mental physical state that you're likely dying, that you're inable unable to do things, basic things, for yourself, so much so that in order to commit suicide, you would need the assistance of another person, we think you are by definition in a mental state of distress, one which makes it difficult for you, if not impossible, to make decisions, and crucially, one that makes you, to an extent, a different human being than the one that you were before such an accident occurred, or whatever it is that happened that put you in this state. We think the shift in your circumstances is so massive, that it creates a situation in which you are essentially a different person. What does all this mean? Either literally someone else, as in a family member, is making the decision for you, or somebody else in a philosophical sense is making the decision for you as to what happens to you. Now, the opposition will come and say that's fine. This is how decisions are made for people in these situations, based on a notion that family members, for example, make a decision based on the best interest of a person. It is sometimes in the best interest of that person to end their life, and we think a family member should be able to best suited to make that decision. We think it's unlikely that family members can make that decision properly. Why? Three reasons. One, the external pressure of deciding, not based on what's best for the patient, but based on what's best for them as an individual, is substantially higher than in most cases, because the continued life of the patient is a massive financial and time and emotional burden on the family surrounding that person. That means we find it unlikely that they'll be able to separate their best interests from their family members' best interests. Two, we think the situation itself is such an impossible situation, that assuming any person can deduce the best interest for somebody else is probably false. Lastly, three, we think that the rationale behind allowing family members to make the decision in these cases is that they are the ones likely to know the best interest of that person. However, at the point at which we think this person is an entirely different person from the one that they grew up with and loved up until now in their life, we think they're also ill-suited to figure out in the first place what is the best interest of, let's say, post-accident john. For all of these reasons we think proper consent can never be given. Given that this is literally a situation of life or death, we think it should not be done without proper, one hundred percent consent, and since that can never happen, we say all assisted suicide should be banned","[4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 45567220, 45567227, 45538225, 45190823, 45411178, 21785776, 29155723, 45405037, 45355658, 20512953, 45191882, 38202325]"
0874bdfc-c72f-4010-bacc-0513d60c7955,2604,The right to Internet access should be protected,Human expert,"We think that people have a right to the internet. In which we mean, we think the internet should be treated as a public good, the same way transportation is treated as a public good, the same way education is treated as a public good. The meaning of this is that the government needs to ensure internet access to everyone, other than of course exceptions like criminals behind bars et cetera. Most of the time, this will be done just by enabling a free market, some of the time it means intervention in the market either to prevent monopolies or to create a market where the free market is unable to do so due to profitability, this means the government would have to subsidize it, lastly it means, attempting at least to ensure it internationally, such as google's attempts to insure internet access globally. Two arguments we're gonna make. One is what is the criteria for a public good, and two, are, why and what rights require the internet in this day and age. So first, what is our criteria for public good? We think public good is a term that defines things that are necessary in order to facilitate basic human rights. So for example, you have a basic human right for safety, a public good in the form of police or military are then created in order to facilitate that safety, a government is responsible to maintain that police in order to maintain the security of the individuals. Transportation for example, you have a right for freedom of movement in an ever globalizing economy in which things are no longer walking distance from your home, that right is facilitated necessarily by the ability for motorized transportation and, as such, public transportation becomes a public good, where in, governments need to subsidize things like buses in order to enable people to act upon their basic rights. What do we think are the rights that require internet to be seen as a public good? The first, is freedom of speech. It used to be the case where the most basic form of speech, was going out into the street, standing on, you know, soapbox or whatever, and talking to people face to face. And the government wouldn't be allowed to limit that and in fact would need to facilitate that if that were ever necessary. However today's day and age, most public discourse happens over the internet. Political arguments happen not in the streets, but on facebook, and through email and various internet forums. In order to enable participation in the most basic form of freedom of speech, you need the internet, this means, that expression on the internet is not an uplifted version of expression, but rather, the bread and butter of expression at the point at which most public discourse happens there. So we think for freedom of speech, you require the internet as a public good. Secondly, we think equality of opportunity requires the internet as a public good. A, by education, in the fact that most education is better available, or uniquely available on the internet. You can get books on the internet, you can get wikipedia on the internet, and in fact a world of education is open to you. Crucially, equality of opportunity means that, since this is open to many people, it is crucial to make sure that it's open to all people. Secondly, in the aspect of business. Not only do many jobs require you have internet access in order to work, but in order to find a job in the first place, most companies now publicize their wanted ad only on the internet. So in order to gain equality of opportunity both in education and in business, internet is necessary in order to facilitate this. So because internet meets the criteria for a public good, it is about time governments start seeing it as such. Please propose.","[5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 5, 2]",15,"[45183231, 45191873, 45181152, 45272708, 45181384, 45190571, 45181383, 45401087, 45191882, 45189900, 45206691, 6367365, 45483811, 29155723, 32850083]"
26ab0254-79e7-439b-ab77-576987a339c1,2616,We should ban alternative medicine,Human expert,"Three reasons we should ban alternative medicine. One, on the opportunity cost involved. Two, on abusive deception of people in the worst way, and three, on the harm to decision making of individuals. Briefly, on definitions and mechanism. Alternative medicine, as far as we're concerned, is anything that has not passed proper medical testing to be proven to be more effective than a placebo to a reasonable degree. What are we not going to talk about in this debate? Those medications that are actively harmful, medications that are poisoning individuals and actively harming them. We think obviously that should be banned that that's not going to likely be the core of this debate. We think a likely core of this debate is about those medications that are not helpful or no more helpful than a placebo, but not harmful direct in any direct sort of way, and to an extent, potentially make the patient feel better, make him feel like he's doing something, like he has some sort of chance. Let's talk about why these nonetheless harm those patients immensely. First, on opportunity cost. We think that alternative medicine comes at an enormous opportunity cost. Why? Because a, it costs a patient a lot of money. Note that often these patients are people who don't have very much money because they're often debilitated and unable to work in order to maintain more money. So unless they came into this disease having an enormous sum of money, they're likely depleted at the time at which they decide to turn to alternative medicine. Two, it costs them time. In order to get your alternative care you need to go out, see that the the shamans or whatever it is go out again and buy the prescriptions wherever it is that you get it. All of these things are things that are exhausting if you're not sick, if you are sick more over than that, they're even more tiring for the individual. So we think it is it makes it highly likely that alternative medicine is not supplementary, but rather comes at the expense, oftentime, of regular medications. Two reasons that's an unbearable opportunity cost. One, because we think oftentimes these people could have been healed. It is true that people often turn to alternative medicine when traditional medicine has nothing left to offer, but that is not always the case and moreover, traditional medicine, given that it is continuously evolving, often has a more things to offer if you can stick with it and push through it. So we think some of these people can be healed. But even if not, we think it comes at the cost of quality of life that traditional medicine can give you. So even if they can't heal whatever it is that you're sick with, they can often give you medications that enable to live your life out more comfortably. This is conversely to alternative medicine, which while it will claim to heal you, and maybe even make you feel a little bit better through placebo, note you get that same feeling of better through the medication that are actually making you feel better, and you get the physical helping that they give for your quality of life. Secondly, we think this is an abusive form of deception. Why is it abusive? You're literally taking people's money at the lowest possible point of their life when they've given up all hope. We think the rationality of an individual in this situation is immensely questionable, and therefore we think we have the right, and in fact duty to intervene in order to help these individuals and save them from people prying at them and trying to get every last bit of money out of them when they're least able to protect themselves. Lastly, on the harms in decision making. So we think prop case is op case is likely to come in here and say "" look, worst case scenario, they lived out the rest of their days, the same amount of days they would have otherwise lived out, with some sort of feeling of hope, some sort of feeling of option for survival "". We already showed why that's unlikely to be the truth, but even in the cases where that is true, we think that in itself if deceptive and not good. Why? Because people don't leave behind emptiness. People leave behind a history, they leave behind a family, they leave behind a story. That story needs to be closed off. When someone has the information that they're going to die, they are then able to do things like writing a will, like communicating with long lost family members, like finalizing their last wishes on earth, that they're likely to avoid doing if they're hanging on to false hope of continuous survival. So even then, these individuals are being harmed. For all these reasons, please propose the motion.","[5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 2, 4]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 20225558, 45458968, 45405037, 45181383, 45401087, 45181384, 45190571, 45538225, 6432269, 13581319, 29155723, 43877630, 45190823]"
b8788178-b459-4ff9-a651-210feaecd236,802,We should protect Antarctica,Human expert,"Antarctica is unique, it is unique in the benefits that it offers us, and it is also unique in the damages that it can cause us if we abuse it. On this side of the house we say, we must continue protecting it for both those reasons. Two things we're going to talk about today: one, on the danger of melting ice caps, and two, on the unique form of natural reserve that is antarctica, and why it is important to maintain unique natural reserves. So first, on melting ice caps, oppositions are going to come in this debate and say: look, there may be things in antarctica that, we can use for benefit. We may be able to mine natural gases or something. It's crucial to realize though, that those come at a cost. What is this cost? So, global warming is something that is threatening the entire world as a whole. How does that correlate to antarctica specifically? One of the things that makes antarctica unique is that the amounts of ice in antarctica are a, enormous, and b, feed into oceans around the globe. This is why, one of the most dangerous things of global warming is melting ice caps. What ends up happening is the ice caps melt, they then fill into these oceans surrounding antarctica, which feed into oceans around the world. Given the quantities of ice caps, that means that the levels of the oceans rise significantly, this means rising tides. This creates natural disasters. First and foremost, most simply in things like wiping out entire beach front, cities, and even islands, because they get covered in water moreover, because of the rate at which this happens, you end up getting things like tsunamis, that then create damage even farther into the mainlands. What does all this mean? If you drill, to try and find gas, you're creating vibrations, which raise the heat. If you bring corporations in their, just the quantities of people involved in getting gas et cetera, means raising significantly the level of heat in antarctica, regardless of what you do. If they do find something there, finding something means more people coming in to extract it, and more work going into extraction. It means you raise significantly the level of heat. You cannot get any benefits on opposition, without also the massive risk of melting ice caps, and we say that risk just isn't worth it, given the massive damages it creates, and the alternative of getting gas elsewhere. Secondly, let's talk about unique natural reserves. Antarctica is unique. It's not like a desert, where you have lots of deserts in the world. It's not like a wildlife reserve, where you have lots of wildlife reserves. It's like the brazilian rainforests. It is the only thing of its kind. Only it exists, only it shows us what natural life looks eh life looks like, in these sorts of freezing temperatures. Two reasons we think that means it should remain unharmed and undisturbed. One, the amount that it enables us to learn about biology and evolution is enormous and irreplaceable, because it's the only one of its kind. And two, we think we have a moral debt, both to nature, to not harm unique aspects of nature in an irreversible way, and to future societies who also deserve to reap those learning benefits, and enjoy the beauty of places like antarctica. For all of these reasons please continue to protect it.","[1, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5]",15,"[45538225, 20312760, 44690955, 45183231, 45272708, 45181152, 45191873, 43984981, 34110399, 45191882, 45206691, 45189900, 45190571, 45401087, 45181384]"
46f3b005-f2e0-4c92-8f50-62a8aa426ba1,3223,We should fight global warming,Human expert,"It is a fact that global warming is accepted by every major scientific body there is. There's no denying that sea levels are rising and all sorts of environmental catastrophes are on their way. Time is simply running out on our planet if we don't take action. Glaciers are melting, putting huge populations at risk of flooding, pollution is growing thicker every day, putting our children and elderly at high health risks, and temperatures and climate changes are affecting our food security. We need to fight global warming at the highest levels of government and in the most severe ways possible. Western civilization has polluted the world for decades and it's time we take our actions seriously. Governments need to fund few need to limit fuel consumption and energy usage, both private and industrial. They need to subsidize green technology both domestically and internationally, and we think that they should be pulling all funding and subsidies from industries that pollute. In addition, we believe that government should be levying enormous taxes on individuals and industries that continue to pollute our environment and put our civilization at risk. We think, ladies and gentlemen, that this is a totally necessary step. We think that is far too easy to talk about climate change and talk about the risks to our environment and then not do enough. We think that up until now governments have been good at scaring people just a little bit and making just small amounts of changes, and making small promises like signing the kyoto accords, ladies and gentlemen, which are a joke in the face of the crisis that is looming. We think the governments need to lead changes worldwide. We need to be leaders in this industry and it is our duty, as the primary contributor in the western world, to be the ones who take this change. We think that money needs to be diverted from unnecessary spending such as military operations that are not truly necessary, and other areas where money can be saved. We think that this needs to be our true priority. Because our government today does so much for the short term. We think ladies and gentlemen that what governments need to be doing is taking a look to the future because that is what they're there for. As citizens, it is difficult for us and it is well known that we don't take care of our futures. This is why the government has social security in place. What we need, ladies and gentleman, is a true social security fund when it comes to the environment. And that is what we are proposing. We think that the government must take drastic steps to force citizens and force industries and force the international community to comply with very strict green technology regulation and green living regulations. We think, ladies and gentlemen, that this is the only way to truly change the tide, both metaphorically and literally speaking. We think that it is a necessary step that governments must be taking and there is no one else to take it. The private industry today is not doing enough. We cannot rely on them and we should not be relying on them because there are too many interests for them to use cheap available technology, which is usually the the dirtiest technology that there is and that pollutes our environment and puts the future of our country at risk. We think it's time for the government to stand up for the future of our planet and to make the drastic changes that are needed to put a a a stop to the to the climate changes. Thank you.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 2, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5]",15,"[45191882, 45185975, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 45190823, 13581319, 21785776, 20312760, 34110399, 29155723, 20512953, 19838540, 34609243, 45405037]"
80ec6c37-e497-4b18-bb6a-1ceca143b82b,1902,We should legalize ivory trade,Human expert,"We should legalize the ivory trade. So, the sale of ivory has been banned since the early nineteen nineties. We think that, that ban should be lifted internationally. Before we get into our arguments, I just wanna be clear that we're not saying: you have open season on elephants, down in sub saharan africa, what we're saying is that, the trade of ivory, that has already been harvested in the past, should be permitted, and we think that, if in the future it's possible to sustainably harvest ivory, such as from naturally deceased elephants, then we would be principally okay with that as well. So two main arguments for why the ban should be lifted. The first is that it's not working. Elephant populations are on the decline again. Immediately after the ban, in the mid nineteen nineties, you saw a slight uptick in elephant populations, but that is now been reversed, and they are at their lowest rate yet. It is the definition of insanity to do the same thing and expect different results, so why should we expect that the ivory ban will save the elephants, when in fact the opposite is happening? They're continuing to be killed. We see that, the demand for ivory is being filled, regardless of whether or not the trade is legal. At that point, banning the ivory trade seems much less effective, than carefully regulating the ivory trade. If there were a legal way for people to acquire ivory, then it's much less likely that they would go through illegal back channels. After all, they run a certain amount of risk that shipments will be captured, or that they'll be arrested for having illegal ivory. If people could get it legally, even at a much higher price, we think that they would prefer to do so. So therefore, we think it would always be preferable to regulate, tax, carefully monitor the ivory trade, rather than just to ban it outright. We think that, that is part of what has led to the uptake in poaching and increased devastation to the elephant population. Our second argument, for why we should legalize the ivory trade, is about the effect that this would have on african economies. Recognize that, many countries, like south africa, are sitting on large stockpiles of ivory, that was harvested before the ban, or that has been seized from poachers. They don't just destroy it, after all, when they capture it. These are countries that desperately need development, and that are sitting on lots of capital that, they're not allowed to use in the form of this ivory. We think it's very likely that, if a country like south africa were permitted to sell this ivory, that they would better be able to protect their elephants. Recognize that, highly developed countries are much better at managing their wildlife, and at preventing poaching, than desperately poor countries. We think that, if you encourage development in sub saharan african nations that have large elephant populations, or in india for that matter, where you have lots of elephants, we think that it's much more likely that, you would be able to protect the populations that exist, and help them to recover. Right now, effectively, the protection of elephants relies on international charity, or on desperately cash strapped governments. We don't think that that is sustainable. We think that, you need to help these countries to be able to support the elephants on their own. And in particular, if elephants were seen as an asset, rather than a liability, as a potential source of revenue, we think it's much more likely that countries would protect them, and limit the harvest of illegal ivory, in order to be able to capture the money from the regulation of legal ivory. So, you would align the fiscal and ethical duties of the state by doing this. We think that, in our world, it's much more likely that you would still have elephants around in a hundred years, because to be clear, the trend right now was that, elephants are going to go away in a few decades. They'll all go extinct because of over hunting. Drastic action must be taken to prevent this from happening. Legalizing the ivory trade may seem like a counter intuitive way to do this, but if you give people, if you attach people's wallets to the well being of the elephants, then we think that, ultimately, it's much more likely that they will continue to be around. Because greed is unlikely to go away, even if elephants are at risk. So for these reasons, we should legalize the ivory trade, thank you.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 20225558, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45181384, 45538225, 6432269, 21785776, 45458968, 13581319, 45405037, 45189900, 45336988]"
57b64ed2-d294-4b75-b96a-62e76e4bd7be,2083,We should legalize organ trade,Human expert,"We should legalize organ trade. So, what we mean by this is that, individual should be allowed to buy and sell organs on a regulated market. Right now, if you need an organ, say, you need a kidney transplant, in most countries, like the US or britain, you get put on a list, and you get promoted up the list, as people ahead of you either you know receive a kidney, or pass away. There's no way to advance yourself forward, there's no way to be sure that you get a particular kidney, and the rate at which people are advanced on the list is determined solely by the number of organ donors giving up a kidney, at a given time. So, we're saying that you should be able to sweeten the pot a little bit, that individual should be allowed, regardless of their position on the waitlist, we're okay with keeping the wait list for organs that are, you know, given by the deceased, things like that, but for individuals on the wait list, you should be able to purchase an organ from a willing donor at a fixed price. We're not going to have the like some mad max madness, we're going to have regulations in place, we'll be sure that people are consulting with doctors and attorneys at every step of the process, so that it's very fair and carefully monitored. Three arguments for why this should be the case. One: the market would solve supply problems. Thousands of people in the US, about a thousand people a year in britain, die because they're on an organ waiting list. They have no way to save their own lives, or those of a loved one, because the only way to advance on this list is for people ahead of you to receive treatment. We think that, there are very few organs available relative to the number of people who need organs, because there's very little incentive to donate right now. Basically, you just need to be like a good generous person in order to be incentivized to give up an organ. But most people, realistically speaking, aren't going to give up a kidney, that they might need one day, out of a spirit of altruism. We think that forty thousand dollars would probably change their mind. We think that, on the free market you would likely see that the price of organs would be very very high, but that this would incentivize many more donors, so the overall supply would increase, because realize that, the free organs that exist right now don't go away. Most of them are from people who die in motor accidents, and were organ donors, things like that. So, that supply remains constant, you will only see an increase as more people who are healthy are willing to donate part of their liver, or donate a kidney. We think therefore that, fewer people will die, obviously this is preferable to the status quo. The second point we have to make is that, even if it's principally unfair that rich people are going to be able to get organs, and poor people are not, as a result of this, we think that it's wrong to let people die over a principle. Recognized that, whether you're a millionaire or whether you're a million dollars in debt, ultimately you still have a right to life. We think that it's wrong to force people to stay on a list, when there are organs available, in theory if there were an open market, that no one can claim, and then those people die. We think that you need to allow people to do what is in their own interest, inasmuch as they're not harming anyone else. We think that, if anything, as more wealthy people purchase organs on the private market, you would have fewer people competing for those donated organs, and ultimately this would help low income people too. Indeed, it seems that a rising tide would lift all boats. Our last argument is that, this is the only way to help people with certain rare conditions or genetics. Recognize that, you can't just, you know, take any old organ and slap it in somebody, and then sow'em up and call it a day. They need to have certain genes in common, they need to have the same blood type, all of these things. What this means is that, if you have a rare gene, or a rare blood type, or if you are a minority ethnicity, then you're going to have a much harder time getting an organ, than some white american with o negative type blood and no special genes. We think that, if these people could propose a bounty effectively, asking someone with the relevant genes to donate, that it would be much more likely that they would receive an organ. In the status quo, they're effectively condemned to death. So, because we think the market would increase the supply, because it's wrong to kill people for principle, and because it helps people with rare genetics, we should legalize the organ trade. Thank you.","[4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 3, 3, 3]",15,"[20225558, 45190823, 13581319, 29155723, 20512953, 45191873, 45181383, 45181152, 45272708, 6432269, 45405037, 45411178, 44044795, 45189900, 45191882]"
7c2ef5cb-b95f-4a9d-958e-2456230401e0,2108,Surrogacy should be banned,Human expert,"Surrogacy should be banned. So, by this we mean a practice in which people who want to have a child but, for whatever reason, are unable to will enter into a contract with a woman and she will bring a child to term on behalf of those people and then give up the child to them legally when the baby is born. So, normally, you have a contract that's signed where the woman agrees to bring the child to term and then turn it over once it's born and these people will pay for medical expenses and sometimes women will even accept money in return. So, you have instances when it's done for altruistic reasons and instances when it's done for commercial reasons. So, with that in mind, we think both types of surrogacy should be banned. Two arguments: first is that we think that surrogacy contracts are inherently exploitative towards the biological mother. We think that effectively what you see with surrogacy is that young women are being pressured into selling their body and their health at great risk, and in other instances, society wouldn't accept this, so they shouldn't accept it now. We think that it's very difficult for someone who's never been pregnant to internalize the harms of pregnancy. We think that things like your ability to work during pregnancy and your ability to carry out your daily life vary tremendously from person to person and from pregnancy to pregnancy. Obviously, no two pregnancies are the same, as any mother of multiple children will tell you. So, we think that it's very difficult for the young mother, particularly if she's never done this before or never been pregnant before, to actually internalize the risk that she's taking and then set a fair price. So, we think that what's very likely to happen is that prices will be set artificially low and then that in order to compete, anyone who wants to become a surrogate will be forced to set the price lower than they actually should, based on the risk. But because many of the people who enter into surrogacy contracts will probably be people who were in a financially difficult situation and aren't really free to negotiate, we think that they're effectively being taken advantage of by wealthier families who want to conceive these children. And I'd also like to point out that there's tremendous potential for abuse. You might see a partner or a parent pressure a young woman into agreeing to be a surrogate, despite the health risks, despite the potential harms, in order to get money out of them. Now, society prevents women from having sex for money and doing other acts that would let them basically sell their body and their well-being for financial benefit. So, we don't think that you should allow this policy which is effectively the same thing. The risks are very much the same as prostitution, so we don't think that you should allow it if you're not okay with that. Our next argument then is about why we think these contracts are unenforceable and ultimately not good for the state to permit. So, recognize that in the status quo, the only time that you can take away a baby from its mother is if she is mistreating it or has been shown by the court to be unable to care for the child. Otherwise, almost every government around the world really reprioritizes letting a child stay with its mother. So, we think that the result of that is if you have an instance where someone brings this child to term and wants to keep it in violation of the surrogacy contract, it's going to be very difficult to actually enforce that contract because you're in a really difficult situation. Either the court upholds a surrogacy contract and takes away a baby from its mother or the court overturns the contract and these people lose their money. We think that either situation is really undesirable and we think that this will be a common problem. We think that many times, it's probably going to happen that a mother will have the child and then naturally feel an attachment towards that child and want to keep it, even though it's a violation of the contract, so we think that this is likely to be a big problem. This is probably going to clog up the courts and we also think that these trials are unlikely to be fair. We think that since the couple who wants to have a surrogate mother is probably very wealthy since this process is expensive, that they're always going to get better representation and they will win cases unfairly, simply because they can hire better attorneys or better represent themselves. But on top of that, we think that because this issue is so fraught it would be better for the courts to avoid it entirely, and the only way to do that is to ban surrogacy. So, ultimately, because we think surrogacy is unfair to the mothers and because we think that these contracts are going to be difficult to uphold and lead to a lot of problems for the courts, surrogacy should be banned.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 45336993, 45361788, 45206691, 45181384, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45538225, 45189900, 28810858, 45567227, 45567220]"
28399b4c-fa2b-464b-add0-9bed34c36432,2143,We should ban abortions,Human expert,"We should ban abortions. So I want to be very clear what this debate is about. When we say ban we mean when there is no medical reason for the abortion, we wouldn't allow it to be performed. So a medical reason might be the mother's physical or mental health. Obviously if it's a threat to the mother then we would be okay with the abortion, or if the fetus is damaged damaged in some way such that it would be unable to lead a successful life. So for instance, if there's some trouble in the development of the fetus such that it's going to be dead at birth, we're okay with aborting it and removing it, and terminating the pregnancy then. And on top of that, I'd like to point out that we're still completely okay with things like plan b, all forms of birth control, and other types of contraception and efforts to educate people about sexual health. So with that in mind, I think there are two big arguments in this debate. The first and most important it's all obviously that abortion is fundamentally unethical. So the first thing under this is that there's a rights comparison to be made. Obviously there are some trade offs when we talk about abortion between the rights of the mother and the rights of the fetus. We think that this trade off is a bodily autonomy versus life. So if you prevent someone from having access to an abortion, you do violate their right to bodily autonomy by taking away their ability to make decisions about their own personal health. But we're okay with doing this because principally we think that the right to life of the fetus outweighs the right to bodily autonomy of the mother. This is true for a couple of reasons: one, we tell you that the law generally regards the right to life as the most important right. We see that murder is the most serious crime, and that in general, companies are punished the most harmfully for policies that would damage people's lives, and individuals are held to extremely high standards when it surrounds the lives of others. Even accidentally terminating the life of another person is still a crime, manslaughter, so we don't see why it should be different in this case when the law otherwise takes a very dim view of the sort of thing. But on top of that, we think that the right to life is more important than the right to bodily autonomy because it's facilitative to all other rights. If you aren't alive you can't access any of your rights, and we think that the sum total of every other right is greater than the weight of bodily autonomy. So for these reasons we think that could be the fetus wins out in this rates comparison on top of that we tell you that all human beings are of equal moral worth. It seems extremely difficult to say that any one person is more deserving of rights or the protection of the law than any other person. We also tell you that there's no clear line for personhood during the process of gestation. You can't say on day eighty two of the pregnancy suddenly the fetus becomes a person, but before that it's basically just a vegetable. It seems clear that, you know, the zygote, the most initial cluster of cells that's basically a little ball is not a person, and it seems obvious that a fetus one moment before birth is a person, or even throughout most of the third trimester, when it can survive outside the womb after premature birth, that that is a person. So we think that we need to be conservative here, and in order to avoid killing any people, we need to assume that the fetus is always a person because we don't know when the transition occurs for these reasons it seems clear that abortion is deeply unethical because it requires the risk of killing a human being, because we can't say for certain when this change happens, because it prioritizes a lesser right over a greater right, and because it denies the moral worth of a human being. Our second argument is about state duties. We think that governments have an equal obligation to all citizens and people residing in their country we tell you therefore that the fetus ought be no less deserving of the protections of the state then the mother. I think that the other side might get up here and say that the state owes the mother the right to bodily autonomy or owes the mother the right to healthcare but we think that in the same way it is a strong duty to protect the fetus this is especially strong given that the government so often acts on behalf of children much more strictly than it would on behalf of adults. We think that that should be even more the case for the fetus because it is even less able to help itself then a child that is born would be. So for these reasons, because of the rights trade-off we told you about, and because of the obligations of the state, we should ban abortions when there is no medical necessity. Thank you.","[4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 2, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 2]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 15448937, 45181383, 45401087, 45190571, 45181384, 28813722, 6340330, 19838540, 45272708, 45181152, 45183231, 45191873, 45355658]"
555d5c2e-bb26-4778-ad18-5a4170068f63,2402,We should close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp,Human expert,"We should close the guantanamo bay detention camp, but we're going to go even beyond that and say that the US should leave guantanamo bay and give the entire naval base back to cuba. So, a few reasons why this is true. First: guantanamo bay rightfully belongs to cuba and the united states stole it from them wrongfully in the twentieth century. We see that, ultimately, the cuban government never consented to having our naval base there and that the US has maintained this through the use of force, not anything actually legitimate. We think that this is pretty clearly just theft from the people of cuba. We've taken over this territory and refused to give it back, even though we acquired it through legal colonial enterprise. We think that we need to close the base because, ultimately, it's unjust for the united states to take advantage of other countries just because they're weak. Ultimately, we're able to hold on to gitmo because the cubans can't make us leave, but we think that this is unjust, that the weak shouldn't have to fear the strong, and that it's wrong for the US to take advantage of our power over cuba. But as a second sort of sub-argument to this, I'll point out that cuba today is not what it was fifty years ago. The country is increasingly liberalizing and opening itself up to the rest of the world. We've seen that it's normalized trade with the US, for instance, and we think that we should reward this good behavior by returning the naval base. We think that maybe there was a case to be made for holding on to it when cuba was one of our enemies fifty years ago, but that's simply not the case anymore, and there's no reason to keep this territory. Secondly, we think that we need to close down guantanamo bay in order to end the torture camp that's been run there for decades now. It's illegal to hold and torture people in the united states proper which is why it's being done at this naval base in cuba. So we think that by closing the base, you make it more difficult for the CIA torture program and other torture programs to continue, you take away the legal fiction that made it possible for them to claim they weren't doing anything wrong. And obviously, the torture camp needs to be closed. Tormenting people is contrary to the US values of human dignity and human rights and on top of that, it's ineffective. Torturing people leads them to tell you what you want to hear, it doesn't actually give you good information. So this program needs to end and for that reason, we should close guantanamo bay. But our last argument is about optics. We think that the US needs to consider its image abroad. Right now, much of our soft power as a country is derived from being the leader of the so-called free world. But when you run what amounts to a giant prison camp in cuba and the cubans tell everyone all around the world about how awful it is, we think that that really undermines your ability to drive soft power from that claim. So look, even if you don't buy the other claims in this round about how the land really belongs to cuba or about how the torture program doesn't work, this is still enough for us to win. Because if you think it's important that the US is able to spread democracy globally, that the US is able to exert itself through soft power rather than hard power, then you should want to close guantanamo bay, because hypocrisy only empowers the people who want to see you fail. The existence of gitmo gives people like vladimir putin ammunition to talk about how the US only cares about human rights when it suits us. If we really want to spread human rights globally, if we really want to spread democracy, then we need to walk the walk as well as talk the talk. That means closing down guantanamo bay. And on top of that, things like the US ability to provide trade, to invest in other countries, are also influenced by our soft power. If we become less ideologically appealing than other countries because we're seen to be lying or doing whatever we want regardless of what the right thing is, then ultimately we're going to lose out on trade deals, lose out on allies, and that does tremendous harm to our ability to do business abroad. So for these reasons, we should close the guantanamo bay detention camp. Thank you.","[5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 1, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 45677971, 45567220, 6432269, 45405037, 45355658, 6340330, 19838540, 45538225, 34110399, 30777913, 20512953, 20312760, 27770607]"
8632dd82-2f10-49cf-aa5b-e90a94dd42be,2465,We should further exploit small modular reactors,Human expert,"We should further exploit small modular reactors. So in order to make sure this is a clean debate, we want to say that when we mean further exploit we think that this refers to building factories to produce these small modular reactors and encouraging their adoption around the globe. So we're not talking about something marginal. We want to see wide scale adoption of these small modular reactors and just as a bit of background, these are basically small nuclear fission reactors which are produced in a factory and then can be sent anywhere in the globe and be installed and start producing energy. Kind of like the use of oil based generator power plants right now in some isolated locations but nuclear. So with that in mind, we have two big contentions. The first is about how do we spread green energy? There are many locations that in the status quo don't have access to alternative forms of energy. Some forms like solar power require that you be in a certain part of the globe so that you get enough sunlight. Others like geothermal power rely on you having access to volcanoes and other similar sources of geothermal energy. So we see that lots of forms of green energy aren't practical everywhere in the world, but people living everywhere still need power. So how do we get power to them? We think that because you can deploy these small modular reactors pretty much anywhere in the globe, that you can install any power plant, that they can replace these dirty forms of energy like oil based power plants in many rural areas of the globe and many isolated areas of the globe and recognize that right now these are some of the dirtiest places on earth. Think about greenland for instance, basically all of their electricity is produced by oil burning power plants. So it's the equivalent of running hundreds and hundreds of cars all day in order to produce enough electricity for tens of thousands of people who live in greenland. Now you might say oh greenland doesn't have that many people, it's not that big a concern, but ultimately, the harm of burning that much oil is much greater than the harm of using traditional power production methods in a place like new york where we have economies of scale. We think it's important that in these places the ones which are the dirtiest per capita that we can replace fossil fuels with something cleaner. Now why do we get that on our side? We tell you that fundamentally these small modular reactors are the first form of alternative energy that can be applied here and that even if it's expensive it will be worth it for the international community to subsidize these reactors in order to reduce the dirtiest types of energy production around the globe. The ones that do the most outsized amount of damage to our common environment. In particular under this I'd like to talk about how this would affect developing nations. Consider that many countries the problem isn't energy production its energy distribution. In a country like pakistan that's very mountainous with lots of disparate communities spread across a large geographic area, we think that it's very difficult to provide electricity much less clean electricity, but these small modular reactors are an easy solution. If we can install them near a group of villages then it would be easy to one, improve people's quality of life by providing them with clean energy and two, to do so without having to connect them to the larger electrical grid which would reduce the cost of providing the electricity to them. So at the end of the day, we think that these will be particularly useful in the developing world and for that reason that we should further exploit them. Our second contention is about why green energy is a necessity? So you've all heard on TV about peak oil and global warming. Basically we can't keep doing the same thing and expecting different results in the future. Burning oil and coal and natural gas are not long term solutions to our energy problems and as more and more people expect a higher quality of life as their countries develop, we're only going to need more and more energy. This is just going to create a feedback loop where the earth heats up more and more as more people's countries develop and ultimately more people will be put at risk because of this increased energy consumption. It is therefore extremely urgent that we provide clean energy around the globe to people outside of the global north who don't have access to clean energy right now if we're going to have a safe earth in the future. So for these reasons we should further exploit small modular reactors. Thank you.","[4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4]",15,"[21017840, 45191873, 45183231, 45181152, 45272708, 19838540, 7756990, 45282792, 45336991, 44044795, 45483811, 44690955, 27934334, 33708599, 6367365]"
a4f9712a-453c-4dc3-84be-aef79c9894a0,2496,We should adopt a zero tolerance policy in schools,Human expert,"We should adopt a zero tolerance policy in schools. So a zero tolerance policy is a very strict enforcement of school rules that bans the possession of certain items or that prohibits certain behaviors. So an example of this might be that if we had a zero tolerance policy, we might suspend anybody involved in a fight, no matter whether they started it or why the fight ultimately began or their role in participating. We would suspend everyone equally. That would be an example of a zero tolerance policy for fighting. So a couple of reasons why we should actually implement these policies. The first is that existing punishments are likely to be arbitrary without a zero tolerance policy. And we think that this is likely to break down on certain biased lines. For instance, right now, basically when you don't have a zero tolerance policy, you rely on teachers or principles to make a value judgment about whether a student deserves to be punished. Maybe they make good decisions sometimes, but other times they likely make very poor decisions. It seems quite likely to me that white teachers and administrators might be more likely to punish young black boys in school for fighting than they would be to punish white boys because of the empathy gap between people of different races. They're more likely to be charitable towards someone of their own race than other people. So we think that the only way to implement policies that are not left up to the racism or internalized biases of administrators and teachers, is to have the same policy for everyone. Namely a zero tolerance policy. The other side is going to say, well that just hurts everyone it doesn't help anybody. But I think it's quite likely that if you implement these policies that you'll see a reform of school rules to reflect common sense better. In other words, if you suddenly have a wave of boys being suspended for fighting, then maybe the penalties for fighting will be made less severe. I don't know, they'll have to write, I will not get into fights, on the white board a hundred times or something like that. So we think that ultimately this is less arbitrary and will lead to better policies in terms of actually preventing disciplinary infractions. Which leads nicely to our second argument about better deterrence. In order to prevent young people from misbehaving in school you need to offer some deterrence. We think that extrinsic motivation is important to getting young people to do the right thing because they haven't yet had the kind of moral education that leads them to have this intrinsic motivation to do the right thing. So how do we deter people? If you know that being charming or funny can get you out of an offense, because there's no zero tolerance policy, than many students will do the wrong thing and then be able to get away with it. We think that a zero tolerance policy means students will have to accept the costs of their actions, be responsible for what they've done, and not be able to weasel out of it. And that this will lead to a stronger deterring effect than what you would see if you didn't have such a policy in place. When students think that they can just weasel out of anything they've done wrong. Our third argument is that we think this helps students out on the aggregate. Realize that if you think about the eighty-twenty rule, probably twenty percent of students cause eighty percent of the problems. We think that at that point it's important to remove trouble makers from the classroom so that the majority of students are able to learn and benefit themselves. We think that right now if you don't have zero tolerance policies, then the students who act up, who get into fights, who cause trouble, are likely to continue that behavior to the detriment of every other student who just wants to learn and try to get ahead in life. So we think that while zero tolerance policies may fall harshly on certain individuals, that they benefit the aggregate because most students wouldn't be affected by this policy because they behave and don't cause trouble. At that point, we should adopt this policy because it allows us to reward good behavior, punish bad behavior, and allocate more resources to the students who actually want to learn as opposed to students who want to cause trouble and mischief. So for these reasons we should adopt a zero tolerance policy in schools. Thank you.","[5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 3, 4, 2, 3, 5, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4]",15,"[45190823, 20225558, 13581319, 29155723, 20512953, 45181383, 45191873, 45181152, 45272708, 45405037, 45411178, 6432269, 6579519, 45206691, 45355658]"
3630a7df-071f-445f-883c-57cbba9eac8d,2615,We should ban homeopathy,Human expert,"We should ban homeopathy. So just so that we're all clear what we're talking about, by homeopathy we don't mean all alternative medicines. We're talking specifically about a belief that if you dilute a substance that its essence somehow becomes stronger in the water. So, for instance, if you wanted to use antimony in a homeopathic remedy, you would have one part per million of antimony in the water and then dilute it even more till it was one part per billion, and then dilute it even more until there was no antimony whatsoever in the water that people are actually purchasing, but the homeopath believes or claims that some essence of the antimony is left behind in the water, and they could do this with any other chemical or substance as well. So, three arguments for why we should ban homeopathy. The first is a standard for when we think government should paternalize, intervene and prevent people from taking some action. First: if there's a third-party harm, then we think that, obviously, the government should get involved. Everyone is okay with people banning smoking because of the harms of secondhand smoke. We're okay with requiring people to make their children wear seat belts because of the harm to the child if they don't so this. We think that, broadly speaking, homeopathy works in a similar way. The people who do debate, a lot of healthy young college students, might not be at a lot of risk from homeopathy because if one of us gets pneumonia, we're young, we're healthy. Our body will probably just fight it off, even if we're just taking expensive water, rather than real medicine. But for the elderly or for children, this is very, very, very different. If you have a parent who were to give their young child a homeopathic remedy when they had bronchitis or pneumonia or some other relatively serious, but not usually life-threatening illness, that child runs a much greater risk of being harmed as a result of this homeopathic treatment, because the body of a young child is not as well able to fight off the illness as a healthy young adult. The same thing is true for the elderly, who may be misled by a caretaker into taking some homeopathic remedy that actually does nothing for them, and they run the risk of developing a much more serious illness. The second time when we'd say the state can paternalize is when there is an asymmetry of access to information, and this is certainly true for homeopathy. Recognize that it's not a bunch of, you know, hippies and grandmas whipping up these remedies in their kitchen to help out their kids. It is major companies that sell homeopathic drugs nationally and internationally. It's a big business and these companies know full well that homeopathy doesn't work, because all the scientific research points to that. So what they do is they mislead their customers into thinking that they'll get care. They put things on their boxes like treatment for pneumonia or treatment for cold, even though there's no treatment for the common cold, even though this doesn't do anything to cure pneumonia. And, ultimately, we think that people are being misled and that the government should intervene: one, to protect third parties and two, to protect people from misinformation. Our second argument is that we think this would encourage more development of real medicine. Why is this true? If people spent more money on real medicine than they do right now because they weren't buying homeopathic medicines, then it stands to reason that there would be an even greater incentive to develop cures for the types of illnesses people tend to use homeopathy for, things like the flu, the cold, etcetera. We think, ultimately, even if this is small, it's still better on our side. Our third argument is that we think that you should punish the companies that produce homeopathic drugs. These companies for hundreds of, not hundreds of years but for decades, close to a hundred years, these companies have gotten away with selling sugar water to people who can't really afford it in order to trick them into thinking that they're receiving a cure, but really to profit, because there's virtually no expense to producing homeopathic drugs. At the end of the day, we think that these companies deserve to lose their investment because they've acted unethically by misleading their customers. If anything, we would be okay with going after them and prosecuting them for misrepresentation in advertising, but at the very least, we should ban their income stream. For these reasons, I'm proud to encourage that we should ban homeopathy. Thank you.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 31948170, 45458968, 45191882, 45361788, 45189900, 45206691, 20512953, 45411178, 45185975, 45185946, 29155723, 6340330, 44044795]"
176dfff9-e586-4e6e-96e5-e54966e1fcac,2654,We should protect whistleblowers,Human expert,"We should protect whistleblowers. We would argue that people like chelsea manning or edward snowden who, in good faith, release government secrets or corporate secrets to the media ought have legal protections that would prevent them from being sent to jail or otherwise punished for their actions. Obviously, we would have to have some sort of standard for when someone is a legitimate whistleblower versus an illegitimate one, but we think that that standard should be generous in order to encourage people to blow the whistle when they see something bad going on. We have three arguments for our side this evening. The first is that whistleblowers create accountability for the powerful. The types of organizations that people blow the whistle on are those which have relatively little accountability to the public. For instance, the national security agency, or NSA, in the united states was illegally spying on the american people and foreign citizens as well, using a massive spying apparatus that no one outside of that agency could even have believed existed before the edward snowden leaks. Edward snowden saw what was going on and knew that it was illegal and that it was violating people's rights in the US and abroad and felt that he had to do something. When he leaked that information to the guardian and other newspapers, that provided accountability for the first time for the NSA to the american people and for the american government to its allies that it was spying upon. There would have been no way that the american people could know about the spying program and no way that countries like germany could know the extent of US spying in allied countries without this leak. So the only way that people are able to vote for new policies, to react differently to their allies, to improve their own security is because of the edward snowden leak. So this has created the accountability that otherwise would never have existed, because groups like the american government, and the NSA in particular, have no incentive to reveal when they break the law to people. It's only when it is shown against their will that it will become clear, so they take steps to prevent people from revealing this information, and that's why we need to protect whistleblowers: so that they can't cover this kind of thing up. Our second argument is that if you don't protect whistleblowers, you create a chilling effect on future leakers. Let's imagine that in the future, there's some major violation of human rights or decency by the US government. Because chelsea and edward have been treated so poorly by the american government, snowden is hiding at an airport abroad and chelsea manning was kept in jail for years without trial, ultimately it's very clear that the next person who sees these kind of abuses will not come forward, because they'll be afraid of going to jail or being exiled from the US and never able to see their family again. So this chilling effect means that we lose out on that accountability and that people aren't people to speak up when they see abuses, whether that be in intelligence or in the military or in industry, for instance, with the panama papers, where people revealed abuses being conducted by business leaders and the super wealthy. Because of the reaction to the panama papers, future people might be less likely to leak, even when legitimate crimes are going on. And our third and final argument is that other types of information breach will replace the whistleblower, and ultimately that would be worse. So if I had information that I knew I had to get to the public and I couldn't go to a major newspaper as a legitimate whistleblower, I might, for instance, send that information to a foreign government or sell it to a rival corporation, because I know that something has to be done, but the most legitimate avenue that I have to take action, going to the media, is no longer available to me because of the way the state cracks down on whistleblowers. So it's more likely that people will do things like send western information to russia or sell out their company in a world where we punish whistleblowers. For all these reasons, we should protect whistleblowers. Thank you.","[4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 2, 5, 3, 3]",15,"[20225558, 45190823, 29155723, 13581319, 20512953, 45191873, 45272708, 45181152, 45181383, 45411178, 45405037, 45355658, 45181262, 45181256, 6340330]"
64936726-c920-44d5-902a-275ef9cf452a,2679,We should disband UNESCO,Human expert,"We should disband unesco. Unesco is a united nations agency that labels certain cultural sites or artifacts as very significant and tries to take steps to protect them, or at least that's what it claims to be. In practice, it's basically just a site that provides ratings of things for tourists, effectively just declaring that something is worth or not worth visiting as a tourist. Nations are free to ignore or listen to unesco as they wish, and it has absolutely no enforcement ability to protect sites, like petra, that had been put in danger in the past by regional violence. So with that in mind, I think it's fairly clear why we should disband unesco, the first being that this is a poor use of united nations funds. While it's true that unesco doesn't cost a huge amount of money every year, every dollar spent on unesco is a dollar that isn't spent on helping refugees or really needy people globally. UN funding is fungible and also sometimes very difficult to expand. What that means is that we need to be very careful how we allocate it. At the end of the day, even the most precious works of architecture are still not as important as human lives. And as long as there are people, especially refugees or stateless people, who really rely on the UN for help, then we think that it's necessary for the UN to put those people's lives and well-being ahead of protecting a bunch of works of art. This also leads into my second point, which is that countries can do a better job protecting art, architecture, and heritage than the UN. If this is true, then because the UN can uniquely help some people, like refugees, and countries can do a fine job protecting their own culture, then the UN ought focus on doing other things because there's no unique obligation to focus on culture. The reason why countries can do a better job is, first of all, they can better identify what ought be protected, since they're talking about their own culture rather than having a bunch of french bureaucrats come in and do it, and secondly, because it's much more likely that they can actually enforce any protections or decisions made. Even if the UN declares pompeii as a world heritage site, for instance, it's up to italy to decide how to preserve pompeii, how many tourists to allow to visit, what kind of conservation and archaeological efforts they want to have. The UN itself can't actually do anything other than say, "" hey, italy, this is really cool and you should protect it. "" So there's not that much value added from having unesco involved. Moreover, we think that countries have a much stronger incentive to actually do something to protect this heritage than the UN does. For instance, we think that mayan temple is much more valuable to mexico than it is to the global community. So it's much more likely that mexico will focus resources on it than unesco. And this leads into my final argument, which is that unesco prioritizes some heritage and some types of heritage over others. We think that, for instance, certain cultures that produced very like visible, monolithic monuments are more likely to be celebrated by unesco than others. So the aztec and the maya and the egyptians and the romans and other cultures that built really famous, impressive buildings are much more likely to get attention than groups like north american native americans, who may have not left behind massive, megalithic structures, but who still have a material culture that's worth celebrating and protecting. But unesco tells us that the value of an ancient civilization is on how many awesome pyramids they built, not that it's valuable just because it was those people's culture and it's something that's worth studying and preserving because it's part of our common heritage. So we think that unesco re-entrenches an idea that people already have about what makes the past valuable, and ultimately this means that certain groups get prioritized over other, and some groups just get ignored completely. So for all of these reasons, we would disband unesco, because we think that the protection of heritage would still go on and that it would be done in a better fashion. Thank you.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 2, 5, 5]",15,"[45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 45191882, 45401087, 45190571, 45181383, 45181384, 45189900, 45206691, 6367365, 45483811, 29155723, 33708599]"
073d95b8-64d7-4bfe-ae1f-965417a2d912,2694,We should abolish intelligence tests,Human expert,"We should abolish intelligence tests. So intelligence tests, such as an IQ test, are used to determine how intelligent people are according to some arbitrary standard. We think it would be better if these tests were no longer given to students or to potential employees, as they sometimes are in the status quo. Our first of three arguments today is that intelligence tests fuel discrimination and discriminatory ideas. Recognize that there's no such thing as a completely fair intelligence test. Whatever group makes the test is likely to bias it in their own favor. For instance, if an intelligence test is written in german, then likely people who are native speakers of german would do better than recent immigrants. Even if you had a very successful engineer from turkey, living in germany, take the test, it's likely that he or she would score lower than a native german simply because of the bias introduced by language, and that's to say nothing of the enormous cultural biases that could be introduced into these intelligence tests. As a result, when people extrapolate broad, sweeping conclusions from the results of intelligence tests, they build in those biases. It used to be common in the united states to argue that african americans were inferior to whites because they weren't as intelligent. How was this measured? Using IQ tests that were written exclusively by wealthy white men. So, poor african americans didn't score very well, partly because of these cultural barriers, partly for other reasons, and this was used to justify jim crow and other racist policies across the united states. Similarly, in the past, it's been argued that women are less intelligent than men because women's IQ scores tend to be lower, but since the tests are generally written by men, we shouldn't be surprised to see some bias there. Ultimately, we think that these tests can be used to fuel discrimination, they certainly have in the past, and that for this reason we should ban them, so that people don't draw the wrong conclusions from their scores in the future. Our second argument is that these are harmful to the people who take them. There are two outcomes to an intelligence test: one is that you are average or below average, and the other is that you're above average. Let's talk about the former first. For people who score an average intelligence or a below-average intelligence, this is likely to harm their self-esteem. They'll feel like they aren't as smart as their peers, they'll feel worse about their performance in school, and ultimately this loss of self-esteem might make them be a worse employee or a worse student than they would have been if they believed in themselves. So you can actually sabotage people by undermining them, using these intelligence tests. And people who do well on them are likely to rest on their laurels. If people believe that they're already smarter and better than others, then they have less of an incentive to work hard and more of an incentive to try to coast on their smarts, so to speak. So we think that no matter the outcome, this will either damage people's self-esteem or their motivation and undermine them as workers and students. We should ban them for that reason as well. And our third and final point is that intelligence tests are pseudoscience. Intelligence is a societal construct. In some societies, you might be considered intelligent if you're very quick to learn new things. In other societies, you might be considered intelligent if you've used memorization to master lots of facts. In still other societies, skill at certain talents, such as music or mathematics, might be seen as the greatest indicator of intelligence. So whatever standard we use is going to be completely arbitrary. When you try to apply these scientific strategies to this sort of arbitrariness what you get is a pseudoscience that legitimizes people to have incorrect beliefs such as that one group is better than another or that one person is better than another. We think that when this is disproven, it also undermines people's faith in psychologists or other scientists to administer these tests. So for all these reasons, we should ban intelligence tests. Thank you.","[4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 45191873, 45183231, 45272708, 45181152, 7756990, 45282792, 45336991, 44044795, 34110399, 45483811, 30398579, 20170210, 27934334]"
410b04c3-4e16-4287-98f2-af286dd937e6,3052,We should raise the corporate tax,Human expert,"We should raise corporate tax. By this we mean to say that corporations should be taxed at a higher rate and more consistently in countries around the globe. In the status quo, many large corporations, like apple, are based in countries like ireland that have low tax rates, even though they do most of their business in the US or other EU countries with higher tax rates. Basically, companies are moving to countries with lower tax rates in order to avoid having to pay taxes on their income. We propose a couple of solutions to this. Firstly, we think that corporations should be taxed on their income in your country. So when apple does business in germany, say, they should be subject to german corporate tax rates rather than irish ones, even though apple headquarters is in ireland. We think that this is fair because, ultimately, when apple does business in germany, they're benefiting from german infrastructure, from german laws, they're using german courts, and they're competing with other businesses operating in germany. Since ireland doesn't contribute to that process at all, we don't think that they should be the ones taxing apple for this income, rather it should be germany, and it would hold true if it was in britain or the states or any other country as well. Secondly, we think that one way that this could be done would be to tax infrastructure and other forms of permanent spending. In other words, if apple creates retail spaces in germany, we can tax those, and they can't be moved elsewhere if they want to sell ipods and computers in the country. So there's no way for them to get around this. We think that for other businesses with less real property, we could still find ways to tax them on the investments they do create in a country, such as transferring money into and out of a given country's economy. So now that you understand how we would do this, let's talk about why. First of all, we tell you that these companies have a duty to the state because they reap benefits from doing business there. Right? If a country does business if a company does business in a country, then they're using their courts and they're benefiting from their laws, and these cost money to maintain. So because companies benefit from the rule of law, they'd ought have to contribute to maintaining that rule of law. So when apple sues another company in german courts, they're taking up huge amounts of the german government's time and resources, and they should have to pay something in for that. And some people might say, "" oh, well, a relatively low tax rate would account for that, "" but my next point explains why the corporate tax rate should be relatively high. We think that more of the burden of taxation should fall on corporations than individuals. In many countries around the world, individuals pay tax rates as high as forty percent on their income. We think that this is absurd when corporations are often paying less than fifteen percent. There are a few reasons for this: one, corporations are treated as legal people, which means they should be subject to the same legal obligations as all other people, namely, paying taxes on their income. Giving a preferential rate to corporations is effectively discriminating against non-corporation legal people, namely, the rest of us. So we think that this is unfair. But we also think that the burden of taxation should fall on those most able to pay. This is the guiding principle behind progressive taxation which exists in basically every democracy already. Because corporations don't have children to feed or they don't have dependents to take care of, we think that they can afford to pay much larger taxes on their profits than any individual. And you might say, "" oh, well, they have to pay their employees and pay for infrastructure, "" but we're talking about profits here, what they bring in after all of those considerations. So we don't think this would prevent them from doing business, only reduce the amount of their profits that gets funneled offshores or to wealthy executives. For all these reasons, we should raise the corporate tax. Thank you.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 2, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4]",15,"[20225558, 45190823, 13581319, 29155723, 45181383, 45191873, 45181152, 45272708, 20512953, 45405037, 6432269, 45181253, 45181256, 45181262, 6579519]"
2aec5937-5d78-437d-b440-27963aa1ec05,3193,We should fight nationalism,Human expert,"We should fight nationalism. So nationalism is the belief that one's country is superior to other countries and that people should organize and identify according to their nationality. So for instance, the belief that america is the greatest country in the world and much better than every other country, would be a very prominent example of this. I'm going to begin by explaining why nationalism is harmful and then move on to two ways that we can fight against it in a productive fashion. Nationalism short circuits people's ability to think critically about their country's actions. To use the united states as my example because I'm familiar with it, in the run up to the iraq war in order to prevent people from criticizing the war or pointing out that it didn't make sense in terms of keeping americans safe or financially, the bush administration encouraged people to think nationalistically. They presented saddam hussein as the enemy of the american people, whoever that may be, and as a threat to our way of life. Again, whatever that may be. All of this was completely groundless and saddam hussein actually had nothing to do with the nine eleven attacks but what's important is that by encouraging people to think in this kind of tribalistic way, bush and cheney were able to convince people to support a war that they had no business rushing into. Throughout history we've seen leaders stir up support for wars using nationalism as their primary strategy. We think that ultimately, the ability of nationalism to incite violence for people means that it is on balance always going to be harmful and we would prefer a world in which people identify based on their common factors with others rather than one were arbitrary lines on a map determine who gets human treatment and who does not. So that said, two ways that we can fight against nationalism in a productive fashion. The first is to promote multi-culturalism and immigration. It is much easier to think that people living in other countries are inferior or evil if you don't know anyone who was born or lived in a foreign country. On the other hand, if your next door neighbors are from one country and your other neighbors are from a third country and your boss grew up in another place, it's ultimately much more difficult for you to look down on people just because of their nation of origin because there's no facts backing up nationalism. People actually aren't better just because they were born in a given country. So by exposing people to different ideas and ideologies and to immigrants we think that you will ultimately reduce nationalism while also making your country stronger because we tell you that ultimately immigration and multiculturalism allow us to reflect more critically on our own culture. If there are harmful things about our culture, for instance, certain american racial views, than people coming in from other countries offer us different perspectives so that we can actually understand things that need to change about our culture. But moreover, we also tell you that we can fight against nationalism in a second way by supporting international institutions and international cooperation. International cooperation is ultimately in everyone's interest because some issues like climate change cannot be solved on a national scale. For instance, by withdrawing from the recent paris climate agreement's donald trump is using nationalism to screw over the entire world. Countries have to work together to stop climate change because carbon doesn't stop at the border and present its passport. At the point where we can only deal with these problems through international institutions, we think that we can create a better world by subsuming nationalism with a sense of internationalism. The europeans are way ahead of the americans on this. The willingness of the european union to do things like provide low interest loans to poorer countries and development to members who suffered under communism shows that they can make everyone's life better while also helping out those who are worse off. Ultimately the EU has created a huge amount of wealth in europe despite what nay sayers tell you by subsuming a sense of nationalism with a sense of europeanism. So with these ideas in mind, we should fight nationalism through promoting multi-culturalism and supporting international institutions. Thank you.","[5, 5, 3, 1, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 2, 4, 4, 4, 5]",15,"[45190823, 20225558, 28813722, 45405037, 45181152, 45272708, 45191873, 45181383, 20512953, 29155723, 6432269, 45189900, 45206691, 45191882, 19838540]"
e6e3adc2-c53f-48ab-8eaa-b10e2abfc95c,3196,We should increase immigration to the United States,Human expert,"We should increase immigration to the united states. So by this we mean that the US should increase the quota for immigrants. Right now there is an overall quota of about six hundred thousand people per year who are allowed to immigrate to the US. We think that that quota should be vastly increased to as many as two and a half million people, much much higher than it is today. Secondly, through out our individual country quotas, which means that it's much easier to come to this country from bhutan than it is from china, because the quota is the same for every country. We think those quotas should be abolished completely. If we have two million people who want to come here from india we say let them. So three reasons why the US should do this. First, we tell you that immigration leads to economic growth. It's simple math that when you bring people to this country and have them get to work, that your overall domestic product increases because you have more people producing. But on top of that we tell you that the kind of people who are likely to give up their life in their home country and come to america are the sort of go getters who lead to economic growth. There's a reason that so many businesses in america are founded by immigrants or by their children. We tell you that ultimately these are people with drive and initiative who are very likely to take risks to start businesses, to work harder, to put in extra hours. That ultimately these are the kind of people that we want in our country: hardworking people who will ultimately grow the economy by having a greater output of their work than what we would have otherwise. We think it's silly to cap the amount of people who are allowed to come here when it means that we cap our own economic growth. Our second argument is about the humanitarian reasons, why the US should do this. Right now there are hundreds of thousands of syrians who need a place to live and the united states is a mostly empty country. We tell you that it is inexcusable for america, which has bountiful land and enough money to settle these people, not to let them come here to live in safety. We think that it's inexcusable to let people die around the world in wars partially caused by american intervention and then not let them move to this country. In particular, for places like vietnam and iraq that have been devastated by US intervention, we think that we owe it to those people to let them start a new life here because we damaged their ability to carry out their old life there. But aside from this, at the point where people have a right to live in freedom and safety, and at the point in which the US is mostly empty, particularly much of the west, we think that we should be bringing these people in, helping them get established, and that ultimately this would be beneficial for everyone. Our third and final argument, and I think that this is critical for the debate, is that immigration is part of what makes america, america. Almost everyone here has ancestors who immigrated voluntarily. We think that in the past the US has been an international center of economic growth and innovation because of the strong tradition of immigration. I told you about why immigrants are likely to work harder than other people because they're go getters by their very nature, but on top of that every new wave of immigration to the united states re-entrenches that culture of innovation. If you think about who goes to elite universities in america today, many people would say there's lots of asian people, but that's driven by the fact that the most recent waves of immigration have largely been asian. A hundred years ago, many people were resentful that there were so many jews in american universities, but that was partly driven by the fact that there was a large wave of jewish immigration. We tell you that ultimately new waves of immigration will ensure that we have more people pushing their children to succeed in the way that immigrant families tend to do. That their children will go to harvard, yale, stanford, wherever, and ultimately continue to ensure that the US is a center of innovation. But aside from that immigrants also bring a unique perspective to the united states, a global perspective. The idea that we should care about what happens around the world, that we shouldn't just isolate ourselves and let dictators or other horrible things go on unchallenged. So ultimately we think that immigrants bring a huge amount to the united states that makes us who we are as a country. For these reasons we think that we should increase immigration to the united states. Thank you.","[5, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5]",15,"[45953041, 20512953, 21017840, 6432269, 45569485, 45567227, 45411178, 30777913, 6340330, 44094031, 45458968, 15448937, 44044795, 19838540, 44690955]"
005fc9ca-8b3e-4e85-9b8a-da7821c0c0f5,3197,We should end progressive taxation,Human expert,"We should end progressive taxation. So progressive taxation is, generally speaking, a tax on income wherein people who earn more money will pay a higher rate of tax. The way that this works in the US, and I believe many other countries, is that the first six thousand dollars you make is tax free, the next six thousand dollars you make is taxed at a fairly low rate like five percent, and then as you make more and more money, the money earned above a certain amount is taxed at a higher rate. So even if you make a hundred thousand dollars a year, the first six thousand dollars is untaxed, for instance. You can think of it as a sort of series of buckets where as money overflows from one bucket into another, you have a higher rate of taxation. This is in place in most US states and in most countries around the world. Our first argument against progressive taxation is that it is unfair and arbitrary. People who are very wealthy benefit the same amount from public services as people who are not very wealthy. At that point we don't think they should have to pay more money in than anyone else. For instance, everyone benefits from having streets and police officers, yet the poor drive on the same streets as the rich. Why should the rich therefore pay a much greater percentage of their income than the poor? We think that this burden falls unfairly on those groups. The other team is going to get up here and tell you that the marginal value of a dollar is much higher for a poor person than a rich person. But at that point we tell you, that it's not up to the state to determine the marginal value of a dollar to any individual citizen, that people know their own interests better than the government knows them and that we ought defer to people's knowledge of themselves rather than the state's ideas about how much money is worth to them. We also think that the income brackets are completely arbitrary. In the united states for instance we've often seen politician shuffle around income brackets, change who pays how much, raise taxes on the middle, lower, or upper classes in order to suit their voting bases. This effectively just becomes a form of cronyism where people vote in groups that will lower their tax bracket and raise the amount of tax that other people pay. We think that a flat tax would ultimately be less corrupt and less arbitrary. Our second argument is that this creates needlessly complicated tax codes. Right now in the united states as I mentioned earlier, the brackets themselves are fairly complicated. But on top of that, in order to avoid paying higher rates of tax, people will go to extreme lengths to actually put themselves into certain tax brackets. This might mean investing in fake investment vehicles or just refusing income because people don't want to pay tax at a higher rate. There are lots of perverse incentives against people actually being productive, which is in the end, what's best for the economy. So we think that this is an unnecessarily complex tax code that hurts the economy. But it also provokes lots of tax evasion because it's so complicated. We think that if you want to actually collect more tax, you should make it harder for people to evade their tax burden and that a flat tax would be simpler and easier to detect fraud. Our third argument is that ultimately, a progressive income tax actually ignores people's ability to pay. Why is this true? Wealth is not taxed progressively if it's taxed at all. Sure many areas have property taxes but these are almost always flat. We tell you that ultimately wealth is a more important factor than income. Someone could be a doctor or name lots and lots of income but have no personal wealth because they have lots of debt from medical school. While the child of some millionaire might have very little income but have very valuable property. We tell you that at that point, the person with the greater ability to pay and contribute to society is the person with lots of property not the person with lots of debt and that at that point, because progressive income taxes ignore the burden that people have in the form of debt, or ignore mitigating factors with regard to their income, that ultimately they're unfair. We should therefore end progressive taxation. Thank you.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5]",15,"[45567227, 45569485, 21785776, 45411178, 34110399, 20512953, 45953041, 21017840, 30777913, 6340330, 33708599, 6432269, 45405037, 15448937, 44094031]"
caaf55af-fe12-42b2-b094-107e260deb4b,3201,We should subsidize embryonic stem cell research,Human expert,"We should subsidize stem cell research. So in this debate we're basically talking about harvesting stem cells from un-implanted human embryos so that we can use those stem cells to research treatments for diseases and the like. So just so everyone is clear on the facts in this debate, the embryos that we harvest these stem cells from have not yet implanted, they're probably four to five days old, and consist of about a hundred cells. So they're a little ball of cells and you pluck out the inside in order to access the stem cells that you need to do your research. Right now the US government doesn't fund this. Other governments around the world like south korea have been more positive towards it. We think that countries like the US should allow stem cell research and also subsidize it. Two arguments: the first is about the reasons why we think this would be beneficial for people with medical issues. But first I want to provide an ethical framework for why we think this is acceptable. The other team, I expect, is going to tell you that it is unethical to harvest stem cells from an embryo that will later grow into a person. What we would tell you though is that while there are clearly shades of gray about when a person becomes a person, you know does it happen in the first trimester? Or the second trimester? Is a fetus a person? There's no world of which you can claim that these embryos deserve the same human rights as you or I. These embryos consist of a little ball of a hundred cells more like I don't know, some tiny sea creature or sponge, than they are like a primate. We think that they lack the ability to feel pain or indeed to feel anything because they have no nervous system. Such a being cannot have the same types of rights as you and I. On the other hand, we have real individuals who are suffering from diseases that likely could be cured or at the very least made less severe using stem cell research. People who do have rights. We think we need to defer to those individuals rather than to defer to the possibility that an embryo may later develop into a being with rights. So with that in mind, let's talk about curing these illnesses. Stem cell research is a new frontier in treating certain diseases that are incurable right now. We think that it's quite likely that many forms of cancer and other illnesses could be treated and that a tremendous amount of human suffering could be alleviated through the use of stem cell research. Of course it's impossible to know that this will happen but at the very least by conducting this research we will likely gain a better understanding of how to help people versus what we have right now. And something I'd like to point out is that harvesting stem cells from embryos is likely a temporary situation. If we allow this research, it's likely that in the future we will gain the understanding to create stem cells through cloning or other processes without destroying human embryos. So this is a temporary harm for a permanent good in terms of our medical knowledge. We'll take that deal every time. Our second argument is that even if you think stem cell research is bad in some ways, you should prefer that it happens in the US or EU countries versus happening in places like thailand where there is less regulation. Why? Obviously stem cell research poses some risk to the person from whom the embryo was removed, namely the mother of this embryo. We think that if you care about protecting people's rights that you should want research go on in countries with the highest standards for ethics. In other words, if there are developing countries where this research will be done when it's not permitted in the united states, and those countries have lower standards for the treatment of people in medical studies, then you should want the studies to be legal in america or britain so that the people participating are treated with more respect and given their human dignity in a way that they might not be in other places. So for these two reasons we should subsidize stem cell research. Thank you.","[4, 3, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4]",15,"[45538225, 20312760, 44690955, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 43984981, 45191882, 34110399, 45206691, 34854490, 45189900, 27934334, 34609243]"
e2e54071-80d8-4b2e-bf8f-b4ee753b0d9c,3205,We should end water fluoridation,Human expert,"We should end water fluoridation. So water fluoridation is a process by which fluoride is added to the water so that people will be less likely to get dental cavities. The idea is that by introducing fluoride into people's diet, ultimately their teeth will be healthier and less likely to decay over time. In many countries fluoride is added to the public water at a central plant before it's distributed to people's houses. In this way people don't really have a choice about whether they want fluoride in their water. It's just automatically put there on their behalf. We're not going to argue that fluoride is fundamentally unsafe. We think that it's been well proven in the states and in europe that it is but we're going to make a few arguments for why it shouldn't be put in the tap water. Our first argument is that people don't have any choice about whether or not they get fluoride in their tap water. For most people, the tap is the source of all of their drinking water, at least in countries that are developed enough to offer fluoride. Presumably in countries like turkey where people don't normally drink the water, there's no point in adding fluoride. But with that in mind we tell you that people should have a reasonable expectation to pure drinking water. It may be true that some people want fluoride but other people may not. I'm not saying that this is a well informed choice. Those people are probably ill informed or making a poor decision by choosing not to want fluoride, but we still think that that choice ought belong to those people. At the end of the day we let people make stupid decisions all the time. If people can drink coca cola even though it rots your teeth, we don't see why they should be forced to have chemicals in their water. We think that ultimately people who want fluoride are likely to get it from brushing their teeth, more on that in just a minute, and so people who don't want it should be allowed to make a choice about whether or not they want to consume it. At the end of the day even if we think this is a stupid choice, we shouldn't prevent people from making their own decisions just because we disagree with them. In liberal democracies and other highly developed countries we ought instead defer to letting people make their own decisions even when there's some drawbacks such as a higher risk of cavities. Our second argument is that there isn't much need for water fluoridation anymore nowadays. This used to be much more important back before people brush their teeth as often or with as high a quality of toothpaste. Nowadays if you go and buy toothpaste, your crest or your colgate or whatever is popular in your country from the pharmacist, that toothpaste has fluoride in it. And all of the benefits that you get from water fluoridation are also accessed by brushing your teeth with fluoride toothpaste. Basically you just need some exposure every day. There's no benefit to drinking a few liters of fluoridated water as opposed to brushing your teeth with fluoridated toothpaste. And since people are already doing that we think that it's superfluous to go ahead and put fluoride in the water. More on that in just a moment. But we think that also in regards to what we said earlier about choice, if people want to choose to use a fluoride free toothpaste, again, that may be a poor decision, but it ultimately ought be their decision. We should let people control what they put into their own bodies. Our third and final argument is that this is a poor use of government funds. So recognize that we've already shown you that people would be getting fluoride already whether or not it's in the water because it's in their toothpaste. At that point the government is spending money every year on something that doesn't actually do any good. So it may be true that this isn't massively expensive. We're not going to tell you that the US is spending billions of dollars on fluoride. It isn't. But all government money is fungible. So we think that this money could be better spent on other public health programs instead. Things like improving water quality more broadly or improving rural access to safe drinking water, for instance, are a trade-off with fluoridation. This money could be spent in those ways and would ultimately benefit people more greatly than what we see as a benefit of water fluoridation. So for all of these reasons we think that we should end water fluoridation. Thank you.","[5, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[45411178, 34110399, 20512953, 45953041, 21017840, 30777913, 6340330, 6432269, 45458968, 44094031, 27770607, 45567227, 45569485, 45405037, 34609243]"
117e4816-d5f6-4962-97ff-a4dfd3206e49,3222,We should abolish bitcoins,Human expert,We should abolish bit coins. So we think that a group of countries the world's largest economies like that the US european union countries and china should come together to crackdown on bitcoin and prevent it from being purchased sold or used within their countries. We have a few arguments for our side. The first is that bit coin is largely used for black market purchases. Now I know that in recent years bit coin advocates have started talking about how legitimate businesses are accepting bitcoin and you can even use it to buy a cup of coffee in some cities but really bit coin exists to buy things that are illegal. The reason why people go through such great lengths in order to buy a bit coin is so that they can purchase something without being tracked by the government. If you went and bought a huge amount of drugs for instance with US dollars the government could track the serial numbers of those dollar bills and if you were stupid enough to pay with a credit card that will be very easy to track. But with a bit coin you can buy lots of drugs or pay for illegal services like prostitution where that's illegal and you would be able to get away with it because no one could track the payment method. It would be completely anonymous and out of the government's control. So when people do things like order drugs over the internet they want to pay with bit coins. So we think that because this is pretty clearly a way to avoid law enforcement and make it easier to consume illegal drugs or pay for illegal services that bit coin should be abolished because it's a threat to the rule of law. Ultimately even if bit coin isn't doing anything wrong in and enough itself the fact that it exists to facilitate illegal behavior is still sufficient to ban it. We see that this is true in other ways as well you can't own the tools to break into a car certain locksmith tools in a lot of cities even though the locksmith tools don't do anything wrong in and of themselves because they really only would be purchased for nefarious purposes. Bit coin is the same way and by the same principle we ought stop people from being able to buy and use it. And while some people might intend to use their bit coins for legitimate purposes ultimately we think that those people should know that what they're doing is making it easier to commit crimes and that they're not completely innocent in and of themselves. Our second argument is about tax avoidance in the same way that we can't track purchases with bitcoin we also can't track bit coin for tax purposes. So if you have a business that is billing people in bitcoin they could very easily avoid paying the tax that they owe to the state because ultimately the IRS would have a hard time proving that they had a certain amount of money in their accounts. At the same time people who pay with bitcoin don't have to ultimately commit to paying sales tax or other taxes that they ought to when they spend that money. But this even goes beyond that. Many people might transfer money between countries using bitcoin in order to avoid paying tax in a country that has relatively high tax rates. So it also becomes a way to funnel money out of the country illegally. So in the same way that it facilitates illegal transactions it also facilitates tax avoidance. We think that in the same way that we could step in for illegal transactions we can also ban bit coin if it's being used as a way for people to avoid paying their taxes. After all we would be very suspicious of people who were trying to take thousands of dollars in cash out of their country. We ought be equally suspicious if people are trying to take thousands of dollars of bit coins out of the country. So ultimately this doesn't work any differently than smuggling cash or gold or other valuables the same kind of thing that you might have to declare when you enter the european union or the united states but people are able to get away with it because it's untrackable. So ultimately because in these two ways bi coin poses a threat to the rule of law we ought abolish bit coin. Thank you.,"[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 45185975, 45191882, 45191885, 45185946, 13581319, 45190823, 45953041, 34110399, 20312760, 31948170, 45405037, 20512953, 19838540]"
d1b31d1d-1993-4265-9c8f-16c978c47195,3234,The use of AI should be abandoned,Human expert,"Use of the AI should be abandoned. And I hope that the computer debater won't be offended here. It's nothing personal. I promise. That said, we see two main reasons why the use of AI should be abandoned. The first is that we think that the long term risks are generally going to outweigh the short term benefits, and the second is about the trade off in research and development funds. So to focus on the long term risks and the short term benefits of artificial intelligence. It's certainly true that increasing use of artificial intelligence in manufacturing and other industries has increased global economic products. It would be very difficult to produce the amount of automobiles we do right now for instance without automated factories. However these benefits largely accrue in the short term and we think that ultimately a few harms are going to outweigh them: the first is the massive destruction of the economy. We've already seen many people laid off because automation has taken away their jobs. But this is fundamentally different than other technologies. No one would advocate for getting rid of cars just to keep horses employed, but we think that it's quite likely that in the future people will be largely unnecessary for most industries if AI keeps improving at a quick rate. For instance, we think that AI is very soon going to completely replace trucking, manufacturing jobs, and some of the other most common professions in the united states, and leave tens of millions of people unemployed. Right now the american welfare system does not have a way to cope with tens of millions of people suddenly becoming unemployed. Now, an optimist would say that other jobs will come along to let these people do work. But we think it's likely that soon AI will be so good that it can design new AI to do its job even better and replace even more human workers. And what's more, that because payroll tends to be the most expensive part of running a business, that corporations will do everything they can to lay off as many people as possible and not offer them new jobs. So we think that this is going to be fundamentally different than previous technologies that temporarily destructed the labor market, and that this could very well prevent humans from participating in the labor market at all in the long to medium term. We could be the first generation that sees unemployment in western countries rise over fifty percent, and it will be because of automation. But moreover, not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, that no one knows just how powerful AI is going to get. What happens when people outsource major policy decisions to AI, because it's seen as neutral? Which is something they're already discussing in the US as a solution to gerrymandering. To have an artificial intelligence design our voting districts. We think that ultimately an AI could make decisions that aren't the best for people and everyone will go along with them because they're seen as neutral or because a few people in power want to go along with it. So we think that there's a risk to great dependence on AI undermining our society in many ways. And our second argument is that this is a poor use of r and d funds. To be frank it just seems to me that research and development should be focused on alleviating the most serious harms and artificial intelligence doesn't really play into that. Right now there are eight hundred million people in food insecurity around the globe and hundreds of millions who lack access to clean water. Coming up with more effective ways to distribute food and more effective ways to ensure that people have access to the resources that they need seems like a much better use of r and d funds than making a ford slightly cheaper and more efficient to produce. And what's more, we also think that this trades off with medical funding which could save people's lives. Now some might say that artificial intelligence will increase economic growth and that a rising tide lifts all boats, but as long as millions of people are dying from easily preventable diseases like diabetes, that don't have a cure yet, we think that that money would always be better spent on something like a cure for diabetes than it is on these machines. For all these reasons, the use of AI should be abandoned. Thank you.","[4, 4, 4, 3, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 2, 3, 4]",15,"[45677971, 45567220, 13581319, 20225558, 45405037, 45567227, 45569485, 45458968, 19838540, 21785776, 28813722, 45190823, 45355658, 43877630, 34609243]"
fb26581b-2b55-4123-93c7-458664b3cc9d,3581,We should end cheerleading,Human expert,"We should end cheerleading. So we think that the US predominantly, but also other countries where cheerleading has taken hold, should pass legislation to end public support for it, and that we shouldn't have things like cheerleaders at pro sports games or parades and other events. We would prefer a world where cheerleading was done away with, even if it's not explicitly banned. A couple of arguments for our side. The first is that we think cheerleading is demeaning to women. At its root, cheerleading equates women's appearance with men's ability. So, because cheerleading is usually associated in the US, where almost all cheerleaders are located, with sports like football, ultimately you are equating the football players with the cheerleaders. But how are these two things different? The football players are exhibiting athletic prowess and incredible skill and talent, in a way where people respect them because of the hard work that they put in and their incredible skill. The cheerleaders certainly do work hard and I don't want to say that they're not, and that they don't have skill because clearly they do, and their routines are quite complex, but they're being valued more for their appearance and attractiveness, more than anything else. What's more, they're being used as a display to encourage the football players and to encourage fans to be more supportive of their team, rather than being celebrated in their own right. And while it's true that there are now standalone cheerleading competitions today, people still generally associate cheerleading with this traditional role that they've had in encouraging football players and other athletes to play better, and encouraging people to root better for their male compatriots. So ultimately, because cheerleading reduces women to the status of props for men's athletics, we think that this is really demeaning. That it encourages people to ignore these women's abilities or skills or talents, and only look to their appearance and how well they encourage the fans to root for their male counterparts. Ultimately, this seems very demeaning to the women who participate in this. And we think that the alternative world in which these women are playing sports on their own, or participating in other activities where they can be celebrated and rewarded for their hard work, would be a better one compared to the world in which they are cheerleaders. I know the other side will say that people like opt into being cheerleaders and want to do this, but that doesn't mean that it's a good thing. People make bad decisions all the time, and even if people want to do something, that doesn't mean that it's something that's good for them. Our second argument is that we think this is exploitative of little girls. Ultimately, there's nothing wrong with sexualizing grown women who are sexual beings and or have the ability to consent into this and understand it. But because cheerleading is something that's so sexualized, we think it's problematic that it's so prominent for young women or young girls to participate in. Many girls begin cheerleading even before middle school, when they're pre-pubescent, yet the outfits that they wear and the routines that they perform are still sexualized. And this only continues into high school or middle school, when the girls are sexualized even further, especially by media that often portrays them as the natural people for athletes to date or have sex with. So we think that ultimately, it's somewhat creepy and certainly exploitive to encourage little girls to go into an activity that sexualizes them, and treats them more as objects for the enjoyment of these athletes than it does as individuals. Moreover, we don't think that these girls can positively opt into becoming cheerleaders, because they're too young to understand the implications of the sexual implications of the activity that they're participating in. So ultimately, because this is demeaning to women, and because it sexualizes young girls, we think that we should end cheerleading. Thank you.","[4, 4, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 6432269, 45538225, 21785776, 6340330, 20312760, 44690955, 28813722, 13581319, 34110399, 45191873, 45272708, 45183231, 45181152]"
7eebc431-5550-411b-9515-a35fa23c8516,1661,We should ban school uniforms,Human expert,"The motion for today's debate is that we should ban school uniforms. Three main areas of clash, first on allowing children to self identify. Clothing is an important part of an individual self identity because it allows individuals to project to the rest of the world who they are and what they want to be perceived about them. The problem with uniforms is that when every single individual looks the same there's no way for those who want to stand out to stand out, or those who want to be like to blend in particularly as compared to others to identify with any specific group. Everybody looks exactly the same. It forces individuals into uniformity. It's especially important for children who are still figuring out who they are and have a like large amount of their rights already restricted, especially in the school system. Like they're not allowed to say certain things, they're not allowed to protest in certain ways, obscenities are banned. Like things that we see is fundamental to our right to free speech and our right to expression is always barred from children. So we think that the ways in which they can express themselves ought be protected and shouldn't be regulated by things like uniforms. So that's actually really important. But also, recognize that giving kids as much freedom as possible allows them to learn how they relate to the world. Like kids already get screwed in terms of every other kind of right. They don't have a freedom of mobility, they don't get to vote, and we we don't think that this should be additional limitation insofar as it is unnecessary and doesn't serve any kind of pragmatic purpose. Our second area of clash is about sexist enforcement. Recognize that school uniforms, the majority of the time, require girls to wear skirts. The problem for anyone who doesn't feel comfortable with girly clothing is that like now they are like perpetually being forced into this kind of cage and into this kind of identity. Whether it's because you're a tomboy or because you're trans, uniforms force you to be in be and present yourself in a certain way and in a certain aesthetic that isn't similarly enforced onto men. Like even if we had uniforms that like allowed pants for women, they would always be tighter and like the like the tops would always be different. And like and we think the problem there is that like this fundamentally disadvantages women. Because recognize that even for boys who might care about how they dress, this is always a less restrictive. Like at least like a lot of the time primary to high school boys usually care less anyway, but also their their clothing is just a lot less specific. It's like less likely to be tight things like that. So we actually think that it's really important that these kinds of things don't get enforced because it's always in a lot of ways sexist. Our third area of clash is about the cost of uniforms. Recognize that a lot of the schools that do this are in much richer areas because it's seen as this like preppy thing to do or like it's like seen as classy or whatever. And so like inner city schools don't care about uniforms. They don't have the resources to care about them, they don't have the energy to care about them. So it's usually schools in like richer areas with a higher income population. So these uniforms tend to be costly and required to be bought over and over as the child grows. Meanwhile for poorer students when uniforms aren't required clothing can be bought back from thrift stores for very cheap, clothing can be baggy, that kids grow into, while with uniform you get in trouble for poor fit. And so we like prefer parents to be able to choose what to buy, not be forced to budget for uniforms. Especially since schools with uniforms tend to be more expensive, which gets reflected in that uniform costs. And children who maybe can't afford as many or can't wash them as often are going are like much more likely to get picked on, because when everybody looks the same you stick out a lot more even if you look a little bit different. We think that's actually quite important. Proud to propose.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4]",15,"[28813722, 45405037, 45411178, 6432269, 20512953, 34609243, 45355658, 15448937, 44044795, 19838540, 45677971, 45567220, 45191882, 45569485, 28513847]"
abb1885e-3f51-4f71-b205-e0d860bd6b40,2225,We should ban factory farming,Human expert,"The motion for today's debate is that we should ban factory farming. Three main areas of clash, first on why it is animal abusive. Recognize that factory farms treat animals awfully. They keep them in tiny enclosures, they feed them terribly, they are killed painfully and often in front of each other and like if we kept humans in any kinds of these states it would instantly be considered a human rights violation and whoever was doing it would be tried in court. So we think that animals might not be as smart as humans so we understand if some would not describe the same level of rights to them but they do feel pain and they suffer similarly so we probably shouldn't cause that suffering that so closely mimics our own. Like we think at the point that eventhough like babies or really old people with dementia or anyone with a mental illness isn't as sentient or as intelligent as a human being, we don't say like oh because of that we value your rights as less and can treat you like garbage rather we actually see them as deserving of more protection, we see them as vulnerable groups and so we think that animals are actually incredibly similar and we shouldn't be causing them such pain. But I also think that there's like a higher order pain verses lower order pleasure thing here, right? Like recognize that these animals are suffering indefinitely like it takes up their entire life it's a really big amount of pain for them whereas for us it's just like this tiny pleasure of being able to cheaply afford meat and we just don't think that it ever compares, like we think that my higher my lower order pleasure is not worth their higher order pain is not worth the fact that they suffer so much as compared to like me only being happy a little. Our second area of clash is about why it's human abusive. Recognize that factory farms breed human breed terrible working conditions for their workers. They are part of large corporations that lobby for less regulations and loss oversight, they often employ illegal immigrants that they won't be able to complain about the conditions so they can be worked even harder and have even like worse worse materials and worse like other conditions and it also like breeds medical catastrophes in a lot of ways like you're working around copious amounts of animals that are all with their own bacteria and own diseases and so it's like and you're also working on a lot of sharp stuff so it's actually a lot of the time really dangerous to work in these areas and it's not uncommon for individuals to lose parts of their hand or like other parts of their body because it's been cut off. So we think at the point that factory farms are so especially bad for people and this doesn't occur on smaller farms for the simple reason of like it not being as overcrowded, there being more oversight like more regulations occurring we think this is actually like a very bad thing and this is another reason they ought be banned. But our third argument is about why this is really bad for the environment. Recognize that methane emissions alone cause a massive portion of like global warming and global energy increase and like the reason these methane emissions are so high is because we're growing hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of cattle to meet the rising demands of individuals and so we actually think that that's like quite bad right like we think that individuals can do without their cheap meat but we probably can't do with a world that is steadily growing too hor for us to exist on so and insofar as the only way that we prevent those emissions is by cutting down on the amount of animals that we have banning factory farms is a really good way to start because it would never allow such a large aggregation of animals in one place again. They also use up massive amounts of water because you need both the amount of water to grow animal feed and then you also need to give water to the animals so that they could drink and at the point that we are facing like large amounts of droughts sweeping different areas like we're running out of water actively, water is getting more expensive in a lot of areas that charge for water we think that we should be prioritizing people getting water verses some people getting meat and those animals having to get water. So we think this is also bad in that regard. So we think that like end result is we bite the harm we think that it's that prices are going to rise dramatically like all this will get less expensive, but we think that's fine because less of this meat should be consumed and those effects of less meat consumed are good. Proud to propose.","[4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 1, 4, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 45181152, 45191873, 45183231, 45272708, 7756990, 45282792, 45336991, 44044795, 45483811, 43984981, 27934334, 34854490, 44094031]"
b750383d-0827-4f46-94e1-78d8a1090ef9,2458,We should abolish the needle exchange programs,Human expert,"The motion for today's debate is that we should abolish needle exchange programs. So basically what needle exchange programs are is when drug addicts can go into government funded buildings in which they can exchange dirty needles for clean ones with the hope that this prevents the spread of blood borne illnesses and keeps people healthy while they are like taking drugs. Two main areas of clash, the first on why government endorsement of drugs is bad. When you're using government money to provide drug addicts with a method of injection, it is an endorsement on the part of the government of drug use as a whole. You're basically giving them the tools by which they can inject and this is an implicit suggestion that you are accepting what they are doing because otherwise you would do something to prevent it or at least like say that it is bad. But we think that normalizing drug use for the general populace is always going to be bad, right? So first, automatically this does normalize the use of drugs in so far as now I'm just going to see a lot more people going in and out of these buildings and coming out with like needles, I'm going to see advertisements for this, I'm going to be taking a bit out of my taxes in order to give you these kinds of programs, and it basically says look, this is a societal thing that is going to exist and that its cemented in its place. We think this is bad because it basically admits that there is no way to completely get rid of it, which we think is what we ought be striving for at all times. But more than this, we just don't think that you want to give people easier access to start their drug habits because we think that it's a that the way in calculus for whether I'm going to do drugs gets a lot easier if you know that you're going to have access to clean needles and that your health risk is less. Like a lot of the time we think that people who are considering trying their first time, they also consider the health risks associated and decide whether or not it's worth it. So when you decrease the associated health risks, we think you also decrease the barrier that people have to cross in order to start doing drugs in the first place. Our secondary of clash has to do with expenses. First, we think that the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for other individual preventable actions, especially when they're illegal. So basically in the same way that you wouldn't expect me to pay the bail of criminals who aren't related to me, you ought not expect me to pay for the needles of people who are doing an illegal action that I myself do not participate in it. Because not only do I not benefit off of it myself at all, unlike things like public parks and road services, but it's also something that is actively illegal and detrimental to the rest of society. So you're having me fund a detriment. But these costs are very high and so we think that things like taxes would go up dramatically paying for facilities and regular needles which would be a consistent cost. But also these areas would require things like increased policing, because if you're going to have large amounts of drug addicts marching back and forth, you're going to have a much higher risk of violence occurring because where there are angry drug addicts who want to get high, you also have people much more loose with their fists. So given that they're going to be all of these extra costs, we think that it is incredibly expensive for the individual taxpayer which is unjust, but also that this money could be used for better programs that could be more helpful for the majority of society. So things like stopping food deserts, things like funding reproductive health care, or even like more simple things like food banks. More than this though, we think that the that these kind of needle exchange programs lead to ghettoization. You're basically putting a critical mass of drug addict addicts in a concentrated area. Not only does this mean that people generally don't want to be around large amounts of drug addicts, so what it does is that it decreases things like property values, and increases violence in that areas in that area. So what you have on their side of the house is essentially large swaths of land that become overcome by these needle exchange programs and stop being productive for the rest of society. We think that this ought not be propagated and so you should not allow an alley by which it can occur. For these reasons proud to propose.","[3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5]",15,"[45185975, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 45355658, 15448937, 45458968, 20512953, 21017840, 28813722, 19838540, 45405037, 27770607, 45169947, 33708599]"
081eedca-3392-4802-8ba7-76274d5257b0,2647,We should abolish term limits,Human expert,"The motion for today's debate is that we should abolish term limits. Two main areas of clash, first on why this creates a more democratic system. Recognize that it allows peoples' preferences to control outcomes while term limits remove individuals' options and limit democracy. It's paternalistic of the government to limit terms because they assume that people can't kick out politicians who are bad for them or who have gone sour over time. Rather we think that the government is supposed to be a reflection of the preferences of the constituents which only happens when people can actualize their preferences without limits on who their options are. Recognize also that a lot of the reasons that term limits exist are to prevent like endemic corruption or like long term like poor policy etcetera but insofar as these individuals need to get reelected over and over, there's a massive incentive not to mess up what you're doing or not to go against what your constituents elected you for because they simply will not re-elect you. This also eliminates the last hurrah effect that we often see where because like a certain congressman or certain senator knows that they have no more terms after that, they are way more likely to go out and do some radical policy that doesn't reflect what they were elected to vote on or what their constituents desire because they know that there's not going to be any kind of re-election and we think this is actually inherently democratic because antidemocratic because regardless of what party you're on regardless of like one particular politician's last hurrah being good or bad for you personally because like we think that it oftentimes what's been democrats doing a lot of good versus like doing a lot of good in like more moderate districts but we also think it could spin to like republicans doing really really awful things and more like democratic in more moderate districts of their own. So we don't think that that's what part of the conversation rather we think that like regardless of whether or not you personally agree or disagree with the policy, it's bad when that is the policy of the majority of a region and then their representative goes on not to do it because they don't have any consequences if they don't. And we think that's exactly the kind of world that term limits creates because it creates a situation in which there is no accountability, there's nothing that we can do about them going off on their own and so we think that it's bad. Our second area of clash is about how it's good for public public policy. Recognize that part of the reason for bureaucracy is that with congress people and elected officials are constantly rotated so it's really hard to pass consistent policy. This is especially true since every new person has an incentive to try something new and put some new policy out there because they want to distinguish themselves from their predecessors so there are actually no incentives to continue working on old legislature or if like someone left office right as like something was about to pass there's no incentive to continue pushing it if they were the main motivating force behind it. So we think that that's really bad. Without term limits we incentivize coalition building that allows bipartisan legislature into the long term because there's less of an incentive to show animosity when you plan on being there for awhile and you need to show long term growth to your constituents. We think that the incentive structure for what you accomplish fundamentally changes. In the status quo individuals are fine with showing short term growth because they know they're only going to be there for a short term so whether that short term growth is pissing off every single republican because you're a democrat and so your constituents are excited that you're taking hardline stances or whether it's passing really small stick policy none of that is actually impacted in the long term. Rather on our side of the house because you're going to be there for a really long time because you're worried about re-election for multiple multiple years you have to show that you can work with other people and show that you can provide long term good policy. The current system only allows the former and we think that's incredibly problematic. For these reasons, proud to propose.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 5, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 5, 3]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 45567220, 45677971, 6432269, 45405037, 45538225, 34110399, 30777913, 6340330, 19838540, 20312760, 20512953, 44690955, 34854490]"
ba086e1c-a0dc-4405-bdc8-7a0c4327f6bb,2678,We should subsidize distance education,Human expert,"We should subsidize distance education. Two main arguments, first on higher education being a right. In the status quo, we recognize primary education as a right. This is why we do things like allocate money to public schools and make sure that public schooling is free, and when it isn't free, very, very, very affordable. The only reason that higher education isn't in the same category is because we used to be able to say that a person could be expected to function within a society without having a higher education. What I mean by this is that it was very normal for someone who only had a high school degree to be able to find a job, to be able to be active politically and kind of participate in all of these facets of society that, now, need you have a college education to access. We think it's really unjust for the government to support this economy that creates these requirements for individuals but not support the individuals themselves who are stuck within that system. Given the cost to higher education, there's a massive barrier in the status quo for people to be able to fulfill the expectation of the government and function within the economy. We want those basic tools to get over those barriers to be provided and in this situation, the only thing that people need is the access to the physical education itself. There's also a really strong government interest to fund this. The government wants there to be less poor people, because it ends up having to pay for them in the long term via welfare and food stamps. This is a very easy way to preclude having to deal with later problems that will cost the government more, because it's the difference between empowering individuals so they can continually provide for themselves versus just having to provide for those individuals when they realize they cannot do so themselves. We're essentially trying to preempt the problem by providing the solution to the root problem rather than just dealing with the symptoms later. Our second argument is about providing increased access. Since we have proven that higher education is a right, now we're going to prove why distance education is specifically the way to facilitate this right. There are plenty of young to middle-aged individuals who started working directly after high school and really want to access these higher level jobs but don't have the ability to, because they don't have time to go off and apply and enroll in a full-time university, and often don't even have time to go to community classes in person because of their work hours. Moreover, a lot of people live really far away from any community colleges or other universities. So for someone who's really living in a rural area, even if the government put money into something like higher education more broadly, without accessing distance education, you still wouldn't be benefitted. I just think at the end of the day, the people who are most important in these kinds of debates are people who have been trying really hard to provide for themselves, who tend to work incredibly long hours, who might have families to provide for as well, and these people aren't the type who can do things like go off to college. It's just not a privilege that they can afford. So we think that at the point that that's true, it is good for the government to bring that education to them. For a lot of these people, distance is the distance education is the only thing that can really fit into their lives and schedules, because it is something that they can do from home without having to sacrifice other parts of their lives for it. We think this is a really important way for these people to access inter-class mobility, because we know that the only way to do things like reach beyond a certain level of job is to have the education that can go on your resume so that people will actually hire you for those higher level jobs. Proud to propose.","[4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4]",15,"[45677971, 45567220, 45569485, 45538225, 45567227, 45458968, 21785776, 45181253, 45181384, 45181243, 45401087, 45190571, 45183231, 30777913, 34609243]"
fb6a8b82-b6db-4f68-83f7-2dfe6c5ccd66,2694,We should abolish intelligence tests,Human expert,"The motion for today's debate is that we should abolish intelligence tests. Two main areas of clash, the first on why these tests are fake. First recognize that any test result on the intelligence test changes based on your daily like feeling and very arbitrary daily factors, like maybe you were sick that day. Studies have shown that you are likely to perform x times worse than had you been healthy and given that there's never a world in which we can make sure that every child or every adult like every individual is able to take the intelligence test under the same conditions and personal conditions, we don't think we should be relying on such an arbitrary test. Second though, recognize that intelligence tests only show a number but do not showcase the actual potential skill of an individual because even if you are incredibly intelligent that doesn't matter if you're not able to motivate yourself or if you're unable to like force or like learn that material or access that material. So we also think then that it prevents self-motivation and striving. Numbers are inherently limiting. There are two worlds in this debate. The first is one one which the child gets a high score in which we think they're still harm because it promotes laziness on their behalf and they don't feel like they have to work for something because they're not really intelligent and they think that should compensate. But then there's another child who gets a lower score and we think the problem here is that once you find out that you are not truly unintelligent you surrender yourself to that biological function and don't consider yourself capable of doing better than you have been. And we think this is really bad because it prevents you from being able to try harder because it doesn't seem worth it. But we also think that there's just not meaningful predictors of success in the first place. A high IQ score is not enough to succeed. You need to be able to have the education, motivate yourself, etcetera. But people still end up making assumptions and so we need to let children develop on their own regardless of other people's expectations and that can only be achieved in a world in which those people don't know the child's number, and we think it's a better world when no one knows it. But finally under this point we think it ruins self-esteem because kids who find out that they have low scores oftentimes end up feeling very sadly about themselves, they feel inadequate, and they feel like they can't compete with other classmates. Meanwhile it also ruins the esteem in a different way of those who get a very high score in that it overblows the their egos and allows them to think that they are better than others or better than their classmates and so it affects the way that they interactive others they're also they're are always going to do so in a more snobby or hurtful way. Our second area of clash is about stopping the use specifically in schools, where it is incredibly widespread right now. Oftentimes there are like programs and specific it's the barrier for like specific groups for children that are called often gifted or talented or enrichment or similar things in which kids don't get in which kids have to take an IQ test and if their IQ tests meets a certain barrier they're granted access. And when kids take this exam and don't get granted access, they often feel very poorly about themselves, they question their own intelligence, they're unlikely to trust in themselves and their academics, and it also inspires like light bullying and light discrimination when maybe you got in but you know someone else who didn't and it makes you feel more important than this than them and thus makes you feel justified in abusing or being rude to them. We also think that there's an effect that IQ tests have when teachers find them up find them out. A lot of the time they will pay special attention to someone with a high score because they feel like that person is more likely to intake their information in a positive and constructive way and they also often times give up on those who had lower scores because they feel like they they're going to waste their time anyway because these students are inherently limited by the score that they received. We think this is bad signaling to the student and we also think it prevents them from getting the right attention that they deserve and so don't allow intelligence tests any longer.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 31948170, 45361788, 45336988, 45185975, 45185946, 43877630, 45191882, 45336993, 45189900, 45411178, 45190823, 45191885, 45458968]"
c5010b33-e2b1-4940-81a2-37f9647b70d8,2747,We should ban telemarketing,Human expert,"This house would ban telemarketing. What we mean by this is that campaigns that use the telephone and cold calling people to sell their products would no longer be allowed. You could obviously still have areas in which an individual has to call a certain number to make a purchase but you would not be able to specifically market using the telephone like product as we currently have in the status quo. Three main areas of clash, first on why this is just generally a really problematic way of attempting to sell things. I think what we have to recognize is that telemarketing relies on this idea that there are individuals who are going to be either tired enough or uninformed enough or don't have enough time to do their research to make a purchase at the moment that someone is calling their door. We think that it's actually really really coercive in that it basically tells people like look we're catching you in this situation in which maybe you're less comfortable maybe you're in the middle of a like a private matter or in the middle of your everyday life and we're going to use the opportunity to try and sell you something and we think that like even if this isn't something that is intrinsically bad insofar as there are many many or like legally bad insofar as there are many many ways for individuals to sell products in other ways especially with the invention of things like the internet we don't understand why it is necessary to have something like telemarketing which tries to playoff of individuals' weaknesses. We especially think that it gets worse when we recognize it compounds with preexisting things such as targeted advertisement we think that given that individuals are going to be bombarded with imagery of things they probably don't need but might have mentioned that they want either way we think it's problematic that they can also be targeted over the phone. Our second area of clash is just that it's annoying. We think that insofar as governments exist to protect the average citizen and we think that these protections can come in many forms not just in terms of security we don't think that there's anything that telemarketing accomplishes that other forms of sale cannot so we don't understand why it's like an unfair limitation on the market rather we think it's the government just being like look even if this isn't like personal to the safety of our citizens it's still something that brings them a significant amount of distrust and irritation so we might as well keep them from having to experience this and we think the problem is that even telemarketers don't like telemarketing when it happens to themselves. So and and given that this isn't something that we think is at a significant drop off in jobs insofar as these kinds of jobs just transferred to the other form of marketing that occurs we don't think there's actually any kind of real harm to stopping this as a practice and so the fact that it is like incredibly irritating to individuals and not something that anyone wants to deal with becomes incredibly important and outweighs the majority of anything else in this round because there aren't any harmful impacts on op's upside. So it makes it something that is essentially just like look like if there's a situation that sucks and you're able to change that situation without actually harming anyone else you probably ought change that situation. Finally though, we want to talk about the insecurity of telemarketing because we think that in a world where individuals are recording our voices and using them to access our bank accounts and other voice activated media in a world in which they are listening in conversations to listen to things like our car so like our cards we have to recognize that telemarketing corporations usually don't have the money to do things like secure the lines that they are using like make sure that nobody is recording the speech that is being said and so we think that something that happens that is really problematic on their side of the house is that telemarketing campaigns are always more easily hacked than the alternatives which poses a massive security threat to the individuals who might buy something via telemarketing. Insofar as that is true we think that we ought differ to the things that are more secure so that we don't take these kinds of risks in the first place. Proud to propose.","[4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 20225558, 6432269, 13581319, 45538225, 45361788, 45189900, 45206691, 45336988, 45336993, 45405037, 29155723, 45401087, 45181384]"
8b8327e7-8f79-4a12-8c75-a93d138460f3,3170,We should end mandatory retirement,Human expert,"The motion for today's debate is that we should end mandatory retirement. Two main reasons. The first, that we think this is age based discrimination, and thus ought be ended for protective reasons. We think that in the end, if you're a bad worker, the corporation is able to kick you out, because you are unproductive, or a nuisance in the office, or any number of other claims that they can make against you. But there is nothing inherent about your age that means that you shouldn't be doing a job. The comparative is this. We think that if a seventy year old person is being just as productive as a twenty year old in the same position, the seventy year old one shouldn't be kicked out just because they are too old, as dictated by by the corporation or the state. More than this though, we think this is comparative oftentimes to other kinds of characteristics that people get discriminated against. We think that in the same way that people cannot control their aging, people also cannot control their gender, and if we're protecting for things like race and gender discrimination in the workplace, you should also be protecting for things like age based discrimination. But on a deeper level, we think this is personally important as well. We think that in the end, you as an individual know better than any corporation what you are capable of and what is best for you. If they are doing this for reasons of you being too old, we think this is unjust paternalization, because they are making assumptions about your capabilities based purely on your age without considering other factors. We think in the same way that pregnant women are different from each other in regards to the productivity that they can do, or how hard like how hard they can work, in the same way that pregnancy affects every single person differently, age does too. Just because one seventy year old is, quote unquote, too old to work, actually cannot work anymore because of age related side effects, other seventy year olds are not the same. We think that you can evaluate when you need to step down yourself, but you can also evaluate your current monetary need better than anyone else can. We think it's incredibly problematic when corporations can dismiss people for being too old in times when those people are likely to need money most. We think that retirement plans oftentimes don't compensate people very well, and if you are dismissed from a fairly high paying job, you're always going to be seeing a decrease in standard of living as well. This is problematic, because a lot of the time people have their expenditures planned out, but also as you get older you often get sicker or have other expenditures that you also have to take care of, that younger people don't. Things like more often do you have to go to the hospital and get checkups, especially if you're a woman, things like breast cancer checkups, for men, things like prostate cancer checkups, all of these things don't start until you are much older. Second area of clash has to do with why we don't think this is going to be very bad for the like we don't think that the other side's reasons are like particularly justified, and more so, we think there are often upsides pragmatically to why this is good. We think that a lot of what the other side is going to say is oh no, but young people need to get these jobs and old people are keeping them up. Two responses. First, we think there is no reason why young people deserve that job more than you, if you have a high level of productivity and they are unlikely to outwork you. More than this though, we think that oftentimes these are in these are these are in situations where these young people are going to be able to find a different job but you are going to be stuck in retirement. What this means is that we ought value older people in these situations more than youth. More than this though, we think that in a world, especially certain states such as the united states, where the amount of old people are growing much much faster than the amount of young people replacing them, we think decreasing the number of dependents is incredibly important both for individual youth and also for the system at large. We think that a lot of the time the social security system just isn't strong enough to bear the weight of people who are getting older fairly quickly, and thus rely and thus relying on the system, not for reasons of their own incapability, but rather for reasons of why the corporation wants them out based on their age. Decreasing dependence is good because it means that there are less strains on the social security system, which means that in the future there will be more money there for those who will get older later. For these reasons, proud to propose.","[4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 3, 5]",15,"[45185975, 45191882, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 31948170, 45190823, 13581319, 21785776, 34110399, 20312760, 29155723, 30777913, 34854490, 15448937]"
5ff2a8df-37f5-4ea7-9d6b-157253a6c778,3194,We should abandon television,Human expert,"The motion for today's debate is that we should abandon television. What we mean by this is that we would prefer if people used online streaming devices instead of like owning a television or buying bundles of channels. Two main areas of clash: first on television being obsolete. The way that television works is that it only provides certain channels, usually in bundles that people can purchase, with more expensive bundles containing more channels. But the problem with this is that even the smallest bundle is either not going to is not going to include all the channels that you want, while usually including quite a few that you don't need to watch. We think that, in comparison, streaming on the internet allows you to choose exactly what you want, either for free or much cheaper than what a TV would offer. So, already we're seeing what we're seeing is a more efficient system that is also less expensive and caters to an individual in a much better way, because maybe I'm only looking to watch bravo, but because I can only buy bravo if it is contained within a bundle of five other channels, one of which is fox news and the other of which is sports, then it is not like I have to pay for those extra channels even though I never use them. Already we're seeing that this is an obsolete system that computers and online streaming have already moved past. More than this, we think the problem with television it's not very diverse, and when you're using it you're not getting exposure to a lot of smaller artists or like minority figures. So, we think that because whenever you're in a certain country, your television is only going to stream the channels in the language and of that country, it's always going to be subpar to the compared internet where you can find online where you can where online streaming allows you to choose any language or any nationality or any group that you want to watch. So, like, my russian grandparents can't access the russian TV on their television because that's just not one of the options for bundles. But being exposed to streaming allows them to actively be able to choose what they want to watch, and it caters to their desires. We also think that it's good where online, smaller artists can break through much more easily because in order to be on television, you have to have those networking and, like, those connections in order and like the money to spend to end up on television. But anyone can make a youtube account and anyone can and a lot of like smaller artists can make contracts with netflix, where it's cheaper, and so you're actually going to be providing yourself with a more diverse group and more exposure to diverse groups. Our second area of clash has to do with why abandoning television provides more spending autonomy. We think that you end up in situations where you might find some channels to be problematic, channels such as fox that are very republican, channels such as stars that play very sexist shows and portray women in very negative ways, all of these you end up forced to support because they get bundled with other with other channels that you actually want. So you never actually get to make a decision about what corporations or what channels you want to support and which ones you want to send a message to. Other examples of similar situations might be that some channels are also much more expensive, and you're forced to stomach the cost of something like ESPN, which is much more expensive than most other channels, even though you are never going to watch it. It's still bundled in with the rest to spread out the cost. We want people to have more choice in what they are going to buy and be able to use their money more efficiently. The fact that someone is going to pay for ten channels and only watch two of them means that all the rest of the money is going to waste, and we think that it's better for the individual to be able to use that money elsewhere and only watch what they are actually going to use. For these reasons, proud to propose.","[2, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5]",15,"[45190823, 20225558, 13581319, 29155723, 20512953, 45181383, 45191873, 45272708, 45181152, 45411178, 45405037, 6432269, 6340330, 45181256, 45181262]"
cc0819c6-c6ef-4fc2-892c-678d8b1b7a3b,3195,Casinos should be banned,Human expert,"The motion for today's debate is that we should ban casinos. Three main areas of clash, first on why casinos are just a different kind of addiction that ought be banned in the same way that we regulate things like heroin or cocaine or any kind of other addictive drug. Recognize that like chemically and scientifically as it has been studied gambling has been shown to just be as big of an addiction as cigarettes to like cocaine and heroin. The advertisers often specifically put their advertisements in poor areas in this pray on individuals that already don't have very much money and oftentimes like don't have the same kind of indoctrination into why why gambling is so bad and so I think that is like uniquely a way which they take advantage of individuals as well but also we think that it like it brings people in by promising large rewards that never actually occur insofar as people are often set to lose thousands and thousands more dollars than they could ever have potentially gained. The important thing to remember here is that this money trades off with the resources that individuals need for their families. It become like not only are they no longer providing in a financial way but now that they have contracted was essentially an incredibly deadly disease, this is something that the family needs to provide treatment for and support for. This is harmful both to the individual and their like directly related family but it's also really bad for society when rather than like spending your money within your region and like on things that trickle down to other people and stimulate economic activity, you sit in a casino all day and only spend money on like that bracket so that a certain group of people are the only ones who benefit off of it. We think that that's actually quite bad but more than this like bringing us to our second independent point, I think it's important to recognize what kind of behavior casinos actually like encourage and impose. We think a lot of the time what happens is that casinos promote disinhibited behavior that often involve substance abuse especially they bring in like harsher forms of drugs and prostitutes to fuel the behavior that we've already identified can be incredibly problematic. This is bad because it raised the level of crime but it is also bad because it makes the areas more dangerous. The correspondence that occurs there then is that as the like dangerousness in the area rises the prices of the area and like the land and the property become a lot lower which causes more well-off people to leave ie white flight but also forces individuals who do not have the money to leave and just lost a lot of money on their house to be stuck in these awful situations that they can never get out of so we think that's like actually quite bad and so we should never put a city in the position of having to avoid this kind of drainage. But our third independent point is about economic depression because recognize that a lot of the time casinos tend to depress economically the areas surrounding them. This is true because casinos are like a like three-inp-one in that they will often provide a restaurant, they will provide overnight like overnight utilities and overnight beds and entertainment in just one large area. This drives other competing businesses in the region out of business given that no one actually wants to have to leave the casino being inebriated to go get food or to go get other kinds of entertainment and and so this like after and after that occurs in like smaller businesses in the area are driven out because they have a monopoly the casinos can jack up their prices and provide an undue economic influence over the region as a whole. This a problem because it allows things for political lobbying to go through much more quickly if a like certain congressman or whatever thinks that they are a like more likely to lose should do not support this. For these reasons proud to propose.","[5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 3, 5, 4]",15,"[28813722, 45567220, 45677971, 6432269, 45569485, 13581319, 43877630, 21785776, 45181253, 19838540, 45355658, 44044795, 6340330, 15448937, 45181243]"
3cbfd070-a558-4b93-bff5-3638cc5cf8fa,3199,We should fight urbanization,Human expert,"The motion for today's debate is that we should fight urbanization. What we mean by this is that we should incentivize for a living, through subsidies and advertisements, and general government good will towards people who are going to be moving from cities into rural areas. Two main areas of clash: first on the environment. So recognize that cities tend to be areas of incredibly concentrated air pollution due to large amounts of exhaust, both through automobile exhaust but also through just general corporation like facilities, housing, and factory exhaust, that tend to be clustered in these very very small areas, and there are also typically large volumes of uncollected waste. So we've all seen the sides of, or a lot of people have seen photos of the like street sides of new york city, in which garbage just piles up and no one takes care of it, because there's just too much of it for any one group to make it go away for any long period of time. And there are a few impacts that this causes: first we wanna talk about human health. Because living in these kinds of situations is incredibly dangerous for human beings. Not only are you going to have necessarily higher rates of asthma and lung related issues, so like pneumonia increases if you're living in a city because you're breathing in this disgusting muck and smog and like combinations of pollution, but also you're ending up oftentimes with compromised immune systems, which make you more likely to get get different kinds of diseases that could be very dangerous for you. , it's also bad for the local animals because it causes them to be more sick. You're inhibiting their population through pollution and loss of their habitat, food sources, and so you're actually completely destroying the natural environment and the natural animal life natural animal life. It's also just like de facto bad for the environment. Right? Like it maximizes global warming insofar as you're basically getting these very very concentrated patches of like potent pollution that rise up, and you end up with like much more eating away at the ozone layer, specifically above cities than anywhere else because of how concentrated the pollution there is. It also magnifies things like flash flooding because when you have massive swaths of concrete through these areas of cities, you don't actually have any natural drainage, which is why we see that if a like slight, like if a heavy rain or a like slight flood begins, you're much more likely to have that become a much bigger problem because you don't have any natural drainage that would take care of it. Are second area of clash has to do with why urbanization is socially problematic as well. First we want to talk about the individual. Because we think that cities often offer this like false promise of success. You think that if you move to a city you're going to have more opportunities, you'll have a higher standard of living, like you'll find all these great jobs and live such a good life. But the problem with this is that it's a completely, it's a complete lie. Going into a city is not likely to get you a better job. If only because there are a million other people like you, who have heard this myth and are doing the same thing, all of whom your competing with. So what's actually ends up happening is a worse situation than what you came from, but a difficult situation to get out of, given that you have to go back and presumably face the people that you left with shame, and given that you spent a lot of resources getting to the city in the first place. And so it's unlikely that you have those resources to just transition back. We also think that cities are incredibly psychologically charring: they're loud and they're crowded, there's not enough space for you. And having to go through repeated failure and hardship is very difficult for a person's self esteem to handle. Next, let's talk about the societal level. Cities oftentimes end up being these cesspools of crime of high crime rates and poverty, and with really bad school systems. Specifically because local governments can't keep up with the population growth. And so you don't actually have enough money to take care of all of the social services that you need to take care of. So we think that that when you like combine these costs in very small areas you're going to be able to take care of all those people, but encouraging people who live in more rural areas means of that burden is spread out over more like different local governments and like more separate bureaucracies. So we think that you're actually going to have better allocation of resources and less poverty and less crime if you decrease urbanization. For these reasons proud to propose.","[4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 3, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 15448937, 45167145, 19838540, 6340330, 30777913, 28813722, 45181383, 45401087, 45181384, 45190571, 34110399, 45355658, 34609243]"
ed1764e4-3ed3-44c3-afd4-a34b4c0f1fb7,3205,We should end water fluoridation,Human expert,"The motion for today's debate is that we should and water fluoridation. I think an important overview here is to recognize that people are going to be able to get fluoride regardless of whether or not it is within our water. Because the majority of like name brand toothpastes, and those that are most recommended by dentists, are those that have fluoride in them. This means that we don't have to defend a world in which fluoride is never taken up by an individual and never does anything beneficial. We just have to defend a world in which water specifically is not used as the mechanism by which individuals end up using fluoride. Two main areas of clash: first on being risk averse. Recognize that for something that is so widely spread water fluoridation has been surprisingly under researched. Fluoride as a like molecule is potentially dangerous given that it is a halogen which is highly reactive and very like known for heavy metal damages. As such and also known to like act as a free radical. We have no idea what the long term breakdown of fluoride in the body might look like or how it might interact with other compounds in the human body, given that the human body is actually surprisingly reactive and has a lot of like individual chemicals in it that could be dangerous. We think that it's much safer to allow fluoride to be used through toothpaste, which doesn't get fully ingested, as opposed to water where it has to like go through your whole digestive tract and actually be internalized by the body. The problem with water is that no one actually gets to consent in or out of fluoride being there. The government just decides that it's a good thing and that imposes its will upon individuals. The problem here is that we think that people need to be able to have an opt in and opt out mechanism into things that go into their bodies. This is why we might be pro things like genetically modified food labeling. But like even to a lesser extent, I think this is why we often require things like organic food labeling. Or like specific pesticides to be labeled. Because we recognize that the body is something that is specifically sacred to individuals, specifically something that individuals have full control over, that the government ought not impede upon. And so it should be in individual's right to choose whether or not they're going to hove fluoride as part of their diet. I think the problem in the status quo is that you can always like choose non fluoridated toothpaste regardless of how much of a bad idea it is, but it is completely impossible to opt out the water that you drink insofar as it is necessary to ensure your survival. And so we think that because people never get to like choose not to do it, unless they're going to buy all of their own bottled water which is incredibly expensive, we think that you have to end water fluoridation. But our second area of clash is about cost. Because the government spends a lot of money on something that people are going to buy on their own. This makes this a frivolous expenditure that ought not be incurred. We think that literally anything could be better spent on than something like fluoridation. I think there's necessarily a like hierarchy of government obligation and of individual rights that need to be upheld upheld. And I just don't understand in what world it is so important for individuals to have fluoridated toothpaste that it would be necessary and that the government ought be fulfilling them. I think rather, is infinitely more important that individuals get things like food and get things like shelter and so we think that money would like should instead go in that direction. But I think the more important thing here is that in so far as individuals are going to be able to access fluoride either way, we don't think the government has an obligation to be providing it and certainly that it shouldn't be violating a lot of individuals' rights by never giving them a chance to opt out of that system. For these reasons proud to propose.","[3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 3, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[45538225, 45181152, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45191882, 45189900, 45206691, 45181384, 45190571, 45181383, 45401087, 45190823, 20225558, 43877630]"
c1046af2-ffa7-4316-bfe9-58526afeaf5c,3232,We should cancel pride parades,Human expert,"The motion for today's debate is that we should cancel pride parades. The model we're not saying that this is like a government thing, we think that the organizations themselves should choose to shut down the events that they're hosting and this would be like a preferable world. Three main areas of clash. First on why it puts a target in a much easier way than any other like everyday event. So recognize that the LGBTQ community is already at most risk to be targeted for a hate crime. We think that when you take those who are most marginalized and most likely to be attacked and place larger than normal quantities of them in a specific area at a specific time and label that as like a relatively peaceful area and a very like friendly and safe space, you're basically inviting someone who dislikes that group of people to come and put an end to this and make a really loud statement while doing so. We already see that many pride parades have attacks that occur at them like in israel it's very common for pride parades to be the focus of stabbings we've seen in the united states that pride parades have been targeted and so we think that this opens them up to attack that the organization should have to protect these people from, especially since so many who go to pride parades are young, they're oftentimes less inhibited, they're coming in from an area of not understanding necessarily how bad things can get or what their risk is. They just think they're going out to have fun and so that you end up with a false sense of security they think that they're in this safe space when in reality they're more dangerous they're like more in harm's way than they've ever been. And so even if you think that the organizers don't necessarily have an obligation to those who attend their parades, we definitely think they have an obligation to those who are especially young or especially uninhibited at these parades. But the second way in which there there is a target on pride parades is in terms of counter protests. We think that you're really likely to end up with gatherings of conservatives who are going to show up and try and show you why you are wrong about your beliefs and this oftentimes leads to a lot more potential violence, there's more much more likely to be conflict and verbal conflict between groups and all of this can be avoided if your event does not occur. Second area of clashe is why it's bad for public opinion because there are a lot of republican moderates who in theory are in favor of gay rights. They consider themselves egalitarian and they're like they consider themselves very forward thinking for republicans. However these people get really oppositional when they feel like that gayness is rubbed in their faces or when they feel like this is somehow being forced down their throats. So at the point that moderates get incredibly turned-off by like flamboyant expressions of LGBTQ culture or any kind of like BDSM mention, we don't think that the parade is worth the lack of political solvency that that comes afterwards. We think it's way more important to get good politics passed for LGBTQ individuals like marriage equality or getting better laws for LGBTQ youth or making it easier for LGBTQ youth who were who were affected by their parents or disowned by their parents to get emancipated things like that are infinitely more important than an evening of frolicking. Our third area of clash is why this puts undue power in organizers hands because you're having a million person operation run buy a few like maybe five, ten people and those people get to do a lot of things that are like unique to their power over the event. In the case of the recent pride we had I don't remember where but the recent one where they were able to ban jewish stars and call them zionist expressions we think that things like that occur only when you allow a few people in control of it. But the problem is that it's not as if those few people have to take responsibility for their action, rather the entire group gets blamed for what a few people did. We don't think that those people should have the ability to tarnish the name of a group of people as much as they do and so we think they should relinquish that power and cancel pride. For these reasons, proud to propose.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 31948170, 45191885, 45189900, 45336993, 45206691, 45336988, 45361788, 45185946, 45191882, 45185975, 15448937, 45190823, 44044795]"
719d061a-d8c0-4a45-97f0-8c7b97aa7c11,3237,We should prohibit unisex bathrooms,Human expert,"The motion for today's debate is that we should prohibit unisex bathrooms. Important thing to know, we think that you can still have single occupancy bathrooms that anyone can use of any gender, you just can't have multiple toilet bathrooms that are labeled unisex rather than labeled male and female in terms of sex, which is I think like the status quo essentially, where you can have like both gender or like all genders, both sexes, like single occupancy bathrooms that can lock like have a door and lock, but you but most institutions don't really have like large multi-stall bathrooms that are unisex. Two main areas of clash, first I'm creating safe spaces. Recognize that there are very few places in public where someone, but especially women, can get away from the opposite gender. The majority of the world is unisex and specifically male dominated, and we think that it's really important for women to know that there is somewhere to go when they are uncomfortable or exhausted. We think that this makes it that having these two separate bathrooms makes it really easy for female friends to check in on others if there's harassment or some emotional issue. Like we think the example of women going to the bathroom together illustrates this idea that a lot of the time women need to be able to get to a space where they can either communicate about the situation in private without anyone else listening, or where they're able to just be like hi, I am here for you, if you are in an uncomfortable situation of any sort. Like we think the stereotype exists for a reason, but it's not because women are weird or finicky as men like to believe, rather it's because women are faced with a myriad of incredibly dangerous personal obstacles in their everyday life, and the way in which they cope with it is by creating solidarity with other women, and going to spaces wherein men cannot reach them. And we think that that's currently something that bathrooms provide, they stop providing when they become unisex. The other issue here is that we think that if you've had past traumatic experiences, like people who are survivors of either physical or sexual abuse can genuinely feel incredibly uncomfortable performing actions that are so private, such as using the bathroom, around people of the opposite gender, or like hearing them can be really problematic. We believe that there's a reason that a lot of bathrooms will have the like will have the advertisements for like specific helplines up on the walls, or like a lot of like safe space rhetoric goes around goes on around them. Because we think that it's really hard for survivors already to find spaces they can rely on within like general society, and we think that what the bathroom does is it provides somewhere where you can go reliably and know that no one is going to be able to follow you, if suddenly you feel really trapped or if you like someone is coming after you, that's somewhere where there's like a social stigma against it occurring, then you feel more safe reaching out. Even if it's just like a phone call to the number that's on the wall or something like that, and we think that it's actually incredibly important. Our second area of clash is about about efficiency. Recognize that there are like just like having bathroom split based on sex is just a more efficient way to have bathrooms in the first place. We think that first we actually want to discuss urinals really briefly. First they are more cost, speed, and eco-friendly, but it only ever makes sense to have urinals in all-male bathrooms because it's not something that a woman could ever be able to use, given a lack of or like a woman by sex, not necessarily by gender, would even be able to use due to lack of penis. And since that's not an efficient use of space in a unisex bathroom, that's not something we'd ever see. But like women's bathrooms already constantly have longer lines than male equivalents, so we think that adding men to that equation doesn't actually help the situation in any way. We think that what happens on their side of the house is that unisex bathrooms are just an excuse for new buildings not to include two sets of bathrooms, rather they can just have one and use half of the space and half of the money and they say oh look, it's unisex so it's fine. And we think that insofar as it's always preferable to have large amounts of quantity even if it's not the most politically liberal kind of thing, then we prefer that world. Proud to propose.","[4, 4, 4, 3, 2, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4]",15,"[45677971, 45567220, 13581319, 20225558, 45405037, 19838540, 45567227, 45569485, 45190823, 45458968, 28813722, 21785776, 43877630, 15448937, 44044795]"
a03ebb5f-200c-418e-97ef-774d8adc8d0b,3263,We should end the use of economic sanctions,Human expert,"The motion for today's debate is that we should end the use of economic sanctions. We think this is a normative debate ie we prefer a world in which governments did not use economic sanctions against each other. Three main areas of clash, first on why they're ineffective. Recognize that the goal of economic sanctions is to force a country to cease a bad behavior and it's used most against dictatorial and other non-democratic regimes that are being oppressive because there's really no incentive to like harm yourself economically unless this is like an extreme case. The problem with these kind of with like the way that we use them is that these kind of regimes are the most likely to have built and maintained their power in part by using antiwestern sentiment and by talking about how they're going to keep themselves like kowtowing to the west etcetera and because of the rhetoric that they often use they can't be seen as capitulating to western demands because it hurts their image and hurts their support so like ie a lot of like big dictators are upheld by a few large families that are really really rich but those large families are also often built on patriotism and keep their money by maintaining an isolationist perspective that says that the west is awful so if the dictator was to say no I mean to capitulate to these economic sanctions they risk losing a whole lot more money and a whole lot of political support from their biggest donors. The other reason that it doesn't work is often because the regime holders are usually selfish individuals and won't bite the harms of losing money either way so they don't care about their populace. Like at the end of the day, these dictators aren't the ones taking the pay cut. They're going to maintain the same amount of comfort and the same amount of money in both worlds and as such they have no incentive to care about the fact that people are going to suffer more when we have economic sanctions against them. The other issue is that like now once you have sanctions you can't you can't remove them until the person capitulates because that looks bad on you and like as a western country you don't want to be the one who takes down sanctions until they work because you don't want to seem weak. Unfortunately capitulation vever happens so you don't get any kind of long term solvency and we think this hurts long term democratization as well because recognize the best way to democratize a nation is by building a middle class and building some kind of like free flow of speech but that only happens if you are able to exert your influence somehow which oftentimes comes best through money. We think the best way in which you built like have any chance of building middle classes or having like activism groups is when you have a like a some kind of trade going on when like maybe you've cajoled them into letting amnesty international in so they can provide some kind of service to your people but like sanctions completely cut off that avenue and so can never be effective even in the short term but especially are like stunting our goals into the long term. Our second area of clash is about how it hurts the worst off. Recognize like as I told you dictators aren't the ones taking the big cut just because there's less net money now now even less goes to people through existing welfare programs any kind of government subsidies that existed like now if the dictators worried about acquiring food they just take more of it by force like it's not the case the dictators that are harmed it's only the case that you're starving the people you're trying to save from the regime in the first place. But our third area of clash is about it hurts how it hurts countries who issue sanctions in the first place. Recognize that international trade is an economic tool that is really beneficial to individual nations and individual groups because if I'm able to like buy something more cheaply here that's good for me and if I'm able to sell to a given nation that's also good for me so the problem happens that when you issue economic sanctions whatever that nation used to provide you with or vice versa becomes either more expensive for you to acquire because you have to go to someone who knows you have no other options and so knows they can raise the price or your own goods become cheaper because other countries can exploit you in a similar manner. They can say like look now you have no one to sell it to you so you're going to sell it to us for less and we think that insofar as this like hurts you as well we don't think you ought to be doing it. Proud to propose.","[4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 6432269, 45538225, 30777913, 6340330, 19838540, 20512953, 44690955, 21785776, 6367365, 20312760, 27770607, 22345789, 33708599]"
19ea07a5-14ad-474f-8d35-d2c83d8249e1,3279,Blockade of the Gaza Strip should be ended,Human expert,"The motion for today's debate is that we should end the blockade on the gaza strip. We mean by this is that currently israel has a permanent blockade in which they do not send any kind of aid across the border into gaza. We think that this should be immediately lifted and that aid should start to be sent. Three main areas of clash: the first on why it is unjust. Recognize that sanctions are always internalized by those who are the poorest in that society those who are like automatically the most law-abiding citizens. Why is this the case? First, recognize that terrorists are always going to be able to get their resources elsewhere insofar as they're usually internationally connected and tend to have the ability to like traverse borders in ways that are illegal, that like that other citizens do not have access to. But even if you don't buy that, we think that terrorists are often the most likely in most capable of robbing other citizens of their goods. Insofar as terrorists have a vested interest in keeping each other and themselves fed and cared for, they will often go to the end of taking those resources from those who are most law-abiding in order to support themselves. What this means is that sanctions are inherently undemocratic. Insofar as those of, what those who are like least responsible for the situation are the ones who are most harmed. Like, recognize that the majority of the gaza strip disagrees with hamas and is not a part of that organization. The fact that they ought to suffer for hamas's sins is both unjust and incredibly detrimental to their personal health. We think at the point that that's true then you ought not allow, that it is unacceptable to punish everyone for the actions of a few, especially in such an egregious way. We think at the point that this kind of policy deprives the gaza people of resources, those who are already starving and deprived and torn apart by terrorism and war, then it ought not be added on top of that that they are deprived aid and necessary goods for their survival. Our second area of clash is about why doing having this blockade actually encourages terrorism. First, recognize that the existence of such a blockade allows hamas to play victim whenever they are asked by international authorities about the situation. Right? They get to say: "" look, israel is the one that is forcing this to happen. They're the ones that aren't allowing resources to cross our borders. We're just trying to govern our own cities but somehow we're not going to be allowed to do so "". This both signals to the outside world that hamas is a victim, but more importantly, shows people living under hamas that that israel is the one who is actually causing harms. We think that this is really problematic insofar as when you see israel as the inherent oppressor you are infinitely more likely to side with the terrorists that promise that they are going to fight against them. It also allows hamas to be the only one providing resources. We think that when israel says: "" hey, even though I am the state that technically possesses you, I will not provide you with life needing, or like life giving resources. "" But hamas says: "" hey, look, they call us terrorists but we're the only ones giving you food or any kind of like provisions "", then hamas necessarily gets a leg up politically in terms of the view that citizens have of them. We think the only way in which israel abolishes hamas is when they turn off the individuals that would become the constituents of hamas. But when they are constantly creating those like support for hamas through in through the blockade, there is never any hope of destroying the terrorist organization at its core. We think when every average individual within the gaza strip is beginning to build a hatred for israel because of the atrocities they feel have been committed against them, that's when you get massive amounts of terrorist recruitment, and that's when these people turn against israel forever. But our third independent argument is about how it angers the international community. We think that israel succeeds the most when it is seen as this like underdog being like oppressed by other communities, like can't like, the terrorists are after it, etcetera etcetera. We think the moment that israel takes the side of the oppressor, or becomes the oppressor, that is when the international community starts to side with palestinians, starts to ask israel to give away land and start to like stop supporting them economically, and we think that's really bad. So insofar as ending the blockade allows israel to reclaim the spot as as victim and thus garner more support, we think israel should end the blockade on the gaza strip.","[3, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4]",15,"[45538225, 44690955, 45272708, 45183231, 45191873, 45181152, 45191882, 45206691, 45189900, 45401087, 45181384, 44094031, 45190571, 45181383, 20225558]"
334e8156-c84c-4462-8844-542bea852530,3492,We should further exploit natural gas,Human expert,"The motion for today's debate is that we should further exploit natural gas. By we we mean the US government, by exploit is that we think that like a significant amount of current resources that are used to buy oil from other countries or used to frack for oil in within the united states we would prefer would be used to exercise efforts to further like take out natural gas and like extract natural gas within the united states domestically. With that, two main areas of clash, first on whites better for the environment. Look obviously green technology is the ultimate goal like we would prefer a world in which everybody drove hydrogen cars that like used hydrogen gas to power them and produced water but the problem is that this is a world that is relatively far away and we live with an ever growing need for a different source of energy and one that is preferably cleaner than the current things that we have. Like at the end of the day, oil is running out and it's probably not the case that hydrogen cars are developed enough for those to become the replacement so in the interim we need something that can be that can like serve us without forcing us to change all of the technology that we have pay like expect the average consumer to pay a lot of money to upgrade to a car that like that that like is experimental vastly in technology. So I mean emmissions wise it's really important to note that natural gas is significantly less dirty than oil and other kinds of forms of energy that we've been using. This is just like something that is like a characteristic of the compounds and so we've noticed that like cars that drive using natural gas produce less harmful emissions into the environment and don't contribute to global warming as much. But it's also more environmentally friendly in terms of efficiency because recognize that like the rate at like the amount of time that you can like use the same gallon of gas also determines how much needs to be produced using methods like fracking that can often be damaging to the environment so if we're able to like use the same gallon for longer for more mileage that's preferable because it means that less has to be extracted per person which is necessarily environmentally friendly. So we think at the point that natural gas is an also more efficient form of energy that is also preferable. But our second area of argumentation is about why it's economically positive. First it's good for the US specifically in that we have for a very long time relied on the middle east to supply to supply our energy needs because we personally did not have enough oil and had more environmental regulations on areas that did have oil and so we couldn't access them ourselves. The difference here is that we have tons of natural gas and this allows to cut down the dependency on these four nations which is really good because for a really long time we were facing mass amounts of pressure from these countries to ignore their human rights abuses to ignore their antisemitism on the like the idea that we need we need them for gas and we can't afford to have them cut us off. So once we are allowed to cut down on that dependency we're able to be politically free like maybe we're really tired of saudi arabia mistreating women and punishing people too harshly so now that we don't rely on them for the majority of our energy we're actually capable of expressing that through the use of sanctions or anything else. We also think that it's like allows us to become an exporter which is something that is really positive in terms of energy because when you become an exporter you to also set the price on things like natural gas especially since very few other countries are able to export it to the same degree as we are because they have less access to it and have less like allocated market so we think it's actually really good when the united states gets to do things like say like look like now by our gas because it necessarily makes us richer but it also just creates a massive amount of jobs domestically and we think this is really important not just because jobs are generally good and we like it when people are able to earn their own money and contribute to the economy but also because of our existing in a world for automation is happening in amazingly high rates the same time more immigration is also happening to peak with refugees coming across borders so we actually it's really important that you're creating jobs that you don't necessarily need to be incredibly educated for but will still be able to provide for you. For these reasons proud to propose.","[4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 45167145, 15448937, 45181383, 45401087, 45190571, 45181384, 28813722, 30777913, 6340330, 19838540, 44044795, 45282792, 45355658]"
85e1c0a8-5d04-4c57-9d2e-53c7138353f2,3661,We should abolish foster care,Human expert,"We should abolish foster care. We basically model is by taking all of the money that has been put into paying foster parents, like paying for foster kids etcetera, and put that money into expanding orphanages and the quality of orphan care. So we see like a lot of nations that don't dabble in foster care at all, we would prefer the US to follow in those footsteps and instead just make sure that the like federal orphan system is a lot stronger than it currently is. Two main areas of clash, first on restructuring the system. Recognize that the way that the US system currently works is that it gives money to foster parents per child, per month. So if I'm like a foster parent who takes five kids, I receive a hundred dollars per child, per like ex number of days, and that's like a reliable source of income, and oftentimes there are ways to like cut down on the cost of the child itself that will allow me to keep a percentage of that, which we oftentimes see parents doing. More on that later, but more importantly what you're taking away from this is that there is a lot of money pouring into these systems that could be going into the orphan system itself. So we also see this put like money being put into recruiting these families in the first place, or to them become very systematic so they like come back over and over again, like money that goes into showing these children and transporting these children etcetera. And what they do is they tell us that what this does is that it takes stress off of the system, but in reality if that money was being efficiently put back into the system, then that system wouldn't mind the stress. We need to stop relying on poor stipends and instead fix the system that the majority of kids get stuck in, because we think it's problematic that insofar as most kids don't experience foster care, or if they do don't have a positive experience, that that is where the majority of the money is going, so the kids who might need to benefit most actually don't get to benefit at all off of it. I mean it's like fundamentally unjust but also just like a poor use of funds, because you probably should be helping the majority of the children that are your responsibility. Like a really good example of this is people who decide that they're going to learn a little bit about every subject rather than focusing on getting really good at one thing in particularly, because it's just unlikely they're going to get a job, because nobody needs someone who has a barely working knowledge of four million different fields. Rather, you use that more efficiently by focusing on one thing and just making sure that it's a really really effective. In the same way, we think that if people really cared about the current orphan system and they really poured a lot of effort into it, we think you would end up with a system that was a lot more functional than the status quo, where you're dividing all of your resources among so many different pots. Our second area of clash is about just the pragmatic problems that arise. We think that it's really unfair to children. Recognize that the majority of foster families are industrial, they make kind of a career of taking kids in for the government funds, like treating them okay but not particularly well, they don't really have an intent to adopt them so it's not going to be a permanent home, so there's not actually any consistency as individuals are bounced from house to house, and there's also just like no way to be adopted by someone else while in foster care. Like the definition of foster care is that you go there with this idea that it's a trial period, it was never meant to become like an industrial event where individuals are like systematically being kept there for long periods of time with people who have no intent of adopting them. So I think what you do is you cheat individuals of the opportunity for adoption with potential other parents. We think that it would like actually be a lot more preferable to just stay in the same orphanage. Like we think this is better for kids' psyche, it's easier to build connections that are more longer term than like sitting in a foster home where the parents don't want to build a correction with you because they know they're not going to keep you, things like that. We also think it becomes a lot easier to prevent abuse on our side of the house. It's really difficult to check against individual foster parents because you're just relying on like the word of the child, as opposed to like individuals who can background check, who are working in it for the government, who work with other adults, we actually like watch them and make sure they're being good. So and like we think that that's actually really bad because really good, because the abuse in the foster care system is like quite widespread, and that's something that we solve on our side of the house. Proud to propose.","[5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5]",15,"[45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 45191882, 45189900, 45206691, 45181384, 45190571, 45181383, 45401087, 43877630, 45190823, 45483811, 45336993]"
08016cf2-ffd7-4ce8-bb0e-7f0b3f2ba70c,3699,We should abolish primary elections,Human expert,"The motion for today's debate is that we should abolish primary elections. What we mean by this is that instead of having a situation in which you get all of this the candidates from a certain party and then only registered members of the party vote on it, instead we're just going to have all of the people regardless of who the party majorly wants go straight to the general election. Three three main areas of clash, first on the fight for moderates. The problem in the status quo is that because primaries require appeal to the registered party voters, candidates often have to appear more more extreme than would be productive for themselves or for the world. It basically ends up weeding out moderates by requiring you to appeal not to the majority of everyone that exists regardless of their political view, but specifically to the majority of republican or democrat voters. And in order to gain a majority ahead of any opponents you might be facing, you have to make sure that you capture at least some of the radicalized base, like you have to be able to appeal to as many republicans as possible. However those that can't win in primaries might be able to win the general election because the majority of voters are more moderate than those registered to a party or the party elites that are likely to offer you money during the primaries. Not only this but we also think that pragmatically these people end up with better policies as well because we think that one of the reasons trump got by in the republican primaries is because he was able to buy up that white supremacist alt-right base in a way that an opponent who had more moderate views wouldn't. However we think that in a more general election the moderate would be more appealing because not the because the majority type of person isn't that racist and isn't that like terrified of the world at large and globalization. So we think that on our side of the house you're actually much less likely to get such extreme policies because those were the people who manage to get by in extreme base. Our second area of clash is about providing independence from the party to candidates. Because primaries are controlled by the political party, it forces candidates to pay a certain amount of lip service to the party that they're coming from. So those who don't if those who don't do so get less screen time, they're pushed out of debates, and basically it's made very difficult for them to continue being candidates within that party. But we want and like literally if the primary like if the party decides that you aren't a popular enough candidate, they can just cut you out of the debates in the primary. However in the real world, people don't get cut out of debates because all candidates are equally important to determining who becomes president and so you don't have to give over some kind of deference to whatever party is governing you because the party is the people. We think this creates much more honest candidates who are unwilling to pay that lip service but we also think that it creates better candidates given that the party leadership is often made up of more traditional people who have been there for a longer. Our third area of clash is about how it changes campaigning strategies and promotes one that is a lot more wholistic throughout the election. Currently primaries allow individuals only to campaign to the party which lets them narrow down their agenda a lot more. However we want a more honest strategy with a less extremist base, and we want them to be able to appeal to everybody equally. We think what currently happens is that individual candidates can essentially garner enough power and monetary help while they are running in the primaries so that once it gets to the general election, they have enough money to buy certain individuals' votes or they can more easily hijack people. But we think what happens on our side of the house is that individuals are forced to campaign even to those who they didn't care about before because it's no longer as much about the money as it was previously with so many candidates running all at once. For these reasons, we are very proud to propose.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4]",15,"[45677971, 45567220, 13581319, 20225558, 45405037, 45567227, 45569485, 45458968, 21785776, 28813722, 45190823, 45355658, 19838540, 30777913, 34609243]"
6e1682a9-dd9a-4100-8da6-5f8e6bd1d825,3759,Tattoos should be banned,Human expert,"The motion for today's debate is that tattoos should be banned. Three main areas of clash. First on why tattoos are dangerous and we ought be preventing them. So first recognize that no one in the world absolutely needs tattoos. At most tattoos are a vague preferences to have something on your body but there's never like a harmful effect to this, right like people who really need liquid there can get temporary tattoos like it's not something that prevents them from functioning in any way and they can replace whatever emotional impetus that was with something else. However it can be very very bad to have a tattoo. There are oftentimes many accidents with dirty needles or misused needles, a lot of the time people like maybe people can get around dirty needles and bad needles by choosing your own tattoo parlor really quickly but oftentimes people just don't know that they have certain allergic reactions to the ink that is used or reactions to the synthetic compounds that are used given that tattooing is actually like a very evolving field things change very quickly and we don't think that there's an accurate predictor for an individual's health within that system. But also we think that a lot that as such you should actually be incredibly risk averse right? Like if it's so much worse to have that thing then to enjoy it before you have the thing then you probably shouldn't be doing it in the first place. For example maybe enjoying a cigarette in the short term is something that I would really like and something that I want to do when I recognize that there are like long term problematic impacts that are much worse than this current pleasure, like IE having cancer I'm much less likely to do it and tattoos we think are the same way, especially since it's very possible for people to develop allergies or reactions to compounds or maybe those compounds have broken down in a dangerous way. So like maybe I'm eighteen and getting that tattoo doesn't give me any adverse health effects but thirty years down the line maybe some of this is some of the objects in that ink degraded a little bit and suddenly I have a very dangerous allergic reaction. Our second area of clash is that tattoos oftentimes lead to regret and thus you should avoid it in the first place. Hindsight is twenty-twenty but if the government can predict that hindsight for you, then maybe you should just have it in the present rather than in the future. Tattoos are a permanent decision to a very temporary body. On the norms around you that often molded why you chose that tattoo in the first place are subject to intense change. What seemed relevant at twenty is much less relevant at sixty but there's also an indirect like temporary other impact in that as you age your body gets a lot like saggier in certain places, there are certain effects that no one could have predicted, and oftentimes the areas in which you got a tattoo becomes somehow disfigured or changed. And so maybe now your tattoo has stretched, the paint has thinned, and it just looks a lot uglier. But simultaneously temporary tattoos are getting better and better, there's new technology that lets them last longer and look more legitimate and we think that if you don't have to risk that regret then you shouldn't do it because maybe you happen to love that tattoo for the rest of your life but the option of having to spend your life for that long with something that is regretted is enough of a risk that you want to avoid it. This also kind of expands to the third point which is about why its a bad expenditure. Given that it's something you can't predict that you'll be able to like and enjoy into the long term, you should probably spend money on something that guarantees that joy. So, maybe a tattoo is going to make me happy right now but in the future I there's probably like so there I'm going to be unhappy and therefore this pretzel that will definitely guarantee me happiness forever and ever is a better choice. For these reasons, proud to propose.","[5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 31948170, 45411178, 45190823, 45355658, 43877630, 27770607, 29155723, 45458968, 45189900, 20512953, 6340330, 44044795, 30777913]"
2b7f1305-1c0d-4088-8858-fdffeb79e0c9,2225,We should ban factory farming,Human expert,"We should ban factory farming. Factory farming is inherently a corrupt practice which disregards the rights of animals simply to increase the profit of corporations. It takes the act of farming and attempts to remove as much space as possible, as much time as possible, and as many health standards as possible simply because corporations want to increase their bottom line. Because we think this is inherently corrupt we would support the following model: that all states ban factory farming requiring that the cultivation of animals be given a decent amount of space to move around in and banning acts like pumping them full of hormones simply to make them grow larger in a small amount of time. I have two arguments in today's debate. First off on how factory farming is inherently cruel and second on how it is actually dangerous for the general population. Factory farming is cruel on two levels, first to humans and secondly to animals. Individuals who are work in factory farms are typically paid incredibly low wages, they are largely immigrants who do not have the political impetus or the political ability to get another job due to stigma, and as such they have very little ability to hold their corporations accountable. As such, most factory farms have incredibly poor health standards and work their workers to the bone. This is incredibly dangerous as there are a variety of workplace incidents which occur at factory farms but we would also say it is psychologically damning working this much time with animals who are constantly suffering. Additionally, factory farming is cruel because it puts animals in tiny, tiny spaces. These spaces are essentially where they spend their entire lives, a cage which is six inches by six inches can be the entire space which a chicken gets to be for the entirety of its life. Although we would say that animals do not have as many rights as humans, having them suffer profoundly, have non -working legs, be unable to ever fully extend their wings simply because a corporation wants to draw profit clearly violates their rights. Animals clearly have sentience and refusing them the ability to even move around and express their sentience and autonomy is essentially treating them as non living beings and being unnecessarily cruel. It is clear that corporations can sacrifice some of their profit to expand their the animals living spaces and provide them with greater rights. Now my second argument is about how factory farming is dangerous for the general population. A lot of the time factory farms pump their animals full of dangerous hormones. These kind these particular kinds of hormones can be dangerous for children who eat them and can cause long term health harms for individuals who consume large quantities of meat. Similarly, the health standards at these factory farms are not up to par. All if you compare factory farms to largely open air farms you will actually find more dangerous bacteria more illnesses in these animals then animals in open air. This means things like salmonella and e. Coli are going to be far more prevalent in meat which comes from factory farms rather than meat which comes from open air farms. It is the obligation of government to keep the citizens safe. It is impossible for someone to know before they open a package and eat something if it is tainted or otherwise dangerous to consume. The only actor which can protect the people is the government and as such we have an obligation to ban factory farming.","[4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5]",15,"[45191885, 45953041, 45458968, 21017840, 20512953, 15448937, 34110399, 28813722, 19838540, 45167145, 45355658, 6340330, 30777913, 34609243, 20043657]"
2661b00a-81f3-495e-b179-2470d49afb56,2227,We should ban whaling,Human expert,"We should ban whaling. Whaling and fishing have a long and interconnected history. However, due to overfishing and over-whaling, a variety of species are currently under threat. We think that whales are truly incredible. They're majestic. They control the environments that they live in, and they are very important to a variety of cultures. We think that whaling has quite simply gone too far, and attempts to regulate it have been largely unsuccessful. To that end, we would support the following model: that the international community try states where whaling ships actually catch whales. This means that, for instance, if a japanese ship caught a lot of whales and the japanese authorities did not take meaningful action to stop it, japan would be held civilly liable in international court. We would ban all whaling, even for research, because we think that in the modern age, we don't really need to catch whales to research them. I have three, excuse me, two arguments then for why banning whaling will be good for both the ecosystems and for humanity. So, first, how do whales affect the ecosystem? Megafauna are incredibly important to those ecosystems where they inhabit. Whales, for instance, consume massive amounts of plankton. They also grow a number of body, excuse me, grow a variety of different things on their bodies which moray eels, which parasites consume and devour, and then they themselves are eaten by other creatures. We think that if whales were to go extinct, a few things would happen. First, the amount of plankton will expand at an exponential rate. This is incredibly problematic as plankton, although they mostly just grow through photosynthesis, would likely strangle other species. That is to say, if a large layer of of plankton formed on the surface of the water, it would be incredibly difficult for other sea flora to develop and proliferate. Additionally, we think that parasitic creatures which feed smaller fish would no longer have a way to feed on whales, that is to say, they can't eat the barnacles off them, they can't clean their flesh and, as such, this would harm a variety of other species as well. To this end, we think that fishing villages would be harmed. If they can't catch fish as effectively because they're not as plentiful, poor individuals would go without a home. We think that animals also deserve some respect. If we are truly disrupting an ecosystem and causing a variety of species to go extinct, we are taking an unjust action. The international community has an obligation to save international resources, including whales. My second argument is that this is functionally a theft from humanity. When an animal goes extinct due to human action, we have truly done a disservice to our future. Understanding these animals is incredibly important for human long-term longevity. We think that whales are, first, beautiful creatures, and taking away the sort of sublime elegance that they have by destroying them outright is truly unjust. But secondly, we constantly discover new things about species which we can then use to form new medication and new technology, and if we allow whales to go extinct, we would lose a massive amount of knowledge which would otherwise be available. We believe that this is also unjust because it can cause huge amounts of deaths or simply a comparative decrease in happiness going into the future. Because we think we have an obligation to both our future selves and future generations, we should ban whaling.","[5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 45677971, 45567220, 6432269, 45405037, 45538225, 34110399, 30777913, 6340330, 19838540, 20312760, 34854490, 20512953, 21785776]"
b800feab-7608-4000-bbbb-7d096817897f,2482,We should limit the use of birth control,Human expert,"We should limit the use of birth control. Although birth control is an important tool, it is also incredibly powerful. In the same way that we think diabetes medication is essential for certain people to live, we would also say that these kinds of things must be regulated by the government to an incredible extent. In order to guarantee that individuals are protected from the potentially harmful effects of taking birth control without understanding the implications, we would propose the following model: that all birth control be prescription only. So for the vast majority of birth control, things like emergency contraception spermicide, we would require individuals to get a prescription to get them at all. We would say that for condoms, individuals could get a one time lifetime prescription but they must first visit a doctor in order to be prescribed these kinds of things. Three arguments for why this will improve societal well being, first on risk. We think that every single kind of birth control brings with it the risk of allergies. If it is internal, things like spermicide could cause intensive damage and potentially just permanent disfigurement if someone has an incredibly extreme allergic reaction. We would also say that the middle of sex is not the best time to have an allergic reaction. If someone goes into anaphylactic shock while they are say eating at a dinner table individuals can respond immediately. If someone starts going into shock on the middle of sex, there's a potential their partner will not recognize it, there's a potential their partner will be too embarrassed to take immediate action. It is incredibly dangerous and as such in order to protect people's lives they must understand the risks and allergies surrounding birth control. Visiting a doctor will resolve this issue if somone has a latex allergy we think that individuals will understand this beforehand and not be prescribed things like latex condoms. Secondly though we think that almost all birth control has side effects, particularly internal birth control. Side effects can range from higher blood pressure, can infertility, they can be any number of things that are potentially damaging into the long term. We think that individuals can only make meaningful decisions regarding what they want to do and what they want to consume if they understand the risks behind it. To this end we think that individuals should be informed about the side effects of birth control, something that just does not happen with over-the-counter medication in general. Finally we think that individuals should understand how to use things properly and the effectiveness surrounding it. Condoms alone have only about a ninety five percent success rate. This means that if individuals don't understand they should have two kinds of birth control they're far more likely to have a child unexpectedly. We think that doctors can educate individuals for why they need to have two kinds of birth control or the effectiveness of any given kind of birth control. Additionally we think that they can know more about these kinds of birth control in general. Things like emergency contraception just is not effective after seventy two hours and is almost four times as effective in the first twenty four hours. Additionally if someone doesn't know how to use a condom that is pulling it all the way down improper use means immediately throwing it away they can potentially cause someone to get pregnant on that alone. My second argument is about political shifts. We think that individuals need to understand other kinds of birth control exist and how effective it is. If your only option reasonably or at least conveniently is over-the-counter birth control, you simply will not get educated in other kinds of birth control. As such we think that creating a standard for all birth control where it is all prescription will guarantee it individuals are protected from this kind of harm. Secondly, we think it's good if individuals understand all kinds of prescription birth control. We think that if there's a certain stigma against things like the nuvaring or the pill but if all birth control requires a prescription, that stigma will go away. As such we should limit the use of birth control.","[4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 6432269, 45567227, 45567220, 45538225, 45190823, 21785776, 45405037, 20512953, 30777913, 20225558, 44044795, 45206691, 45361788]"
99f676b5-0f48-4c80-b03c-049edcd34eae,2486,We should abolish the US Electoral College,Human expert,"We should abolish the electoral college. The electoral college gives undue power to individuals who do not deserve it. It is fundamentally undemocratic and has incredibly problematic effects on our policy. With this in mind, we would propose the following model: that the united states federal government should immediately stop using the electoral college for presidential elections. Instead, they will simply use a direct vote system, where all votes are counted, and then the winner of the total number of votes becomes the president. Two arguments for why this is a good idea: first, on the principles of democracy. Democracy is about equal representation. It guarantees that all individuals get at least some say in policy and the policy discourse, because they can vote on matters of federal policy. Unfortunately, the electoral college provides certain individuals considerably more power than others. Why is this the case? First of the electoral college makes it so if you live in a rural area or an area with very few individuals, although you may not have as many electoral college seats, you still have more than the more power in comparison to the average person in a city. This is fundamentally unjust because it says that people in rural or less populated areas somehow deserve more democratic say and power than individuals in highly populated areas. Second reason why this is problematic is because the electoral college includes individuals who are not bound by the votes of individuals in their state or the state that they are representing. This is problematic because it says that certain individuals deserve just as much power as hundreds of thousands of americans combined who are all aggregated under other electoral college seats. We believe this is this distorts democracy and fundamentally undermines the ability for our country to maintain its legitimacy and has incredibly problematic practical effects, as I will discuss in my second argument. Many individuals claim that the purpose of democracy ought not be to give everyone a say but rather to maximize good outcomes. However, the only way in which we can understand good is through the common understanding of our world. The will of the populace must be reflected in our morality because the good is idiosyncratic. All individuals come together to determine a collective understanding of the good and pass that understanding on to the government. Someone does not deserve increased moral weight simply because they live hundreds of miles from their neighbor. In fact, the opposite would likely be a better system given that these individuals are the less least likely to understand the collective understanding of the good and the least likely to engage with other people to understand what they need to survive. My second argument is about the practical effects of removing the electoral college. First, we believe that you'll get better policy overall. If politicians are not worried about winning certain votes in certain underrepresented districts but rather more interested in winning the popular vote, they will campaign in more areas which would otherwise be seen as simply blue or red, because they can win marginal votes there, but additionally, they will pass policies which are good for the majority of americans rather than just good for the majority of land mass in america. Secondly, though, we believe that this will decrease controversy. It's less likely that you'll have partisan effects on the judiciary when the supreme court and other judicial bodies do not have to rule on political outcomes and elections. We saw this in when george w bush was elected, when the supreme court had to decide whether he would become president. This was a the beginning of a great schism in in our country based on partisan lines. But finally, we think that this will increase the mandate to rule because rather than depending on certain areas to rule, you'll just depend on the will of the people. For this reason, we should abolish the electoral college.","[5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 6432269, 45569485, 45567227, 45677971, 45567220, 45458968, 45411178, 44094031, 44044795, 15448937, 20512953, 44690955, 33708599]"
cb5717b9-bd9b-4cf7-842b-8d84b459a4d4,2489,We should abolish no-knock warrants,Human expert,"We should abolish no-knock warrants no-knock warrants have some benefits. I'll concede this right off the bat because the benefits are so minuscule that they are nothing compared to the harms that no-knock warrants cause. Having a second or two of extra surprise against a criminal does very, very little. However, when people reach for their guns cause they don't know who's breaking into their house, that's when people die. Because we think that lives are more valuable than a infinitesimal increase the likelihood of catching someone, we would support abolishing no-knock warrants. To that end, we would also support the following model: that judges no longer provide no-knock warrants, that if people have no-knock entry into a house for a police raid, that all evidence got in that raid should be thrown out. First an overview for why this will end no-knock warrants overall, and then two arguments. So, there're two reasons why this will end no-knock warrants. First, there's no reason to search someone's house without a warrant when the evidence will be thrown out. If a police officer has a no-knock warrant, they're very likely to be reprimanded by their police office, their police union, and will largely destroy a case. This is incredibly problematic. Even if it doesn't reduce the occurrence of no-knock warrants to zero, it will massively reduce them and decrease the incentive to ever use them. Now my first argument is about safety. Police are far more safe when we abolish no-knock warrants. Why is this the case? Many no-knock warrants involve plainclothes police officers. Even when they don't, when someone tries to smash down your door, if you have a gun, the first thing you do is reach for your gun. You may shoot through your door, you may shoot the first thing that you see come through your door. This means that police officers die because people are startled, and for good reason. When a huge number of men wielding guns enter your house, the first and most logical step is to shoot. But even if you don't have a gun, dogs on with who don't have leashes are far more likely to attack someone if they are not first restrained by their owner. No-knock warrants make it impossible for owners to actually stop their dog from attacking police officers, increasing the likelihood that a police officer gets bit and a dog gets put down. We also think that you can charge people in court for this kind of violence without no-knock warrants. There have been court cases in the past where people have had no-knock warrants and shot and killed police officers, and they were let off free. We think that police officers will feel far more safe if they can charge people in court if they themselves are harmed. We'd also say that people are far more likely to be harmed with no-knock warrants as well. In many cases, no-knock warrants have led to a accidental attack on individuals who are not even the criminal at all. Flash grenades have been thrown into nurseries. Individuals have been shot because they simply look like the target of a warrant. We think that's incredibly problematic when police officers do not take the time to confirm who they are actually trying to catch in a particular scenario, and no-knock warrants allow this to happen. Additionally, we think the people can hold their hands in the air if they hear, "" police. We're coming in, "" which will decrease the total amount of violence and misconceptions on both sides. My second argument is about efficacy. We don't think there'll be any harm to police efficacy, first, because police have huge amounts of resources and can surround premises to guarantee that criminals can't get away, but second, the situation is either that the door is locked, in which case you'll have to break it down either way and the no-knock warrant makes no difference, or it's unlocked and then it just takes two seconds to say, "" police. We're coming in. "" Additionally, we think that cops will be less afraid in without no-knock warrants cause they're less likely to get shot and, as such, they can act more courageously and more efficiently to catch criminals when they exercise these warrants. For these these reasons, we should abolish no-knock warrants.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 20225558, 13581319, 6432269, 28810858, 45336988, 45189900, 45206691, 45336993, 45361788, 45405037, 45538225, 44044795, 29155723]"
07aaa88f-0f43-4dd6-9d0e-35ad9136a697,2647,We should abolish term limits,Human expert,"We should abolish term limits. Term limits are an ageist policy which largely give us ineffective politicians. We think that term limits were put in place to prevent abusive politicians from continuing their power ad nauseam. However, were a despotic government to come to power, it is unclear why they would not abolish term limits in the first place. As such, the continuation of term limits does little more than prevent effective politicians from continuing an effective place of power. I will discuss why that there is no meaningful harm to removing term limits later in my speech but for now, a brief model: we would say that in the united states, term limits should be outright removed, that no term limits should be enforced on any particular position, but we would guarantee that each of those positions must be voted into office. That is to say, if a previous position allowed you to be appointed once or twice, we would require that individuals be voted into office once the previous term limit amount was passed. Three arguments for why this is a good idea: first off, on experience. Individuals become more effective at a job the longer that they work at it. Individuals who've worked for twenty years are considerably faster than people who are brand new, and even much faster than people who have worked there for just ten years. The same is true with politics. Understanding the the machinations of politics, understanding where to put your weight and where to spend your resources, is an incredibly important tool which allows individuals to be considerably more effective. Whenever we force someone out due to term limits, we two things happen: first, we see that new politicians must be put into office and they must essentially walk on egg shells for their first term because they could very well be removed, because they are seen as inexperienced. But secondly, we push someone with experience out of their position, then require them to run for a new position. Individuals rise to the level of their incompetence under this system. Even if they're incredibly comfortable in a position with term limits, they will inevitably have to run for larger and larger positions as they're pushed out of positions due to term limits overall. As such, we think that this creates more competition for jobs that do not require competition and pushes effective people out of roles that they should continue to be in. My second argument is about meaningful choice. We think that the individuals who are voting have the best understanding of what is good and who to continue voting into power. This brings me back to the idea of despotic governments. The reason that we can remove term limits in the united states is if a truly despotic power comes to power, continues to pass policies that are problematic, they will remove term limits as the first thing they do. This means that if we do not have term limits, excuse me, if we do have term limits, individuals will continue to be pushed out of office because of this ineffective policy until a despotic government comes to power, and then they'll rule forever. As such, we don't think there's a meaningful harm to removing term limits as if a despotic government came to power in the first place, they would already remove it. As such, abolishing term limits simply increases the total amount of choice that individuals have by allowing them to better understand politicians, to better vote for the politicians that have continued to respect their choices in the long term. This brings me to my third argument regarding connections. We think that politics is largely a game of who you know. It is about meeting people. It's about trusting individuals effectively. When you do not have trust, politics is incredibly difficult. If you do not trust another senator to vote with your policy after they give you their word, you are far more likely to hedge your bets, essentially water down policy, effectively ruining a lot of different effective political outcomes. Furthermore, if you know that you're about to lose a particular seat due to a term limit, you are far more likely to lie or violate individuals' trust. As such, we think that politics becomes far more bureaucratic and far less effective due to individuals who cannot trust each other, because they do not have a long-term incentive to maintain their truthfulness. As such, we should abolish term limits.","[4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[21017840, 6432269, 45953041, 45538225, 6340330, 20312760, 44690955, 45183231, 45181152, 45272708, 45191873, 45189900, 45206691, 43984981, 34854490]"
de16c16b-43b2-4254-a20f-747ea845ab26,2689,We should subsidize Wikipedia,Human expert,"We should subsidize wikipedia. One of the greatest inventions of the twenty first century is wikipedia. It has created the best encyclopedia that has ever been known anytime in history. Not only does it create easy access to all information, something that was truly impossible before the invention of the internet, but it also contains more information than any other document, any other resource that has ever been existed in history. The reason for this is that when more individuals have input and more individuals can discuss certain issues, the truth is far more likely to come out. Unfortunately, wikipedia is constantly struggling for money. It is nonprofit and it has no advertisements and as such, only loses money when individual enter the site without donating money. By subsidizing wikipedia we will have profound good and generally have no harms. With that in mind, we would propose the following model: that the governments around the world pay for the entirety of wikipedia. That their entire budget be spread cross a few first world countries including the united states, the UK, france, germany, china. Every state that allows open and easy access to wikipedia should pay some portion of its budget. The budget of wikipedia is incredibly small, so we imagine that this will cause no change in total services between any state. Additionally, all the current money that wikipedia earns from donations from other organizations and from particular individuals will now be spent to expand the site, pay for better servers, and pay for more moderators to insure that vandalism does not occur. Two arguments why this is a good idea. First, why wikipedia is free from capture. Now the major fear with subsidization is that individuals will become lazy and stop innovating and the government could potentially capture the industry creating fear of criticism and generally reducing the efficacy of the service. Now why are both of these unlikely to occur? First, on innovation. Honestly, wikipedia hasn't innovated for the last ten years. As a very simple formula individuals go onto the site, edit certain things, and that's really all that happens. There are some innovations in terms of moderators, auto moderators guaranteeing that people don't violate particular rules of the site but ultimately, no innovation is necessary and no innovation is is occurring in the status quo so subsidies will not harm anyone. In terms of capture, because wikipedia depends on individuals unaffiliated with the government adding their own thoughts to the issue, it is unlikely that capture could ever occur. Furthermore, when there's a coalition of governments paying for wikipedia, there's unlikely for any single government to be able to leverage power against wikipedia also just because if a state stops paying for wikipedia, the increase in the cost to other states will ultimately be negligible. My second argument is about the value of this information. First, on in terms of poverty. In the past individuals from wealthy families were able to read encyclopedias to learn about the world and generally had an inequality of information that benefited them throughout their entire life. Now, individuals in poverty can access wikipedia at literally no cost. This reduces the total barrier and the total gap between the wealthiest and the poorest in our society guaranteeing that the poor can make truthful and fair actions and decisions based on this information. The market depends on individuals understanding how the world works. Politics depends on people understanding what the truth is. So generally wikipedia is good for all individuals. Brings me to my second point why the value of information is generally good just in terms of people being able to access it. When people can look up questions that they have they are more engaged with the world and generally feel more engaged with education. This improves all situations for all people. For this reason, we should subsidize wikipedia.","[4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 3, 3]",15,"[13581319, 20225558, 19838540, 29155723, 44044795, 45355658, 45677971, 45567220, 20512953, 45190823, 28810858, 15448937, 45405037, 45411178, 28813722]"
3f67456e-b8a5-4f43-9693-01966f6732ad,2747,We should ban telemarketing,Human expert,"We should ban telemarketing. There are few things as profoundly annoying as picking up the phone and hearing a telemarketer on the other end. Telemarketers use abusive predatory tactics in an attempt to drain money from the poorest individuals. You do not see legitimate corporations implementing telemarketing because they understand that people who get a telemarketing call are less likely to shop at a place unless they are fooled into buying a product. As such, we can see that telemarketing is an inherently abusive tactic which wastes huge amounts of time and generally causes headaches for the whole of the population. As such we would support the following model: that governments around the world should ban telemarketing refusing to provide numbers to corporations which attempt to implement telemarketing and if they do somehow find a way around it they'll be levied a huge fine which will massively disincentivize their continuation of telemarketing. With that in mind we have two arguments. First, that telemarketing is inherently wasteful. Telemarketing takes up huge amount of time throughout the day. It has thousands of people in call centers calling people around the world and in an attempt to sell them a wasteful or otherwise bad product. It costs the whole of the economy thousands of dollars per day as individuals are distracted by telemarketing calls and as there is an inherent dead weight loss to telemarketing as anyone who spends their time in a call center doing this particular kind of work does very little to contribute to the overall society. Because we think telemarketing is so inherently wasteful we would say that the government has an obligation to step in and ban it. It is impossible for individuals to truly check telemarketers. Because telemarketers depend on small niche customers buying their products after being fooled, attempts to regulate them through the market will always fail. The only way that telemarketers can truly be checked that we can allow the will of the people to be expressed is if we force telemarketing to be banned outright. My second argument is that telemarketing is predatory. As I've said time and time again telemarketers do not expect to make sales on the vast majority of their calls. When they call someone who is fairly wealthy, who is fairly fine, telemarketers almost always get hung up on. What they do they make the vast majority of their sales to individuals who are unaware of the opportunities which exist in the other products which exist or the elderly who they use predatory tactics upon. Some of these predatory tactics include things like spoofing phone numbers. They will find someone's phone number and call them from the number of one of their neighbors. It's very easy to find someone's phone number once you have them on a list that you're going to call. You can find their address without much difficulty on the internet and then find the number of their neighbors. It's incredibly easy for these telemarketers to use technology to change their phone number temporarily allowing them to call with the number of someone who is close to the client they're trying to sell to. This is problematic because it can generally cause stress as individuals pick up the phone expecting that a neighbor or other family members is in danger and can otherwise be predatory as these individuals can pretend to be someone close to the the person they're trying to sell to. We would say that attempts to fool individuals into buying products is clearly not a good end. Although some would claim that marketing is inherently fooling people to buy products, telemarketing takes it a step further by explicitly lying to individuals and using deceptive tactics like the one I just outlined. Because we think the government is the only actor which can truly fight telemarketing, we should ban telemarketing.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5]",15,"[45567227, 45567220, 45185975, 45191882, 45191885, 45185946, 45411178, 13581319, 29155723, 20312760, 20512953, 45190823, 15448937, 30777913, 38202325]"
27499de8-5bcf-44d9-b41b-1d0ede47179b,2767,We should subsidize investigative journalism,Human expert,"We should subsidize investigative journalism. Investigative journalism is the hallmark of an effective newspaper or news organization. It is the only way in which much of the public can access information which has a which has been hidden from their view by governments or powerful corporations. By subsidizing investigative journalism we will improve the political efficacy of our nation, generally increase the affordability of news, and lead to a spillover increasing overall news coverage in a variety of ways. With that in mind, we would propose the following model: that government should pay a substantial portion of the salary of investigative journalists and subsidize papers which engage in investigative journalism. It will be incredibly difficult to have this money taken away. The only way in which governments can take away the money about investigative journalism is if there are no investigators at the newspaper or if the public comes together for a referendum in which the individual newspaper can be proven first to be false and also get the support of the public in terms of removal of its subsidization. Three arguments why this is a good idea. First on the political effect of investigative journalism. Much of the clandestine operations of the US and the more problematic strategies that corporations are hidden from view. They do not want the public to know because were the public to know, it would lash out against these organizations either through voting against them or by not buying their products. Due to this individuals do not have the ability to articulate themselves in the democratic system. What investigative journalism does is it expands the total access to information thereby improving accountability. For governments it allows individuals to vote against their governments, to vote against problematic parts of their government, and to pass policies and petitions which discuss things like the CIA, FBI or other clandestine operations. For corporations we think that the market is also democratic. Without information, individuals can't decide what products to buy or boycott. By increasing the total access to true in information, we will improve voting records and improve markets generally in decreasing externalities in both spheres. My second argument is regarding the affordability of news. Investigative journalism is incredibly expensive. It requires paying individuals a massive amount of money for stories that regularly do not pan out. With this in mind, news organizations have two options. Either remove investigative journalists this means that there's no access to the truth we discussed in our first argument, or increase the price of their news in order to expand the investigative journalism department. We think that many organizations are deciding between either of these two both of which decrease access to information for the poorest individuals. As such, poor individuals have no access to political efficacy and because these individuals are most often the most oppressed and disillusioned by powerful organizations, they essentially have no check against abuse. We would similarly say that messages are deluded when reported by other newspapers. Say if the wall street journal publishes a particular investigative report, if other newspapers which are free then steel that message, we think that the message becomes less clear and there's greater chance for fake news through organizations like TMZ who might report on wall street journal reports would also just might make up random things. If we hold them as the only source of news for poor individuals it will be incredibly problematic. My third argument is about spillover. We think more facts equals more news. More coverage equals more discourse. As such, we think the only way in which we can prop up the entire news industry is through investigative journalism. With this in mind, we would say that we should subsidize investigative journalism.","[4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 3, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5]",15,"[21017840, 6432269, 45538225, 45953041, 6340330, 20312760, 28813722, 44690955, 13581319, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 45191882, 45189900]"
e6216f04-175d-4699-a6cd-fbda93c785e0,3170,We should end mandatory retirement,Human expert,"We should end mandatory retirement. Mandatory retirement is an archaic and unacceptable use of government power and private power against individuals who have not consented to the harms against them. When individuals age it typically means they're less efficient. However, it is unacceptable to force them out of positions that they need to put food on the table and shelter over their heads. Furthermore, much of our mandatory retirement laws and requirements are based of a misconception and an archaic understanding of how aging works. Because we believe that individuals, particularly those outside of the manufacturing sector, are actually able to work far above current mandatory retirement ages we believe we should end it out right. My first argument is how mandatory retirement is unjust and my second argument is how mandatory retirement is inefficient. So first off on how is unjust. We believe that mandatory retirement is fundamentally arbitrary. Individuals did not consent to their age. Furthermore, age is not necessarily a reflection of their own skill or capacity in a private sense or in an efficiency sense either. We believe that this kind of discrimination is at face inherently based on prejudice against individuals who are older. Although this is not quite as pernicious as sex, race or class based discrimination, discrimination in any form must be fought wherever it is found. We believe government has the obligation then to step in. Why is this the case? First because government guarantees individuals rights before the law. It further guarantees individuals equal rights. That is to say no matter what your circumstances you ought be necessarily protected against undue abuses. Secondly though we think government has the obligation to step in because it is the only individual the only organization which can check against the power of large private corporations. Regardless of what private citizens do, private corporations will do whatever improve their bottom line, or whatever they think improves their bottom line, even it's if it's based on misconceptions. We believe that government must then step in to actually stop them from abusing their own employees and those who would otherwise work for that company. Keep in mind that we are fully accepting of policies which ends, which requires retirement or otherwise ends employment if a employee is unable to fulfill the capacity within their jobs. That is to say if I can no longer work my job and it is because of my age I should not be employed. However, forcing someone to retire simply because of their age, even if they can continue to work, is fundamentally unjust. My second argument is regarding efficiency. Why do we think mandatory retirement is inefficient? It is largely based on laws that are far far outdated. In the past we were unable to effectively measure the metrics in which individuals created and utilized their own time and work. In the status quo we have computers, we have technology which allow us to record the total productivity of employees. This means that rather than having a blanket policy in which we fire people across the board, we can continue to allow them to work into old age until they are no longer efficient. This inherently means that older employees, who have trained in skills that other individuals are not used to, who have more far more experience than much of the co workers, and who can otherwise contribute to their work space, can continue to work. We would further say that ending mandatory retirement is efficient because many individuals at old age need to work longer than they actually have before mandatory retirement. Unfortunately most americans do not have enough money to retire. This is because they are forced to spend money on repeating goods, they're forced to spend money on insurance, which necessarily means they don't have enough money to save. Allowing them to continue to work means that we spend less on welfare for homeless elderly and spend less on non government organizations which would attempt to feed them. As such we should and mandatory retirement.","[4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5]",15,"[21017840, 7756990, 45181152, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45336991, 45282792, 44044795, 45483811, 44690955, 27934334, 44094031, 43984981, 33708599]"
dc9560f8-7e64-4149-9bca-8abb25a83995,3180,We should introduce goal line technology,Human expert,"We should introduce goal-line technology. Goal-line technology is technology which allows us to very accurately see when a ball has gone over a line. Although this has very few applications in sports, it is incredibly valuable as it replaces the subjectivity of a ref and the angles at a ref suffers from and uses the laser-like precision of lasers and computers. It will largely increase the fairness of the game, save time on referee calls, and reduce total intervention. We believe each of these will contribute massively to a more enjoyable experience for players, for viewers, and for referees. My first argument is about fairness. We believe that the game is more valuable when it is more fair. When two individuals compete, it is a competition of their skill and natural ability. If two individuals are inherently mismatched for instance someone who's eight feet tall and versus someone who's two feet tall in basketball we think that that is not the kind of fairness that we truly care about. If someone has to play with lead shoes the entire time and someone doesn't that the mechanical unfairness the unfairness which no one consented to and no one understands is the kind that makes people angry. Particularly when that unfairness is truly random, individuals are very very unhappy. Goal-line technology increases fairness as it has no bias whatsoever. Individuals may feel that someone has been called too often are called too little or maybe just staring off into the distance when a bad play is made or when a bad call is made. This is inherently problematic as it will lead to unfair situations where a singular team or individual is targeted more or less by a ref due to no one's actions but these inherent and subconscious biases of the ref. By improving fairness we improve the quality of the game for all individuals. My second argument is that it will save huge amounts of time. When refs have to go through replays eight nine ten times simply to try to find the truth it wastes everyone's time. It is very problematic when individuals cannot play the game when there is ad after ad after ad simply because referees want to review videos that they think they can find some additional information from. Goal-line technology reduces this time wasting activity given that it can tell you without a doubt whether the ball passed a line or did not. My third argument is that it reduces referee intervention. We think that referees can decide incredibly important games or even less important games but everytime they do it reduces the value of that game. This is incredibly problematic when it occurs in a championship game, whether it's the playoffs in basketball, football, soccer. If the referee is deciding the game rather than the players, everyone is angry. The team that wins is accused of winning because of the referees, the team that loses is accused of losing because the referees and as such the teams get angrier and angrier and angrier. By reducing total intervention and by putting the entire onus on technology which cannot be biased in any way, we believe that individuals are less prone to these kinds of insults and these kinds of complaints and as such there will be less anger between teams and more camaraderie which will also improve everyone's enjoyment of the game. For this reason, we should introduce goal-line technology.","[5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 45191882, 45185975, 45191885, 45185946, 13581319, 45190823, 45953041, 31948170, 34110399, 6340330, 15448937, 45169947, 27770607]"
f9fc14ce-2cb7-44d5-ad96-f0549337773a,3195,Casinos should be banned,Human expert,"Casinos should be banned. Casinos are honestly just dens of sin, dens of treachery, that prey upon the most addicted individuals in a society while draining the community of everything they are worth. They move into small areas and take over the area, they pressure city council members as they have a huge stake in the total control of entertainment in the town, and are largely able to use their incredible funds to destroy all competition. Because we think that casinos are inherently parasitic, we would support the following model: that all of the united states casinos should be banned and literally every single area all casinos should be destroyed or their buildings should be used for something like a community center or any place that does not have gambling. Two arguments for why. First, casinos harm the community. Recognize that entertainment spending is fungible. This means that if I go to a casino, I'm not spending as much money at restaurants or at the movies. As such it adds incredibly little to an area. All that it does is take money from other sources of entertainment and force them into the casino. What once went to the baker, the movie maker, the arcade each of these is destroyed and and instead the casino takes over it ruins small businesses in the area and ultimately doesn't add to total spending effectively making them a waste of space and a waste in resources. This is even more problematic as as it destroys things like movie theaters and arcades the only source of entertainment becomes the casino. They can charge whatever they want if they have a movie theater inside, they if members of an area want to become entertained then they have to gamble their money away. This is a horrific thing to do to any community and as such casinos should be banned. But we would further say that it harms communities given that it facilitates a lot of crime. We think that individuals who lose massive amounts of money at once are more prone to stealing and violence. We think that individuals who drink a lot and then are sent home are far more likely to commit DUI's as such as casinos move into areas crime rates skyrocket violence skyrockets and individuals who are in no way connected to the casino never supported the casino are still harmed despite never consenting to the actions taken against them. My second argument is that casinos are inherently immoral. What casinos do is that they prey on addicts and in an attempt to get as much money as possible. Using some casino nomenclature here, casinos are most interested in whales and people who will spend huge amounts of money at once on frivolous bets. There are two types of whales: there are the people who are really rich who go to a casino and they're the addicts who are willing to spend their entire check on a single roll of the roulette wheel. Furthermore the phrase the house always wins is very very true. There are systems in place to suggest that when you win money you should immediately bet it again and if every single time you win you let it ride you will inevitably lose all of your money. As such we think that casinos prey on addicts in a way that destroys their lives and continues their addiction but it also attempts to create addicts in the first place. The marketing that it uses, the fact that destroys all their entertainment in the area, the free drinks, the free food given to people who are losing their life savings shows that casinos are simply a way to take money from people who cannot help themselves. For this reason, casinos should be banned.","[4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5]",15,"[20225558, 13581319, 45190823, 29155723, 45181383, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 20512953, 45405037, 45411178, 6432269, 45189900, 45206691, 44044795]"
ab34eb58-cfc1-45a8-9ae3-4c0ba048fe01,3199,We should fight urbanization,Human expert,"We should fight urbanization. As individuals move from rural environments and suburban environments into the big city, they necessarily displace those individuals who invested the most time, money, and energy into making their city prosperous and safe. Unfortunately, there are simply not enough room for the entirety of any states population to live in the major currently existing cities. We would say that those individuals who've lived in cities the longest and who have fought to make their area prosperous, ought have the primary rights to live in that area without threatening their well being. With that in mind, we support the following model. That in all states were urbanization is occurring the government ought adopt policies which generally stigmatize and incentivize individuals to stay in rural environments and increase the tax amount of individuals who move from rural environments into urban environments unless they have a job currently existing or have currently lived in a rural environment with high levels of unemployment where they can only escape to large cities. With that in mind, we have two arguments. First, large cities have limited capacity. Infrastructure simply cannot take the entirety of any state. First, we would say that even if urbanization occurs slowly, the fact that infrastructure simply does not have the ability to simply adopt all these individuals, there's simply not enough roads, not enough hospitals, not enough schools to truly help these individuals. It's impossible to truly put everyone in urban environments. However, we would also say that urbanization typically occurs rather quickly. As cities in particular states or in particular areas boom in terms of prosperity, individuals quickly shift from rural environments into the city. This is problematic because it puts increased stress on infrastructure. Now what infrastructure are we actually discussing under this point? Three things, first, transportation infrastructure. We would say that in most states transportation infrastructure is crumbling. It cannot take the massive influx of people and continue to maintain itself. What this means is there is increased danger of roads collapsing, bridges collapsing, and otherwise taking individuals lives. And at the point where we cannot even repair roads and bridges, it is impossible to expand them to allow more cars on the road. This means that efficiency in cities will decrease massively as organization increases as individuals cannot get to where they want to be in any reasonable amount of time. We already see this in cities like new york and LA where it takes an hour simply to go across the city just a few miles. Next is healthcare infrastructure. Hospitals and clinics simply cannot take the increased number of people. Coupled with the rise in crime and other conflicts which occur as people move into the city, increased violence, increased health problems means that these hospitals will suffer and this suffering will be transferred onto those people who need care the most. Nurses, doctors will not be able to get to every single individual which will particularly harm the poor who cannot afford to go to other areas which would otherwise charge more money due to increased demand. Finally, we would say that schools who are unlikely to be able to take all the children who would go there and increased class sizes have routinely been proven to mean worse education for children. My second argument is about gentrification. Very simply, as individuals move into urban environments, demand increases massively. This increases the cost of housing pushing lower income individuals into poor areas. Gentrification is essentially punishment on poor individuals and people of color for making their neighborhood safer and better. These their houses, their apartments, are taken by individuals with more money and they're pushed into a new ghetto, into a new place with increased violence. This is fundamentally unjust and must be opposed by every state and moral authority. As such, we should fight urbanization.","[4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 15448937, 45190571, 45181383, 45401087, 45181384, 30777913, 6340330, 19838540, 28813722, 45191873, 45183231, 45272708, 34609243]"
8fbe7ef6-e3f9-43bf-9b66-d07491794811,3232,We should cancel pride parades,Human expert,"We should cancel pride parades. Pride parades while meaningful expressions of queer identity, ultimately lead to massive targets against the queer community both metaphorically and directly. Because pride parades pose a danger to the whole community, we say that they should be banned. Even if they didn't pose a danger to the community, we would say that their purpose and their the causes that they try to forward have largely been supplanted by corporations and other movements and as such, pride parades should be canceled simply to reclaim what was taken from them. With that mind, we would support the following model: that the organizers of pride parades should shut them down, and that other forms of queer expression should be adopted instead. My first argument is about the effect on the movement that pride parades have. We think that pride parades are largely not reflective of the community which is doing them. What this means is that the the community is largely labeled off the actions of a few incredibly extreme individuals and the pride parades in places like portland, seattle, los angeles, new york are largely used as fodder in the -tacks against queer communities in rural areas. This is incredibly problematic as it decreases the total access to rights that these people have. When someone is walking around in spandex waving around prophylactic equipment, we think that that should be their right but when it is used to oppress other individuals it cannot be continued. Because we think that the queer movement is harmed by pride parades, we think that canceling it will largely lead to greater political efficacy which will lead to a decrease in police brutality, increased protections in the labor market and in the housing market, and ultimately just a community which is far better equipped to protect queer individuals. My second argument is that pride parades have been co-opted by other movements which should not be allowed to use them. First, we think that corporations have largely used pride to push their own products, they buy huge floats, they sponsor parts of the parade, they way to advertise this community rather than support them. We think the purpose of pride largely came through the protests that were occurred on the streets, through the riots which occurred to fight against oppression. When corporations who have largely pushed for this kind of oppression, largely push for this kind of violence use a sort of thing we think that's kind of unjust and can never be allowed by these movements in order to support and preserve its core. We think that first there's an obligation to the past communities who have been harmed by these corporations to prevent them from supplanting the movement but secondly, we would say just for future efficacy as well for drawing in more individuals from having a clear message which can be brought to a political level, these corporations cannot be allowed to take the movement. Additionally, other movements have been used within pride to push their own goals. We think that the inherent connotation and the inherent links between these movements in the queer community which come as a result of pride, largely perverts the movement as a whole, distorts and disrupts the narrative, and as such, makes political activism considerably more difficult. My third and final argument is that they are a target for attack. Unfortunately, we still see massive numbers of hate crimes occurring every single year. That we believe that the LGBTQ movement has an obligation to their own members to guarantee that they're protected against this kind of violence. They are the individuals with the greatest knowledge and the greatest motivation to protect their community as a whole. As such, we think that the density of individuals in the space largely makes them a target for violence, makes them a target for hate crimes and this is an inevitability which cannot be allowed to continue. We would say that any organization of individuals based on a single identity which is largely stigmatized in our society probably should not be continued and as members and leaders of the queer movement this needs to be stopped. As such, we should cancel pride parades.","[4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 6432269, 31948170, 45336993, 45206691, 45361788, 45189900, 45336988, 45567220, 45567227, 45181384, 45401087, 45190571, 29155723]"
60f97cc3-695b-4cae-8c55-66bcbdf86765,3263,We should end the use of economic sanctions,Human expert,"We should end the use of economic sanctions. Make no mistake economic sanctions are a tool of war. They threaten the industry's of states. They put individuals into starvation, ultimately cause mass loss of life and loss of welfare as well. They are used to a disgusting degree and far too cavalierly by a variety of states which deem themselves just, as they steal food from the mouths of poor individuals. The continued usage is an abomination and a true affront to justice and as such, we would support the following model: that economic sanctions be outright banned, that organizations such as the UN and the WTO threaten any states which use economic sanctions with immediate disbarment from these organizations and their only usage should be when a state uses economic sanctions in the first place. That is to say, if the US were to sanction a state like guatemala, it would then be justified for all other states to sanction the USA to end economic sanctions. All other usage usages it should be outright banned. Two arguments for why this is a good idea. First, sanctions do not work. Now this is incredibly important because is a as a tool of war, they cause huge loss of life and massive amounts of harm. So if they don't work to actually create change they should just be abandoned. Now there are two two and a half criteria for when economic sanctions work. First, there must be universal support. This is never achievable because all states have different political agendas and we live in a multi-polar world that is to say, the united states has different incentives than canada, mexico, the UK, and the EU writ large as well as russia and china. Any single state that is sanctioned will be able to find a variety of allies in other states which means that a single state's economic sanctions will simply boost trade relations between other states causing no good outcomes. The second criteria, or second set of criteria is the state being sanctioned either needs to have a desire to work with the west and work with the states that are sanctioning it or have the inability to turn inwards. Now if it has no desire to work with the west, it generally will not respond to sanctions even if they are universal. This is because they can simply turn inwards and fund its own goods. If we were to sanction russia, literally every state on earth that would produce all of its own food, all of its own energy, and generally be able to operate effectively without the support of other states. This means that both these criteria are a single one of these criteria must be fulfilled for these sanctions to work alongside the universality. Because it's unlikely that any state on earth will actually meet these criteria, sanctions will just not work and hurt people in the long term. Additionally, they breed contempt which further reduces the incentives of governments to actually kowtow to sanctions. For instance, when we sanction iran, it is unclear why there's a link between a nuclear program and economic sanctions as such, the people of the state dislike the USA more and are actually going to support anti-USA actions like continuing in nuclear program as such, they do far more harm than good. My second argument is that they are unjust. First, they hurt the lowest off in society. When a state switches from their primary trading partner to a secondary trading partner things like wheat, things like bread, energy, increase in costs by ten, fifteen percent. For rich people this causes no real change in quality of life but for people making cents per day, this can lead to starvation and death as such, it is unjust to hurt the poorest in society simply cause you want the whole society to change particularly because the poorest don't usually have enough political power to cause the actions which justified the sanctions in the first place. Additionally, it generally breeds alternatives to the state. Not only does it mean that you'll turn to other states for help, you're likely to look inwards to build your own goods and as such, you will all that you will do it cause distortion in the market reducing overall efficiency. For this reason, that we should end the use of economic sanctions.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4]",15,"[45677971, 45567220, 13581319, 20225558, 45405037, 45567227, 45569485, 45458968, 28813722, 45190823, 45411178, 21785776, 44044795, 30777913, 20512953]"
ad52baa2-d009-4321-ba92-7864880d20af,3279,Blockade of the Gaza Strip should be ended,Human expert,"The blockade of the gaza strip should be ended. The arab-israeli conflict has cause profound harms throughout the middle east. We would say that the greatest victims of this conflict have been the citizens of each state. When the powerful government of israel necessarily has expressed its need for security by blockading gaza, its demands are understandable but ultimately futile and unethical. With that in mind, we would support the following model: that israel should immediately end the blockade of gaza. We would allow for some security measures to be in place to guarantee that weapons and other problematic contraband are not put into the gaza strip, which would otherwise destabilize the destabilize the region, but any attempts to block aid, any attempts to block conventional goods, must be ended immediately. I have two arguments in today's debate: first off on efficacy, and second on how this action is immoral. Now, we would say that blockading the gaza strip is not efficacious. Why is this the case? First off, let's talk about the opinions of palestinians. When you blockade food and blockade other goods which go to palestine, palestinian citizens necessarily get angry. As anyone would when you're telling them that they cannot get food because of the actions of another, they will always be angry at the one who is blockading them. They are unlikely to change their opinions of terrorist organizations in the area, simply because these organizations are not the ones harming them. In the same way that you'd be angry at your boss if they fired every single person because another person was mean to that boss, you're these individuals are angry at israel because they've decided to take sweeping legislation in response to terrorist organization. As such, palestinians will do one of two things. In the extreme case, they will join those terrorist organizations because they see israel as being inherently corrupt or violent towards them. This leads to greater instability in the region and greater deaths on both sides. The second thing that can happen is that palestinian citizens can be less willing to have peace or otherwise engage with israelis. We think the only way to end violence in the region is through discourse. And if palestinian citizens do not feel respected by israel, they will never actually have this discourse, and violence will continue ad infinitum. The second way that it reduces efficacy by having this blockade is the international perception of israel. We would say that things like the divestment movement have depended in large part because of the blockade. Furthermore, we would say that international condemnation has continually befallen israel because of its actions in gaza. By ending the blockade, israel can demonstrate to the world that it is done victimizing the citizens of the gaza strip. As such, they are more likely to get international investment, more likely to fight the divestment movement, and more likely to gain international support with states other than the US. My second argument is how this is immoral. While we think that blockading a terrorist group is justified, it is unacceptable to label the entirety of the gaza strip as a terrorist area. We think that the vast majority of citizens have no culpability in the violence which exists. In the same way, we would say that terrorist rhetoric which blames all israelis for the violence in the region and the occupation of the area, for the same reasons we would label that as fallacious and unacceptable, we would say that harming all palestinian citizens simply because some have caused terrorist actions is also immoral. We think that any blockade which restricts the access to food, restricts the access to essential goods, ultimately makes people starve just because one state wants to harm another, is necessarily unjustified and must end as soon as possible. With that in mind, the blockade of the gaza strip should be ended.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5]",15,"[45677971, 45567220, 13581319, 20225558, 45405037, 45567227, 45569485, 45458968, 19838540, 21785776, 28813722, 45190823, 43877630, 44044795, 30777913]"
e13305c1-c1f5-45fb-b899-62b65fb1e8cf,3492,We should further exploit natural gas,Human expert,"We should further exploit natural gas. Natural gas is considerably under-exploited in the status quo because it is been given a bad rap. It is been associated with coal and other considerably worse alternatives and as such, has not gotten the appreciation it deserves. By replacing a variety of our current tools that are powered by coal and other fossil fuels with natural gas, we are far more likely to improve their efficiency and to reduce the total release of fossil fuels. Three arguments for why we should further exploit natural gas. First, on how it is incredibly efficient second, on energy security and third about how there it is preferable to the alternatives but first, a brief model. Natural gas generally should be subsidized to a massive degree. We would say that is price should be reduced by about fifteen percent of what it currently is and tools which use natural gas instead of using things like coal should be replaced and subsidized as well. Once again three arguments: first off on how it is incredibly efficient. Natural gas holds a mass amount of energy in each unit compared to other forms of fossil fuels and alternative energy. By having an incredibly efficient fuel source we can do a couple things. First, we are far more likely to see more efficient usage in places that are or in places that have no energy in the status quo. A disturbing portion of the world goes without electricity on a daily basis and cannot power common infrastructure like hospitals and schools because it does not have enough energy to be used because it does not have the resources to access things like natural gas. Through subsidization will do a few things. First it will expand its usage overall. Things that will replace other forms of energy and as such, improve the total efficiency of our industry. This reduces all prices. When food costs go down because agricultural tech decreases in price, when transportation costs go down cause transportation decreases in price, everything decreases in price. Literally everything needs to be transported costs less and as things like homes decrease in price because it costs less to heat them. You also see a correlation between that and general improvements within the economy. Additionally, as we subsidize it and the use in the market expands, we'll see more innovation and its extraction and usage and as such it's price will decrease. This means that people in poverty, this means that the global poor are far more likely to have access to it to expand their homes and communities generally improving their quality of life. My second argument is about energy security. Because natural gas is incredibly abundant throughout the world this means that instead of other fossil fuels where only one or two countries can use it, a variety of countries will have access to natural gas and sell it on the global market. With a variety of suppliers available, no single state will be able to leverage its supply to pressure other individual states to take certain political actions. This improves total sovereignty and generally makes the world a better place as we believe that the best arbiters of individual good and the ways of a particular government are citizens of that government. Now my third argument is how it is preferable to a variety of alternatives. Natural gas while not the perfect tool, is better than other fossil fuels to a massive degree. It is more efficient and releases less carbon and other pollution into the atmosphere. Although it is not as good as alternative energy in terms of its cleanliness, small steps are necessary to create a wider net of change. We believe that as you empower individuals who are moderates in terms of energy security and energy policy you're far more likely to disempower the extremist, disempower the coal thumping individuals, and generally lead to a future which can take small steps towards alternative energy and a clean energy system overall. For this reason, we should further exploit natural gas.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[45185975, 45191882, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 13581319, 28813722, 20312760, 29155723, 45355658, 45411178, 20512953, 6340330, 15448937, 33708599]"
726b99ac-5125-463b-b52b-711065d02860,3699,We should abolish primary elections,Human expert,"We should abolish primary elections. Primary elections represent one of the worst features of our democracy. They are anti-democratic, are not representative of the general election and, ultimately, play to the extremists within a population. But because we think the united states' election system is so fundamentally flawed, we would support the following model: that the united states should adopt a parliamentary system. Parliamentary systems typically do not have primary elections, as you don't really vote in politicians as much as you vote for the party, who then nominates a particular individual. Three reasons why this is a good idea: first, on gridlock. The current system we have of two parties, where only a single individual can win in any given election, is incredibly problematic. A few reasons why: first, we think that two parties means that there can be winners and losers that are very easily defined. Now this is very problematic. If the democrats are trying to pass a bill, it is always good for the republicans to try to block that bill. This is because a loss for the democrats in terms of faith from the public is always good for the republicans, even if they lose faith as well, as long as they lose less faith. We think that a system which incentivizes sabotage and incentivizes pushing the government to a halt when the other party's in power is very problematic. The parliamentary system does not do this. If I want to sabotage another party, I can. This will hurt both my party and their party, but a third, fourth, or fifth party will then fill in that void, rather than me gaining everything that the other party loses. Essentially, our system is a zero-sum game which inherently leads to gridlock, while the parliamentary system is not. Additionally, we think that the current system is all about getting a super majority, winning as many elections as possible. The parliamentary system is largely about compromise. It's parties working together to get similar goals passed. We think that larger parties can stay more true to their goals and can stay more true to their platform as they have greater leverage in these kinds of negotiations. And as such, we think you still maintain the democratic nature but also force parties to work together. This leads me to my second argument about how parliamentary systems are inherently more democratic. In the status quo, we the primary elections occur from individuals who are the most extremist in the party. We see this on both the left and the right. Democrats cater almost exclusively to their most extreme base when they try to win the primary elections, cause those are the people who turn out and because they don't need to win any republican votes. Conversely, republicans appeal to the most right-wing, extremist, warhawk individuals possible and as such, both parties look odd or awkward going into the election. The result of a primary election is either that a: the candidate lied in the primary election, is not nearly extreme as they say, or b: that the candidate simply loses in the election because they are extreme as they say, and that just does not win the general. A parliamentary system will always be better as it allows people to easily identify the issues and the issues that the party stands for and as such, vote in favor of them, rather than having a candidate who flip-flops or is otherwise problematic. It's also more democratic by having a multiparty system with more options. We think the choice of democrat or republican can largely be a vacuous choice, and it's very important for other parties to come to power to create more choices for the people. My third argument is that the voting system is inherently problematic insofar as you do not vote for the principles as much as the person in the current system. With a parliamentary system, you elect the party, who can then appoint people to certain seats. This is considerably better as it makes it so it's all about the issues. The party does not really have a face, the party doesn't really have a voice or a height and as such, you only vote on the issues. In american elections, we largely see the taller candidate winning, the more attractive candidate winning. This is problematic and leads to worse policymaking overall. For this reason, we should abolish primary elections.","[4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 3]",15,"[45538225, 44690955, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 45191882, 45206691, 45189900, 45401087, 45181384, 45190571, 45181383, 44094031, 20225558]"
83b2d816-cd4c-4387-a523-eba3bc261a34,3759,Tattoos should be banned,Human expert,"Tattoos should be banned. Ultimately, tattoos are a refusal of consent from your future self. They are an indelible mark you put upon yourself which can never be changed, even if they harm you going into the future. We believe that tattoos are largely unjust and that they could have undo social effects on the individuals who get them and as such, we think it is just for the government to step in and change the way that individuals operate within the tattoo space. We think that there are always alternatives, such as temporary tattoos. We believe that tattoos never meaningfully increase someone's quality of life compared to the potential harms of using them. As such, we would propose the following model: that the united states federal government should go after individuals who provide tattoos. This means that a decently large fine for the first time you are caught, followed by potential jail time for future times and a increasing fine every single time you're caught giving a tattoo. We want to absolutely remove the financial motive behind this kind of action. Additionally, they'll be a small fine for individuals who get tattoos. So if individuals go to another state to get a tattoo or if they get a tattoo after the law is passed, we would still fine them. The only exemptions we would put are religious tattoos or tattoos with a strong cultural meaning beyond just its aesthetic value. This means that tattoos themselves must be a part of the culture. It can't just be a cultural tattoo. My first argument is about consent. Let's discuss the standard of a ban and when the government can take action on behalf of private individuals. We believe that there are three questions that need to be answered when deciding if there will be a ban. First is their predictability of harm. We believe that if the results of the tattoo are predictable that it would be just for people to have them. We'd say that there's not really a strong level of predictability. There's an asymmetry of information given that, a: it's incredibly difficult to check if the individual has the resources to make sure that there's no danger in the tattoo room, but additionally, we think it's impossible to predict what the tattoo will look like going into the future, how it will look when you age, how it'll look when it hits the sun and starts to bleach out. Generally, the lack of predictability makes it just for the government to ban them. Secondly, though, we think that there is a total removal of consent from your future self. This is unacceptable, given that this is not a reversible practice. The ultimate result of this is that you revoke the ability of your future self to self-actualize, which ought not be allowed. We'd say the general result of this, the result of government inaction, then, is a failure on behalf of government, which leads to a decrease in the in individuals faith in government and in civic engagement. Additionally, we think that the failure of regulation largely means that individuals feel more justified in self-regulation and taking individual unilateral action against individuals they feel like are being unjust. My second argument is about the social effects of tattoos. We believe that tattoos are stigmatized in a huge number of circles, that there's inherent prejudice against tattoos, and that they can be incredibly problematic in the long term. This is an inherent issue with tattoos that can never be solved for and as such, the government should protect citizens by banning them outright. Additionally, we think that there's certain tattoos which are incredibly problematic, which we also would like to regulate, but can't without outright banning them. We think that face tattoos can lead to a total loss of autonomy and loss of financial efficacy, which we think the government ought prevent, and we think that offensive tattoos push individuals into a life of offensive behavior. Even if they want to change, they will always be branded as a bigot if they get an offensive tattoo. As such, tattoos should be banned.","[2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 3, 2, 4, 5, 3, 4, 4, 3, 4]",15,"[45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 45458968, 20512953, 15448937, 21017840, 45355658, 34110399, 30777913, 6340330, 33708599, 27770607, 34609243, 45405037]"
a6f8de87-fc55-496a-a0a1-4c3667bb5904,2108,Surrogacy should be banned,Human expert,"Surrogacy should be banned. When a woman gets pregnant it's one of the most dramatic things that her body can undergo in her entire life, impacting her hormones, her ability to sleep, her ability to eat, the medicine that she takes, her ability to work and almost every factor of her life during that time, and it only gets more dramatic pregnancy goes on. I think that this is dramatically coercive system in which women are paid to bear children, without entirely knowing the risks that they can take on, and once they do, having no ability to opt out of this system because they cannot abort the child nor can they reverse the fact that they're pregnant. So this is what I'm going to talk about: why the systems are so coercive and why in this instance the government should step in and ban surrogacy contracts. So, why is this unique from any other system that is coercive on individuals? We think that individuals should not be able to give away their autonomy or their bodily autonomy into the future. We don't think that individuals are good at understanding that , understanding the impacts of their present actions on their future self and the amount of pain or pleasure that their actions may have on them in the future which is why we don't think that people should be able to have contracts that sell themselves into slavery no matter how desperate they may be for money. It's because there's no way to undo something once you've given up your ability to choose for yourself or to have your own bodily autonomy and therefore those contracts can't be outdone undone. Unlike say, if you accept a job, you're able to undo the fact that you accepted a job you don't like or one that doesn't fulfill what you need in your life by simply quitting the job. It might be something that you don't want to do, but unlike a pregnancy which is what happens under surrogacy contracts, there's no way to reverse that other than breaking the contract in a way that harms the fetus and harms the people that were relying on you once you had that child. More importantly, we think that these contracts often target the most underprivileged women. Women that otherwise wouldn't be able to feed themselves, feed their families, keep them keep a roof over their heads. People that are most desperate society are the ones that are most likely to take these contracts because one, they're often the most misinformed about what actually happens during pregnancy or what might happen to one's body, what the cost of that might be long term after even after the pregnancy is done, and two, they're the group most likely to accept this sort of drastic action in favor of getting this money. We think that this is an especially coercive system that is simply a means for people to utilize women who are in the lower classes in order to avoid having a pregnancy themselves, or in some cases allowing a person to arr, allowing a gay couple or a lesbian couple to adopt. Now, that is something that's important is that these people should also be able to have children , for themselves. The issue here is that we think that perfectly viable options such as adoption exist that allow people to have children and also allow people to remove the suffering that people who are in need of adoption face. Adoptees are often the people that have the least access to education, to toys, to a good upbringing, to a childhood that is one that can set them up for future success, and when one adopts rather than goes through a surrogacy, you don't bring a new life into the world but rather you ensure that a life that's already in the world is able to receive loving parents and opportunities in the future. So given that individuals who couldn't conceive on their own have the perfectly viable alternative of adoption, it's unfair to women for women to be coerced into this system for often less money than it's truly worth their time in their effort and the amount of medical expenses that they go through. When there's a perfectly reasonable trade off such as adoption for individuals that do are desperate to have a child, we think that we shouldn't allow as a government and as a society, for the most vulnerable women in our society to be taken advantage of for the good of those who have other means of achieving these things. There are other ways for people and women to be given help. Social welfare exists, other job opportunities exist, but all these things are things you can opt out of where as a surrogacy contract is something that you simply cannot reverse and this is why surrogacy should be banned.","[4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 3, 5, 4, 4]",15,"[45953041, 45191885, 45458968, 21017840, 34110399, 20512953, 15448937, 28813722, 45167145, 19838540, 45355658, 6340330, 30777913, 34609243, 45181383]"
e674e705-3fb3-4f6f-a1f8-a9d562968c53,2124,We should subsidize higher education,Human expert,"We should subsidize higher education. We believe that there is a right to education that can only be fulfilled by not only allowing for primary education but also for free university and secondary education for all. We think that this right exist for a couple of reasons: the most important reason that this right exists is because of what the obligation to state are to the people and why the state exist generally in the first place. We think that the state exist in order to provide for equal access to opportunity for its citizens. Individuals are born into the circumstances that are outside of their control, meaning that random chance determines many factors that will place them and determine what opportunities they have such as the money that their family has that they're born into, their race, their gender, and other such factors that impede them in both the way that people treat them through biases but also through just the ability that they have to get a good education, good tutoring, access to jobs, things of the like. So what do we think a free secondary education does? Free secondary education allows for all people to have access not just to low paying service sector jobs but also to higher paying specialized jobs such as those in growing tech industries, in medical industries, legal industries, things that allow individuals to exceed what their ordinary circumstances would have allowed. Because many people have the ability to be educated many people do well in high school and primary education but don't have the opportunity to go further because they don't have the means to pay for that and while colleges to subsidize individuals we think that this isn't enough to ensure that the most people can go and it simply doesn't do enough level playing for as the state is obliged to do. Further, even if even if you don't believe that there's a right to education per se at this level, we think that there's no meaningful distinction between the delineation we make between the education we give to elementary primary and secondary education and that education that you would achieve from a university. There's no major distinction between the educational barriers or the educational benefits that come between these two parts, except that there's a greater benefit the more educated one is, because of the job opportunities available to them. Given that this is the case, we don't think there's any reasonable distinction to be drawn between the two and if we believe as we do in a society that does fund these types of education, that you should fund primary and secondary education, there's no meaningful reason why you ought not continue to fund , university education. Furthermore, there's an important benefit to society that comes from these things and namely that when you allow people to exceed what their expectations would be otherwise you break cycles of poverty that are incredibly costly to the state. People that live in these impoverished situations benefit from state welfare programs for a long period of time, which is a major expenditure for states that would be avoided if more individuals were able to break out of the cycle of poverty that are dictated by their circumstances when they're born. Given that higher education allows you to get off of things like food stamps programs, medic-aid programs, free health and social service programs, we think that the state in the long run will save money by investing money now into people's futures so that they can build for themselves the lives tey want. Also, why do we think that this is going to be an affordable program? So we think that there are many ways of doing this in which you can be more affordable than simply paying for every single person to go to high-school or go to college. We think that there are ways to ensure that when people can afford to pay they do pay so that they subsidize other individuals, but that for, say, state universities that education is made free to anyone, or the amount of money that they can feasibly pay is the only amount of money that they need to pay so that all need is met by the state universities in in essence subsidizing these things to a great extent. You can also make state universities free and provide for these money, for these institutions through money that's spent in other ways such as money that goes to these, social welfare services and things like that, especially because in the long run those services are going to be less costly to the state. So may cost a little bit of money in the in the current term, you may have to take on deficits but that's worth in the long run. You can also subsidize these schools up front in a way that's called pay it forward, where individuals are able to go to university for free and for a certain amount of years after they graduate pay a certain percentage of their income, maybe ten percent of their income each month, to the university that they went to so that they never have to take on a debt burden that they can't afford, they never take on massive student loans to go to university and they can go to the university of their choosing without having to pay money in the instances where they have no job, they have no disposable income, they're the least able to pay for their college university experience. And they can go on to the future and actually get proper value based on how much money that degree served them. And for these reasons we think that we should subsidize college education.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 45336993, 45189900, 45361788, 45458968, 45206691, 45336988, 20512953, 43877630, 45411178, 30777913, 6340330, 15448937, 45185946]"
d75eb580-b86a-4504-9206-8d79d67b5bb6,2166,We should legalize sex selection,Human expert,"We should legalize sex selection. At the beginning of this debate, it's important to recognize that the reasons that someone would choose to have an abortion because of the sex of their child, or would choose to, prior to being pregnant trying to select the sex of their child, the reasons for this are wide and varied, and we think that many of these are culturally dependent and built into the ways in which people have been raised over the course of their entire lives. So recognizing it at the beginning in this debate, it's incredibly difficult to change the mentality that these people have, and to change the culture that drives people to having the sort of abortions or doing the sort of procedures. So, that is crucial to recognize at the very start. Given that that is the case, we think there are two reasons that you should legalize sex selection. The first is about bodily autonomy, and the second is a bit about how the lives of these children if this isn't passed, or if this legislation or if this legalization doesn't happen, why the lives of children that are going to be born are going to be on net worse. Okay. Two things. First, bodily autonomy. We think that anyone that is pregnant has the right to abort that pregnancy at any given moment due to their claim to bodily autonomy. We think that bodily autonomy is the most important right that an individual has, because it is the prior right to the access of any other rights. What I mean by this is that in order to access your rights to freedom of speech, to mobility, to access to economic capital, any of these sorts of things, what is required prior to that is the right to bodily autonomy. And we think that, because this individual is currently able to access that right and not only access that right, but because this individual compared to the fetus, has a much higher claim to that right, because they are a cognizant of the fact that their rights exist because they're able to act upon those rights because they have been afforded those rights for sometime, and because for for many reasons the fetus up to a point of viability simply cannot be weighed in the same sense as the mother can. So we think that, for, we think that bodily autonomy is necessary to access all of these other rights and to force women to go through these births when they don't want to because of the gender of their child, is problematic. But, from there it's important to think about what happens if these abortions or if these procedures are not allowed. We think that what's likely to happen is that, two major things. First, we think this child might be abandonned, which is , a horrible fate to happen to a child. This can happen either if this child being forced into an orphanage or something like that into a state that is likely not very good, somewhere where they're unlikely to get the education and the sort of foundational building of their life that allows them to be successful in the future, but also an environment that is likely to tell them that they're unwanted. If they're not abandoned, or in some cases killed, what's likely to happen is this person is going to take this child into their house without really wanting this child, you think what comes from this is first fueling anger towards this child, the feeling that this child is to blame for the fact that they didn't get the gender of child that they want, that this child is lesser than what they otherwise could have had, and we think that putting blame and putting anger towards this child is likely going to give them a life that is problematic, that sets them down a path where they're unlikely to be happy moving into the future. Recognize how foundational parents and upbringing are to future happiness in an individual. We don't think that life is by de facto, oh claim a good thing to have. We don't think that life is always going to be enjoyable for the person experiencing that life. And we think that, a reason that this can happen, a reason that someone could have an on net disutile life, is because of those foundational things that a parent presents and raises their child believing. If a child is raised in a household where they're said they're to blame for all the agony and all the pain that the mother had to go through, if they're blamed for the fact that they are not a boy and, or rather a girl, or for any of these types of things, if they're constantly belittled because of their gender, we think that these are things that are very likely to happen when the anger that occurs in these people who are not allowed to get abortions happens, and from there we think it's very likely that these people are going to live much less utile lives than otherwise, they than otherwise an alternative child if this legislation were to pass could have had. And because of this, we think it is necessary to legalize sex selection","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 4, 5]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 31948170, 45411178, 45458968, 45191882, 45206691, 45189900, 45361788, 45185975, 45185946, 29155723, 45191885, 19838540, 15448937]"
b7d4533c-d5a2-4693-9de0-c86aa66c0184,2402,We should close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp,Human expert,"We should close the guantanamo bay detention camp. So, we want to be clear about how we think this is going to occur. There are still dozens of the individuals that are that are interned in guantanamo bay, and we're going to have two main prongs to our model. The first is that if trials are possible, if there's enough evidence that someone could even feasibly go to trial, we would put these people on trial, we would do this in a civilian rather than a military court, because we think there are there's more openness, there's more opportunity for people to get a fair defense in the civilian court, and therefore we think that this is only just, especially given that these individuals are for the most part not military members. And secondly, if there isn't enough evidence to even bring these individuals to trial, we would say that they would just be returned to their homes, will be given will be put back into their home country and they would be allowed to go free. Ok. Two main arguments. The first is on morality, and the second is on legalism and international relations. So on morality. We think that most prisoners in guantanamo bay are currently held without substantial evidence to charge them, or any sort of real reason that they are in there. They didn't deserve the internment that they're currently experiencing, and on top of the fact that they are being detained, which in and of itself is unjust, the conditions of their detainment is simply inhumane and what this means is that people are denied basic human rights, and are given are subject to things such as torture that go against major international law, and go against our fundamental moral code. We think that, from a deontological framework, human beings are not deserving of this kind of inhumane treatment, and this can be seen as codified in liberal democracies across the world. And even if you want to take on a utilitarian framework of morality, torture is shown time and again to be an ineffective means of getting information from people, of getting information that could stop terrorist attacks or things of this nature, and given that there's no real gain to torturing and detaining these individuals in this prison, we don't think that there's any sort of moral justification to leave them interned. But the second thing we want talk about is the international relations surrounding guantanamo bay, and why it's so problematic for the united states. So firstly, the united states, over its history, has constructed a large amount of the current international law such that exists in the world, such as the geneva conventions and certain human rights conventions that have been signed onto by the united states. We would say that in a world in which guantanamo bay exists, the united states loses the moral high ground that allows it to enforce those international laws. It means that when american citizens and american civilians are detained by states that these people are subject to torture and are subject to poor treatment by these states, and this means that in having guantanamo bay, without any sort of positive gains from it, it puts americans at risk of the inhumane treatment that we cause to others. It also angers many people in the international world from individuals from individual countries in europe, which if you are a human rights treatment is abhorrent, to middle eastern and north african countries whose citizens are subject to detainment in guantanamo bay. This means that in that individual countries are less likely to want to work with the united states in the international sphere, and it means the united states loses much of its standing abroad. Finally, we think that guantanamo bay, for the most part, serves as propaganda for terror cells in the status quo. Terrorists can point to guantanamo bay to show that this the united states doesn't care about human rights, it doesn't care about civilians that aren't their own civilians, and they can paint the united states as this great evil, and show the factual evidence of guantanamo bay as a site where torture routinely takes place and human rights are routinely ignored. Given that it causes immense international harms, and that morally guantanamo bay is repugnant and unjustifiable, we should close the guantanamo bay detention camp.","[5, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[45483811, 43877630, 45361788, 29155723, 31948170, 44094031, 27770607, 45397152, 45191885, 45185946, 38202325, 20312760, 45169947, 34609243, 6367365]"
31fd38fa-89c5-4675-abf7-8ff55cbec329,2465,We should further exploit small modular reactors,Human expert,"We should further exploit small modular reactors. When we say we're going to further exploit the small modular reactors, we mean that we should further increase our use of these things, both in more remote areas that struggle to get their electrical needs and for businesses, large manufacturing areas that require immense amounts of electricity that may want to move off the grid, and we think that this should be subsidized in large part by the government in order for people to adopt these things en masse. Okay. So, two reasons why we think that small modular reactors are good: first is that nuclear energy is generally quite clean as compared to fossil fuels and and other alternative energies, and the second is about the immense energy potential and why this is so important, especially moving forward in a developing world. Okay. So, on clean energy: compared to fossil fuels, nuclear reactors and small modular reactors having much lower impact on the environment. They don't because the type of deforestation and environmental degradation that fracking and other types of drilling cause. They don't require you to clear out large swathes of land in order to use these types of things, and they don't create the excess CO two that leads to global warming. This is crucial, because it's important to recognize that global warming is not only happening, but it's happening dramatically and quickly and that we need to quickly shift away from what we're doing in the status quo in order to prevent the worst effects of global warming from happening. In order to do this, we need to take advantage of all of all the resources that are available to us for renewable energy. We can't just we can't just resort to solar and wind and say that the job is done. We need to try and move the entire grid off of fossil fuels as quickly as possible. To do this, we think that small modular reactors are going to be a necessary way of enacting these changes, especially in areas that are much more remote than others, that aren't able to get access to these other types of renewable energy, for example, in areas where wind power and solar power simply is not going to meet the burden. It's also important to recognize that meltdowns generally are quite rare. So when the opposition may say that small modular reactors are bad because you're more likely to get a meltdown, firstly, these are actually less likely and more efficient than large nuclear facilities to have a meltdown, and the rates of some sort of a meltdown are incredibly low compared to, for example, the likelihood of an oil spill from an oil rig contaminating and ruining the environment for decades to come. These things happen much more likely, yet we don't completely force people to to flee from fossil fuels. We think that we have a comparatively cleaner technology that we should adopt, especially due to the impacts of global warming. Secondly, on the immense energy potential. The type of energy creation this is the type of energy creation that can be done in almost any environment. So unlike other types of renewable fuels and other types of fossil fuels, you don't really need to have any sort of particular geographical advantage in order to use a small modular reactors. They also be lower cost of energy than almost any other source once you get the energy up and running. Once you have a bulk use of small modular reactors, they're much easier to create, on the cheap, per kilowatt of energy than other types of energy, and this is why we should try to subsidize these things. So that we can get the market up to scale in order to make it efficient enough and cheap enough to be worthwhile. We would say that the grid is only going to be more heavily used in the future as more and more people become developed and start needing the electricity to live a modern life. Given that this is the case, we're going to need more to power the future, and it needs to be done more efficiently than possible or than has previously been done and is certainly being done in the status quo. In order to do this, we think a clean technology such as nuclear is a smart way to go and for these reasons, we should further exploit small modular reactors.","[4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5]",15,"[45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 45458968, 45355658, 20512953, 15448937, 28813722, 21017840, 34110399, 30777913, 19838540, 6340330, 45169947, 45405037]"
b07a8825-1e3d-4a41-ad7f-088fca84d8e8,2482,We should limit the use of birth control,Human expert,"We should limit the use of birth control. In this round we want to make our model clear. We think that as a society we should try to abstain from using birth control of all forms whether it's the pill, whether it's a condom, whether it's other types of birth control all acts, all types. We want to limit access legally to those who are over eighteen unless they have the permission of their parent to have birth control and we think it would be better as a general norm that people did not use birth control as frequently. So this may sound counterintuitive, but we're going to make two broad arguments. The first is that you have a less sexualized culture and we're going to explain why that's better, and second, we're going to talk about more parental control. So we think generally this motion is largely impacting those that are of younger ages because when people are older they have the ability to make these choices largely for themselves because of the way we've set up the model but we think that young people today growing up are growing up in a hyper-sexual culture one in which there's huge pressures to have sex. We think it's very difficult to internalize the emotional impact of that action as a young person. Many people who are growing up in this culture don't understand that being in a sexual relationship, being vulnerable in that sexual relationship, having a healthy sexual relationship, how difficult these things are and how they can be emotionally and mentally draining and how in bad scenarios people can end up in really bad emotional and mental states. We think it's better to check against the potential of long term long term sexual emotional issues and suspend that pressure as much as possible. By limiting the access to birth control, we think you deter the amount of people that are ultimately going to try and have sex. We think that when you have fewer people having sex, you end up having a less sexualized culture because if fewer people are sexually active, that's fewer people in places like high schools, in places like in extracurriculars that young people are involved, we think that they're less likely to be talking about their sexual relationships to be putting implicit pressure on others to be involved in a sexual relationship because simply there's going to be fewer people that can have safe sex. Some may say that this is going to lead to more unprotected sex but we think that in the status quo, there are already plenty of people that have that and there's plenty deterrence against that because because of the impacts of a potential unwanted pregnancy. So we think that you're more likely to have a larger decrease in people that are creating the sexualized culture than you are people resulting in unwanted pregnancies. Secondly more parental control. We think that parents are the most informed people about their children. They almost always have the best interest of their child in mind because of that close connection that one has as a parent to a child. Parents know if their children are ready for a sexual relationship and we think legally limiting the use of birth control to people that are over eighteen is preferable because it means that you're setting this bar at which people generally are able to make safe choices, are able to make responsible choices but below that age, we think it's questionable whether someone really is able to consent into a sexual relationship, to fully understand what that means. But parents are those that are probably most likely to understand whether or not a child is ready for that and while it may be difficult to talk to your parents about sex, we think it's better to be doing that than to try and run around behind one's parent's back and make decisions that a person is going to regret in the future. There's no clear right to birth control. There's no clear right to have as much protected sex you want. But we think what parents do have is a right to raise their child in the way that they see fit, to raise their child with a moral with a moral life and a moral upbringing in the way that they see best and for these reasons, we should limit the use of birth control.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 3]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 31948170, 45189900, 45361788, 45336993, 20225558, 45185946, 45336988, 45206691, 45185975, 45191882, 45411178, 45190823, 6340330]"
47a9c51c-d6ca-4da5-915c-2df6a4425693,2496,We should adopt a zero tolerance policy in schools,Human expert,"We should adopt a zero tolerance policy in schools. So, firstly, we think that the policy would address things specifically like drugs and gun usage and violence, ensuring that images of the these things wouldn't be allowed on school property. And, of course, if these things were ever found on school property, on someone's person, a weapon or drugs of any kind, they would be immediately suspended. As far as the punishment that we think is appropriate, we think it would be a sliding scale based on, firstly, the degree that the offense was of, and secondly, whether or not it was a multi-time offender. So if someone does something, like bring drug paraphernalia into a school, the first time they may receive a two-week suspension, the second time they may receive a longer suspension. Finally, we think that if this is repeated offenses, expulsion is probably necessary. We think that we don't want to include things that are that are not currently illegal in the status quo, because we think in those areas there should be discretion. But recognize that in most of these instances, these types of things, the types of things that are promoted, whether it's by a tee shirt that promotes drug usage or images of violence and images of gun usage, we think it promotes these types of things on school property, these types of illegal things. And as the school is an arm of the state, has an obligation to introduce individuals, specifically young people, to the norms of the state, to what is acceptable within the public sphere, we think that it's clear that the schools have an obligation to set a very firm message by introducing zero tolerance policies in such a way that it shows students, at a very young age, introduces them to those cultural norms that these things are generally not acceptable. We think that certain things warrant this high level of scrutiny, because that aside from the fact that there's messaging that schools do, we think that it's also important because you want to ensure that there is a safe environment for the students that are learning there. We think that the educational system is, first and foremost, meant to educate the young people that go through it and that if you don't provide them with a safe and non-hostile learning environment, we think that it's very difficult for individuals to achieve that goal, to do what they're meant to do when they go to these school systems. We think that being surrounded by things like drugs and guns is something that is very clearly going to be impeding to their progress, to the individual's progress, within these school systems. And given that this is the case, we think that you need to ensure that if these things ever show up, ever emerge in the school system, that they're immediately stamped out. We also think that zero tolerance policies are more likely to deter people from doing these types of things. We think that if it's the we think it's unlikely that most people are going to bring in things like guns to a school anyway, but we think it's possible that people will go into a school with drugs and oftentimes, they may go into schools with images of these things. We think that if you send this message, you're far more likely to deter people, to ensure that these types of incidents that otherwise probably would have been punished anyway don't happen in the first place, which means that you don't need to take more punishment measures against more individuals. It's a way of acting before these types of harms are done to ensure that people have the most safe and welcoming experience within the schools that they're found, within the schools that they find themselves. We think that it's incredibly important that the students have this understanding and the safety and that they're deterred from doing these things. We think, finally, that the safety of these students outweighs, so even if you think that there's some sort of harshness to these policies, that context is important, we think that by introducing these types of very stiff penalties, you're less likely to have the very rare occasions in which individuals may do things that could cause violence or could cause damage in these schools. We think that by sending these messages you're less likely in the even if in it's in a minute set of instances, the harm that could be done in those instances is incredibly problematic. We think that you'd rather take every step possible to divert those types of harms, especially in the instances of drugs and guns. For these reasons, we should adopt zero tolerance policies in schools.","[4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5]",15,"[45677971, 45567220, 45569485, 45538225, 45567227, 45458968, 21785776, 45181243, 45181256, 45181253, 45181262, 44044795, 45355658, 30777913, 15448937]"
4ecbdf41-7485-4903-923d-0a9836dd746f,2654,We should protect whistleblowers,Human expert,"We should protect whistle blowers. When we say we're going to protect whistleblowers, what we're going to do is we're going to ensure that there are certain rights protections that are put in place when someone reveals some sort of classified government information for particular reasons. So, what we mean by this is that a whistleblower is not just some government spy handing data over to state enemies. It's not just an opportunist who sees some way of making quick money off of sensitive information. It's someone that is genuinely putting forward information because fear fear of what the government is doing, and because they want to illuminate the public. They want the public to be aware of these things. In those instances and, yes, it's nebulous to define those, but in those instances, we would make it difficult for the government to prosecute. We would set an incredibly high standard that needs to be met to say that someone doesn't meet the protections of whistle blower, and we think that this is going to have a number of good impacts to protect from government malpractice. We think that whistle blowers exist because the government often does things behind closed doors that either go behind the go beyond the scope of the government or are overtly corrupt: so either, government practices, government policies, that are unknown to the public that go beyond what the government should be allowed to do or are based on individual corrupt actors. Because a political operative has an immense amount of cover and security for their actions, not only do they behave in a in a particular playing field in which they're given an immense amount of resources, the benefit of the doubt, connections with people that are in power, but they also often do these types of things behind closed doors, so it's already difficult to find out. So, it's often impossible to discern corrupt behavior from the outside. You need someone like a whistleblower, who is within the operation, who's within the operative's live, and within the operative's line of work, that can inform the public about the wrongdoing. When it comes to sensitive state information, like the fact that the US has been, for a long time now, spying on its citizens and doing bulk data collection of its citizens, classified information prevents that stuff prevents information about those programs from falling into non-governmental hands. As a populace, we know that sometimes that things need to be classified, that there are certain government actions that are only capable of being done if they are classified, and do protect the citizenry. But we should want a system in which when the government goes too far, when the government has done something that falls beyond it's constitutional allowance or falls beyond what what the populace voted into office, what the populace popularly wanted to have occur, that someone would make us aware of those things. Because if you don't have a whistleblower, these things can go on for decades without any sort of check. Having whistleblower protections makes it far easier for concerned citizens to come out and make government malpractice known. It makes it easier for those people to have the security and to know: if I reveal this I don't have to abandon my whole life. I don't need to flee to russia or to ecuador or some other country, and I don't need to abandon everything that I've known in the world just because I'm doing what I think is morally the right thing to do. What do we think the impacts of this are? You get a more informed voter base, which means when government malpractice occurs, the voter base is aware of it, and they can determine whether or not we genuinely believe that the government is acting properly or new people need to be brought in to to repeal the old guard. It also forces the public to pay closer attention to government action. When you highlight the instances of government malpractice, we think it incentivizes people to look further into the government, because they become more aware that the government is behaving in these negative ways. We think a more informed voter base is always good. Yes, sometimes information is going to be released on our in our world where we wouldn't want that to be released, but I would rather live in a world in which there's a little more information out there for potential political enemies of the state to use than a world in which when government malpractice occurs, the population has no way of knowing about it. For these reasons, we should protect whistleblowers.","[5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 2, 4, 5, 5, 2, 4]",15,"[45190823, 20225558, 45181383, 45191873, 45272708, 45181152, 28813722, 45405037, 29155723, 45206691, 6432269, 15448937, 22345789, 45181253, 45181256]"
21d9b999-97f1-4c24-a6be-4e3e41467508,2679,We should disband UNESCO,Human expert,"We should disband unesco. Unesco is a united nations organization that's built around the idea of fostering education, global peace, global justice, and preserving our combined cultural heritage. We think that this is a fairly noble purpose, but the problem with unesco is not in its purpose but in its execution, and for these reasons we believe it should be disbanded. So the two main arguments we're going to make is that unesco is overly politicized in the status quo and can't fulfill its job, and the second is that it has a bad organizational history. So, on the politicization: the purpose of unesco is to foster this type of international cooperation. However, in order to do this effectively, in order to really bring countries together and share our cultural heritage, it must provide a fair and balanced balanced view of all parties. Over its history, unesco has made decisions that have been highly politicized, including perceived antagonism toward israel and preferences for china. These are things that are highly politicized acts in the world involving highly politicized countries, countries like israel and china that are major figures on the world stage and have a real impact on how alliances view unesco and how many countries view unesco. These types of actions create an environment in which the larger work of the body becomes diluted. Awarding grants and world heritage sites world heritage site designations become a political act rather than a cultural and collective human act, and it becomes something that's perceived by governments as something that's being done for political reasons. It becomes a talking point of governments and of government officials to say that their country is either being antagonized or their enemy is being given unfair gains, amd these are things that we think undermine the entire purpose of unesco as an organization. It further it further separates countries rather than bringing them together. This type of body can exist. One that fulfills the duty of unesco we believe can exist, but preserving unesco precludes any sort of resources or political will to create such an alternative body. Dissolving unesco means it's much more likely that an improve body comes to exist in the future. And this is something that we think is vital, given the importance of unesco's mission and the overall failure of unesco to do it in the status quo. So, let's also talk about the bad organizational history of unesco. Unesco has a history of corruption dating back throughout the organization's history. From the very inception of the organization, things like grants going to particular countries or overpaying executives has been going on throughout the organization. This is something that is getting money from the united nations from organization countries, and these this organization is spending large portions of that money that's meant to be furthering their mission statement, that's meant to be doing good in the world, and is instead going to executive compensation and going to croniest croniest areas where grant money is spent inefficiently. This inefficient spending outweighs the limited benefits because combined with the fact that there could be an alternative organization using this money, we think domestically this money could be used in a better way if it's used more efficiently. Money is a single it's it's a sunk money cannot be spent in multiple ways multiple times, and given that it is a fungible asset, we think it would be preferable if this asset was used in developing countries internally rather than trying to give it to an organization that has, over its history, done things like have corrupt practices and overpaid executives wildly. We think that unesco and its mission are important, but we think it simply fails in the status quo. And for these reasons, we should disband unesco.","[5, 4, 5, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 6432269, 45569485, 45567227, 45567220, 45677971, 45458968, 44094031, 45411178, 19838540, 33708599, 44690955, 6340330, 30777913]"
9550db49-5e96-4e8f-b64c-36086e7f88a1,2689,We should subsidize Wikipedia,Human expert,"We should subsidize wikipedia. Wikipedia is a free and open encyclopedia on the internet. It can be edited by basically anyone and, yes, there's a review process. It's not just like those edits will stay without some sort of review by general volunteers that work with wikipedia or wikipedia staff. Wikipedia does not cost a whole lot of money to run despite the fact that it has a huge amount of internet traffic, and it isn't actually profitable given that they don't have ads on the site. We think that in the subsidy we should give a no strings attached full funding for wikipedia's budget, given that it's mostly just server cost and it's simply not very expensive. Okay. First, we want to talk about how wikipedia expands human knowledge. Wikipedia is a truly revolutionary development in human history. It's difficult to understate or it's difficult to overstate overstate the impact that wikipedia's had in spreading the openness of human knowledge. It's an open source of information that's available to access for anyone that has internet access unless there's some sort of country firewall, but it's not a wikipedia firewall that's preventing you from accessing it at that point. It's an amazing resource for people to learn about all branches of human knowledge across cultures and languages. It's unlike any encyclopedia before in that it's not just something that was designed by experts or, you know, put together by a few like a few people or a group of people, and it's not something that's limited by like, you know, a a binding book or a a number of pages. It's something that has articles on almost any topic, any person of note, any field of study, any type of of almost anything that you can imagine, that you would want to have some sort of formalized article about can be found on wikipedia. It's it's a truly remarkable encyclopedia in that sense, and it's impossible to overstate how impactful that can be. For the first time in human history, we compiled information about so many subjects in a way that it can be constantly updated to reflect new information, and it's made available for free with relatively low barriers to entry. It is a true it's a truly immense tool for educating the public. We think this is a clearly good use of subsidy because it's incredibly low cost relative to the to the budget of any developed country, and it's a resource that can benefit all citizens in a wide variety of ways. It's not partisan, it's not biased, it is an open source of information created by the public, and that's the second thing we wanna talk about: communal generation of information. This is revolutionary in a second way. Anyone can edit wikipedia or add new entries. For most of human history, the information that was shared and put in publicized articles and journals and and encyclopedias was dictated by close by closed-off institutions like universities, governments, professional boards, publishers, etcetera. Wikipedia breaks down those barriers and allows a community to arise that make fact-checking possible while still allowing for a free flow of information that's created by the community of the world. All people get to be a part of knowledge generation, not just for some side project, but for one of the most impactful and used encyclopedias on the planet at this point, certainly one of the most used reference sources in human history, and it's not being controlled by some small group of people or some elite group of people. It's being controlled by the people of the world. They get to dictate what knowledge is shared and what knowledge is deemed important for the first time in human history. It returns the keys the keys and language of knowledge to the common people and allows for more information to be spread than ever before possible. For these reasons, we should subsidize wikipedia.","[4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 3, 5, 5, 2]",15,"[45183231, 45272708, 45181152, 45191873, 45191882, 45181384, 45190571, 45181383, 45401087, 45189900, 45206691, 6367365, 45483811, 29155723, 44094031]"
1e4632e2-4a49-4caf-ab79-35194cd68618,3052,We should raise the corporate tax,Human expert,"We should raise the corporate tax. So, in the status quo, we're not gonna like argue about numbers exactly, but we would substantially raise the corporate tax rates that currently exist across developed countries. So we don't want to argue, like I said, about that number, but we think that this would be a substantial raise, one that would probably be something like fifty percent to a hundred percent higher than the current rates. All right. So, two main arguments: the first is that we think we need to correct for the wealth disparity that currently exists. In the status quo, a disproportionate amount of wealth has been accumulated by the richest of the rich, while poor and average families have suffered. While productivity has increased tremendously over the last number of decades, median earnings have remained stagnant since approximately the nineteen eighties. This in turn is coupled with a cost of living that is going up, especially in urban centers where jobs are most prevalent. We think that the average worker's simply entitled to a higher take-home of the profits that come into the corporation, but job scarcity and the corporatizing of industry, the fact that one corporation can own any number of different firms and different businesses, has made it easier to drive down wages. The c-level executive a company does not put a hundred times more labor into the day-to-day operations of a business than the average employee does, and the c-level executive is further dependent on those below to create value and actually produce the product that they're going to make money off of. We think that corporate taxes allow for wealth to be redistributed, and this hurts the pockets of the wealthiest far more than it hurts the average worker, because their salary isn't dependent on corporate profits, their take-home bonus isn't dependent on corporate profits, and they are the lifeblood of the corporation, which means it's much easier to cut salaries of, say, a c-level executive who's already making millions upon millions of dollars than it is to cut the salary of every employee across the company in order to pay these higher taxes. We think that you can use that money to create kickbacks for the american worker that can do a tremendous amount of good. First, you can improve infrastructure and provide opportunities at public employment, which means that you can get better jobs and create a more competitive job market. But also with an with additional infrastructure, we think you make innovation and more entrepreneurial entrepreneurship more easily accessible to the average person. You can also increase education to help future generations to ensure that the economic divide does not remain at the level that it is today. And finally, you can just provide lower income tax rates or provide more tax rebates for the average american worker. You don't need to increase the total net sum of taxation and taxable money that's coming in, which means you can put money directly into the pockets of people that are currently being shortchanged in their wages. Secondly, we think it's important for these companies to internalize the harms of their production, and the corporate tax rate does this. In the status quo, corporations rarely have to internalize the full harm of their production. There are two areas where this is most dramatic: environmental damage and pollution is the first. These companies can dump, produce emissions, do all types of things that harm the environment but because those things those prices aren't internalized by them, they're internalized by the the world and the country writ large, they can pass products on to consumers without having any hit to their bottom line, which corporate which raising corporate taxes would do a number would would help reduce the amount that that corporations are currently able to skid by. Second secondarily, corporations in the status quo take short-term risks to please shareholders. They do things like speculate on current economic productivity, and this ultimately leads to economic shocks that affect us all. The reason for the housing crash and the two thousand eight recession was because of corporate speculation and poor corporate practice, yet the dramatic amount of harm that came from that was almost all internalized by the average person, not by the wealthiest off. We think it's we think that raising corporate taxes force companies to internalize those costs ahead of time before that recession happens and secondly, prepares funds for the state for the recession and the recovery spending that is ultimately necessary because of corporate action. For these reasons, we should raise the corporate tax rate.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4]",15,"[28813722, 45677971, 45567220, 45569485, 45567227, 45538225, 45206691, 34609243, 45189900, 45191882, 19838540, 45458968, 45181256, 45181253, 45181262]"
54e49a95-482f-41f9-84ac-66350aee334f,3166,We should abolish the American Jobs Act,Human expert,"Abolish the american jobs act. The american jobs act consists of a series of proposals that would do things like increase the length of unemployment benefits, it would increase spending on things like infrastructure, schools, as well as give a massive amount of tax breaks that are incentivized around getting people to go back to work and to increase employment. So, recognize that in the status quo, the employment market in the united states is at its best that it has been since the recession. The unemployment rate is somewhere between four and five percent, which means that most americans that are looking for work are able to find work and as such, it is simply unnecessary to have this this type of massive market interference for a few reasons. Firstly, government spending crowds out private initiatives. What this means is that when you have spending from the government, it doesn't mean that private spending that otherwise would have gone to similar measures continues to go to those measures. What it means is that it holds back private investment, which means that if you have the government investing in things like jobs and infrastructure and things like that, if there were other projects that otherwise would have been going towards these ends, those projects get crowded out by the government, which means that the government ends up spending money that was otherwise wasteful. Secondly, recognize that this is essentially just a follow-up of the stimulus bill that followed the recession, a stimulus bill which in and of itself didn't work all that well. The stimulus bill didn't lead to any sort of massive recovery. It didn't lead to any sort of market confidence in the american economy. It put a lot of money into the economy. It may have stagnated the economy rather than letting it go into a spiral downwards, but this doesn't mean that it proposed some sort of massive solution. We don't think that it's worth, especially in this moment, spending the massive amount of money, the massive amount of tax breaks and outlays and expenditures that come with this bill in this moment, given that it is modeled after a previous bill which has shown to be ineffective. It's shown that it didn't do the good that it was intended to do. Thirdly, we would say that it's not the the government's job to interfere in free market enterprise, rather to maximize individual autonomy. What we mean by this is that the government doesn't exist to regulate the economy and to put people into individual roles and jobs and to designate how the economy is going to function. The government exists as a political body to ensure that people are able to freely interact with that market. That doesn't mean that the government is responsible for propping up that market when it's failing. It doesn't mean the government is responsible for giving people jobs in a free market. It means that the government is responsible for ensuring that if people want to get a job, they are legally and physically capable of going out and seeking that job, that there aren't restrictions put in place that make it impossible for them to interact with the market. This goes far beyond that measure. This goes from saying you have a negative right, a negative capability of going into that market, to a positive obligation of the government to spend money, to to put money out there to try and employ individuals. Some estimates say that up to two hundred thousand dollars per job created is being spent by this bill. We simply think that that outlet is not necessary, especially given the improving economic state of america in the status quo. We don't think that it's justified for the government to interact in the to the economic sphere, and we certainly don't think it's justified for the government to do so to the degree that the american jobs act requires it to do. We think that you should allow private market private market enterprise to to fully expand and to fully be able to regulate itself and for these reasons, we should abolish the american jobs act.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 45953041, 13581319, 45538225, 45458968, 31948170, 45411178, 29155723, 45336988, 45361788, 20225558, 6340330, 44044795, 30777913]"
913d3081-d8d6-4b79-b50b-c8943fcedcc4,3196,We should increase immigration to the United States,Human expert,"We should increase immigration to the united states. In this debate we're going to present two main arguments as to why we think immigration is a positive for the united states and indeed for the world. Firstly, economic arguments and secondly, social arguments. So under economic arguments we have a few main points. Firstly, we would say that increasing immigration to the united states increases both the output of the united states economically, but also the potential tax base from which the united states can draw resources. What this means is that with an increased amount of tax revenue, you can provide more social welfare for the united states, for the citizens of the united states, and you can ensure that more benefits are being paid out to people in bulk. And what's good about increased tax revenue is that even though there are more people that that tax revenue needs to go to serve when you when you bring that tax revenue together you can do large projects that end up being cheaper per capita than they otherwise would be if you were to subsidize those those products or those projects, such as infrastructure projects, roads, bridges, etcetera, schools, if you had less tax revenue or or a smaller base to draw that revenue from. Secondly, we think you can increase on low skilled labor supply. This is important because, as it stands in the united states, there are thousands of jobs that the average american citizen simply does not want to do because it requires arduous labor, intensive amounts of hours, and lots of work and hardship that most americans have too much privilege to want to accept. These incrude this these include agricultural jobs, manufacturing jobs, etcetera. But these are still valuable jobs for the united states economy and for small businesses all across america and by bringing in more low skilled labor we think you're more likely to get those jobs fulfilled and increase the productivity of american businesses. You can also increase competition for skilled labor. So by bringing in people that are of the best and brightest of foreign countries, we think that you create more competition for skilled labor because you bring in more qualified bodies. We think while this may detract from some people's ability to get jobs as citizens of the united states, we think it also improves US businesses and ensures that they're drawing from the most capable labor pool possible and therefore are more likely to be able to out-compete international competitors. We also think that finally, an influx of new immigrants to the united states will also bring innovation in terms of what businesses are likely to open up new ideas and fresh ideas to the market that can increase the types of competitive competitive businesses and firms that exist in the united states. Okay secondly social arguments. We would say that cultural exchange exchange has a number of benefits. Firstly, it promotes tolerance. We think in a world in which most people interact with people that look like them and have similar experience as them and very little experience with those from other nations, we think that people often stereotype those that live outside the united states and in instances such as the islamophobia that exists in the united states, we think that this also this often breeds hostility in the global sphere. We think that by bringing in more immigrants you're less like you're likely to get contact between people from the united states and other and foreigners that is more likely to show these people these people that have these islamophobic and another prejudiced tendencies that these other people are just like them and it's more likely to bridge the empathy gap that currently exists. We also think it provides new opportunities for US citizens such as new outlets for entertainment in in new social groups that we think can can be incredibly fulfilling, especially to people that feel out like outsiders in their currently in their current community. Finally, we would say that given the amount of privilege that people have in the united states, we think that that privilege should be extended to all people around the globe. We think that just because you're born in the united states doesn't mean that you're deserving of the democratic system and the rights that are afforded to citizens that are born here. We think that those opportunities should be expanded to as many people as possible and only through immigration to the united states can that be possible and can the united states be an ethical global superpower. For these reasons we should increase immigration to the united states.","[5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 5, 5, 4, 3, 5]",15,"[45567227, 45569485, 45458968, 45411178, 21785776, 34110399, 20512953, 15448937, 30777913, 43877630, 27770607, 33708599, 21017840, 6340330, 44094031]"
72cfac87-c98f-4acc-8e23-081c24e3d49d,3197,We should end progressive taxation,Human expert,"We should end progressive taxation. In this debate we wanna make it clear that what we're talking about when it comes to progressive taxation, whether it's taxation in the form of income or property, or of any other sort of service, we're talking about the rate at which people are being taxed rather than talking about the total amount that people are being taxed. We think that the rate of taxation being progressive is the root cause of problems, the root cause of kind of the principled problems with taxation as it currently stands, rather than the actual hard numbers being different between people who are being taxed. Alright, so we have two main arguments. The first is about how people have an equality obligation to the state, and the second is about how in essence taxes are theft and progressive taxation is a morally bankrupt concept, because it forces certain people to be taxed at higher levels simply because they've earned more wealth. Alright, so equality of obligation. We would say that all people, having been citizens of the state, having chosen or having consented into the state, through being using the state's resources, through taking part in the states voting system, through any other metric or proxy for consent the state can come up with, has brought upon to themselves an obligation to the state. An obligation to fortify the state in the form of money, to fortify the state in the form of protection and in the form of support. Taxes are a major way in which we we re-pay our obligation to the state. Through our taxation we give money to the states, so it continues to provide the services, the well being the rights protections, all those things that we require of the state, and that we oblige the state to give us. Our relationship with the state, a citizens relationship with the state is one of mutual obligation. A system of progressive taxation says in essence if you are a wealthier individual if you have a higher income, you have a higher obligation to the state than anyone else. This simply is unfair. Many people that are of lower income end up taking more hard resources from the state. Take more actual physical resources from the state in form of funding, of subsidies and food, in health care, all these things. And all people gain benefits to infrastructure that allow them to participate in business, to store wealth, all these things. Yes, it's certainly true that wealthy people get certain things more than other people do, but this is a give and take that is the case across all different class levels. It's unfair to say that people who are wealthy necessarily earned more from the state rather than them and having earned more because of their hard work, because of their labor, because of their situation outside of the states doing. For these reasons we think that it's unfair to provide an unequal obligation for people simply because they're wealthy. And the second reason and kind of final argument we want to make is that taxes are in essence a form of theft. You earn your money, you earn your money and your wages through your hard work, through your effort, and you accumulate property. And taxes are a way for the state to take that property away from you without you having any sort of consent over whether or not that's going to be the case. We think that to single out one group of individuals, that being wealthy individuals, as those that we are going to communally decide we are going to take more from is nothing more than using the state as a proxy to steal from those that are the wealthiest. Yes, these people may be better off than the average citizen, but this doesn't mean that they are morally bankrupt, it doesn't mean that they have a dessert claim to having that wealth stolen from them, and it doesn't mean that they should have a higher obligation to the state that any other citizen that has earned the bounties of the protection that the state can provide. For these reasons we should end progressive taxation.","[4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4]",15,"[13581319, 19838540, 20225558, 45677971, 45567220, 44044795, 45355658, 45190823, 28810858, 45405037, 28813722, 45411178, 45458968, 15448937, 21785776]"
f78626d8-a52b-4a56-bcaa-3999cf572d34,3201,We should subsidize embryonic stem cell research,Human expert,"We should subsidize embryonic stem cell research. When we say that we would subsidize this, what we mean by this is that we think that there should be an immense government investment into stem cell research, so the government should put forward research funding, that's tied to certain possible outcomes of stem cell research, that's tied to investigating the potential of stem cell research, and we think that businesses as well should start to invest in the same type of research. We think that there is a public and private investment structure that can allow for a subsidy to be created. You can also create tax cuts for businesses that invest in stem cell research, there are number of ways of doing this. We think, any and all options are fair. So, two reasons why we should subsidize embryonic stem cell research: the first is ethical. We want to say that categorically, embryos are not people. We think that potentiality is simply a bad standard for determining when people deserve to have rights, and we think it's a bad standard for allowing stem cells to have rights, or embryo stem cells as well. We think that, if you will allow potentiality to be a metric by which we give rights, we think that would be an immense amount of restrictions placed onto individuals. For example, anytime that someone wanted to say masturbate, this would be something that is a horribly unethical event, because the sperm that would be lost during masturbation is potential, it is possible that that's that sperm could have became life, and given that this is the case, we think there would have to be prohibitions on a number of very personal things, that individuals want to do with their bodies, and we think that this is unjust. Furthermore, potentiality cuts out a wide array of individuals that, we think, do deserve rights. So, we think for example, individuals that are comatose, that don't appear to have any sort of potential for regaining consciousness, we think that it would mean that these people could be abused in any number of ways, even though they may have living wills. Or things like this. And we think that it simply undermines the rights of individuals in the status quo. We also think, that the concerns of those in the present should outweigh and should regulate government action. So, even if you think that potentiality is important, the potentiality of people that are alive, that could be helped by the health benefits of stem cell research, is also much more real, and is guaranteed. So we think that because of this, you ought give preference to those types of people, to the people that are already alive. We think, that there are massive potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research, these are cells that can be used in various forms of therapy, and can be harnessed in a wide variety of ways, that can change based on how they're used, because stem cells are very malleable by their very nature. They be can used to alleviate a number of different elements, in in a variety of parts of the human body. This is why stem cells are so valuable, it's because they're malleable, and they're versatile in this way. We also think that it allows for the study of human development in a specific way, to see how these stem cells are able to change, and to see how we can change the cells in our own bodies, to do theoretical research. The list of potential treatments are so wide for stem cells, that we think not taking action, not doing stem cell research, dooms many of those for ailments that are in fact very common. Stem cell research could be used to help in treating heart disease, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, other muscular and tissue injuries, these are all things, that are not only incredibly detrimental to the livelihood of people that have them, but also incredibly common. We think that government needs to look out for the protections of individuals that exist in the status quo. Given that stem cell research presents an immense possibility for diseases, that are incredibly common within our society, we think it would be disrespectful, of the rights of those that are currently alive, not to subsidize embryonic stem cell research. And for this reason, we think that we should subsidize embryonic stem cell research.","[5, 5, 3, 5, 4, 2, 2, 5, 4, 5, 5, 1, 5, 4, 5]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 6432269, 45538225, 6340330, 20312760, 28813722, 44690955, 13581319, 45272708, 45183231, 45191873, 45181152, 33708599, 45206691]"
f3829290-39ed-421b-8d27-411fa468e669,3207,We should abandon social media,Human expert,"We should abandon social media. In this debate, we're going to present you with two main arguments as to why social media is a net harm in the world and why we shouldn't be using it. The first is about social harms, and the second is about productivity harm. So on the social harms: we think that the way that social media has risen up in our society is a way in which people have become largely immersed and dependent upon it, that people quantify their social relationships through social media, that people categorize them through social media and they understand them through social media, and that the vast majority of people, if they want to have a social a social relationship with someone, they need to be connected in some way with them through social media, otherwise people end up being left behind because they simply don't adopt the newest trends, the newest forms of communication, the newest mediums of interpersonal relationship, and this means you get left by the wayside. So why do we think this is problematic? We think that this clearly dampens interactions that happen in real life, between two physical people, because there's there's just a significant difference between the interaction you can have on social media and the interaction you have in real life. Social media reactions are often much more vapid, for example, liking someone's post on facebook or retweeting something. This is a very vapid interaction that doesn't prepare you to have a meaningful conversation, a meaningful building of a social relationship between you and another person. There's also, for example, if you're messaging someone or commenting, these are things that are very different from trying to hold a conversation one on one. And because people become dependent on social media, there's a tradeoff between them being skilled in that form of communication and the form of communication that allows you to be an interpersonal human being, relating with people on one on one situations. We also think it quantifies interactions in a bad way. People tend to prioritize meaningless things, such as likes and follows, overbuilding deep relationships with a few people. And people that have only a hundred friends on facebook, or people that don't have a lot of posts or don't have a lot of retweets or interactions, all these things, these people are seen as outside of the norm and then people crave to be within the norm. People crave to have that type of following, that type of social media presence. But these aren't things that are intrinsically valuable. These aren't things that provide meaning and strong relationships in someone's life in the same way that fostering a relationship in which you truly know another person, and you can talk to them about anything with a few people, can be truly meaningful and uplifting in a person's life. We think that social media dampens those types of relationships, and we think that in those ways, it's problematic. So, on to productivity harms, we think there are a few of them. Firstly, because people end up posting things on social media that can literally never go away, we think that people are often denied job or other opportunities that can allow them to become more financially well-off, more socially well-off, and put them in a better stable situation in their life moving forward. We think that by not using social media, you don't set yourself up to this kind of public disgrace, public embarrassment, that social media can often provide. We also think that it is just a massive distraction. In your free time, you could be doing this in you can be spending your free time in a number of other more productive ways. You could spend it learning, you could learn it you could spend it being active, going outside, being a physical human being, or just building real physical connections with other people, and building memories. These are things that you just don't do on social media. And at work, these are also major distractions. Things that cost millions of dollars on the like whole social market, or the whole marketplace, in a country when people are spending time at work that they otherwise are supposed to be spending being productive, doing their labor, spending it on social media. Because it's harmful to both social interactions and productive capacities of people, we should abandon social media.","[4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5]",15,"[45538225, 44690955, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 43984981, 45191882, 45206691, 45189900, 45181384, 45401087, 34609243, 45190571, 45181383]"
562ea868-e076-44e4-a603-bbf327385b64,3208,We should prohibit slum tourism,Human expert,"We should prohibit slum tourism. We believe that slum tourism is degrading to human beings and that it creates a false sense of solvency amongst those that tour these slums. People go to the areas and believe that for some reason, because they've gone, because they spend some money there, because there's now this industry of tourism in the area, and because they become aware of these issues, that suddenly there is some sort of solvency involved in these issues. Because they're able to escape those issues and move on and go back to their lives as they were beforehand while people live in squalor. So that we're going to talk about in this round. So firstly on why these this is degrading to human beings. Slum tourism, in its very nature, treats human beings and their struggle as entertainment rather than as people that are actually suffering the degradation that slum living causes them to endure. We think that people shouldn't view these other individuals, these other people whose lives have the same inherent amount of value as their own, despite their inequality in class level, we think that these people shouldn't be forced to be used as some sort of social experiment, as some sort of freak show in the way that they live their lives. We would also say that this doesn't actually build empathy between those people that are touring and those people that live in these areas because they're not interacting with these people and a genuine setting. They're not going into these people's lives and really coming to understand the struggle they live, but also seeing them as human beings outside of their struggles, outside of their poverty. They don't do this at a long term manner. There's no way to see growth in these people, to see changes in these people, to understand them as human beings as we would understand our friends as human beings, because we've been able to grow with them and see them change. And they only see them as poverty. As the human encapsulation of poverty. Another way in which these people are are degraded because of this form of tourism. And finally, people in these slums don't actually get any real money from from this tourism. Yes, some wealthy people will be able to spend some money in these areas, and some small markets or some small store owners or these types of people may be able to make some amount of money, but as far as the vast majority of the people in these slums, they're not getting the money from this tourism industry, they're not getting this money from the tourist industries that run these tours, they're not getting money from the airports and from the air and from the the flights that these people take to go into these areas. Most of the money goes to areas in which people are already wealthy. So, it's using people that are in poverty to make those that are rich, richer. We think that that is incredibly degrading to the struggle that these people go through and is a moral bad that we should not allow. Finally, on a false sense of solvency. As I explained, people believe that they become familiar with the issue and because of that they give maybe a little bit of money, but then they think they've done their part. They think that they've gone through some sort of process that not only transformed them because of how they are now enlightened about the struggle of other people in the world, but also helped those people who's struggle they have become aware of. But they don't take any real steps once they have this feeling the fulfillment. Their likes and what this means is that they're less likely to take tangible steps in the future. In a comparison between people that feel they have the sense of accomplishment and people that may not be aware of the struggle but don't feel the sense of accomplishment, we think people that are unaware are more likely to become aware through a better mechanism, through a way that doesn't give them this false sense of solvency, and then make serious changes than those who are already aware, have this false sense of solvency, are to actually change the situation. For these reasons, we should prohibit slum tourism.","[4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 31948170, 45191882, 45185975, 45361788, 45336988, 45336993, 45206691, 45189900, 45185946, 45411178, 45190823, 44044795, 30777913]"
43bd216c-3106-4f46-afe1-37ac1cc1b3c4,3234,The use of AI should be abandoned,Human expert,"The use of AI should be abandoned. So we're not going to make this into a policy round. We just think the world would be preferable if all firms, all companies, all governments, all organizations that were currently working on artificial intelligence, and and specifically artificial intelligence that's based on learning things on its own, it's not fed information but rather it's given a world of information to learn from and it finds patterns in them, this type of artificial intelligence should be outright abandoned. We think there's immense dangerous potential, and that's what this speech is going to be about. AI presents a threat in the fact that it's very difficult to predict exactly what its potential is. Artificial intelligence is currently developing in a way that it can learn freely through association, it builds on past knowledge, it's able to build systems that are smarter than it, based on its reference point of information. These are things that lead to exponential growth. And generally the trend of technology, the growth of technology, has been an exponential trend, which means that in this field, like it has been for many technological fields, it's very likely that the technology is going to far outpace regulation or any sort of check on potential threats that arise. Look at the internet. Look at the immense black underground black market that's been able to arise due to the internet, and it's something that, yes, there's policing for, but it's not something that is very well policed. It's something that's still grown exponentially. The internet itself is something where the laws and regulations around it are still being put together a decade or more after its widespread adoption, and for and and this is just something that's baffling in in retrospect. But for AI, this is what we're facing now. In a number of years, a few years, AI is going to be at a level that is likely going to be able to perform things that otherwise were not possible previously in human history. But there's no regulatory board set up to oversee this growth, and there's no regulatory board set up right now that allows you to actually govern it. Only one AI needs to reach this level of sophistication, this level of self-awareness, this level of cognizance, and there are thousands of businesses and universities working on developing this technology. We think given all of that, it's incredibly likely that a self-aware AI becomes comes into existence, one that is smarter than humans and can build systems that are even smarter than itself. This is going to come into existence, maybe not in the next five years, maybe not in the next ten, but certainly within our lifetime. We think this poses an immense risk in two areas: first, to human life. We think that this artificial intelligence could come into exist and think that it's making a decision on on behalf of all people dictates that eventually humans are just bad for the world overall, that we create a society in which we cause harm to ourselves and that we're simply not worth it, and that we're horribly inefficient beings, all these types of things which are true fundamentally, but maybe not something that we want to accept as a society or we think dictates our erasure. But if you have an artificial intelligence that is smart enough and is able to access the internet, it could simply end human life. It could cause a nuclear holocaust, and that would be the end of the day. But it's not just this idea, like this doomsday scenario of AI but there's also, if AI goes well, there's still huge problems, like increased class disparity and a lack of jobs that can be taken over by smart robots and robots that use artificial intelligence. The mechanization of the world that is already happening is only going to increase with AI. We think this risks a mass economic recession. It is again something that we're simply not prepared to deal with. We simply think that AI is maybe a potentially powerful invention, a a powerful tool for the future, but not worth these risks that are highly likely to occur. For these reasons, the use of AI should be abandoned.","[2, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5]",15,"[45538225, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 45191882, 45189900, 45206691, 20225558, 45190823, 45483811, 45401087, 45181384, 45181383, 45190571]"
10530e3d-2682-42e0-8e36-04d2078fadb1,3237,We should prohibit unisex bathrooms,Human expert,"We should prohibit unisex bathrooms. So in this debate, what we mean by prohibit unisex bathrooms is not that we're going to have a total ban. If you're a private business that wants to have unisex bathrooms that's your decision. But when we're prohibiting unisex bathrooms we're going to say that in public spaces we would not allow them, that any publicly funded buildings, any government buildings, all these types of things we would not allow unisex bathrooms. So, let's talk about why we think this is how the government should proceed. We think that the general principle we're going to be talking under is that we simply do not believe that the state should legislate for the small minority, that when making decisions the state should ultimately proceed in a way that the majority of people agree with. So let's talk about why that is. The government by its nature is meant to be conglomeration of citizens' beliefs. The reason for this is several fold. The first is that the government is ultimately an amalgamation of its citizens. The government as a body represents its citizens on the national stage and serves to protect its citizens in the domestic sphere. We think that all citizens need to be given equal value for a few reasons. First in order to apply laws equally across all groups, to ensure that the state has a just application of the laws on its books, citizens need to be viewed equally so as to not get special distinctions or privileges in a legal sense. Secondly, we think that you need to ensure that social divisions do not become equivalent with political strength, that is to treat all people as equal ensures that no matter the the wealth level of a person, no matter the level of distinguished nature of someone's of someone's work or someone's actions that they're still given the same equal political strength. And finally we think that it's the case that all people are constrained by the government in equal degrees because there's an equal application of the law all people are essentially subject to the coercive of apparatus of the state in similar ways and therefore all should have a say in the equal sh-all should have an equal say in the constraints. We think that necessarily if you're going to value all people equally, then when you're passing such prohibitions or making such restrictions you do so in reference to the general will of the populace. We think therefore government legislation should be decided by aggregating the preferences of the whole inciting laws that most people would agree with. We think that this system is designed to help transgendered individuals that having unisex bathrooms is meant to accomidate a very small portion of the population. However there are far more people who are uncomfortable with the idea of unisex bathrooms. There are people that simply do not believe that transgender lifestyles are healthy or in in many other instances and the vast majority of people simply don't feel with the idea of people from the other gender or the other sex being in the same bathroom as them. We think that given that this is the case that there are huge populations and huge amounts of people that don't like these things that feel deeply uncomfortable these things especially in a sphere that is incredibly personal your bodily functions are something that were taught from childhood are a very personal aspect of who you are we think in those areas the most people should be made the most comfortable and we think that in order to do that prohibiting the use of these things in public spaces like publicly owned buildings and schools are the best ways to ensure that you are passing laws and you're building these schools and you're designing these types of public spaces with the majority in mind that you make the space safer for those in the majority. This doesn't mean that private businesses or that private practices that aren't part of the majority that don't believe in the majority can't act in that way but we think that in order for the government to be fundamentally just it must act in line with the majority and that in this case because the transgender group of people is massively out is massively outpaced by those that are simply uncomfortable with the idea of unisex bathrooms we should prohibit unisex bathrooms.","[3, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2]",15,"[45483811, 43877630, 29155723, 45361788, 44094031, 31948170, 27770607, 38202325, 45397152, 45191885, 45185946, 20312760, 20170210, 34609243, 45169947]"
bbcfa19b-2bfa-4425-aacc-1005b66183cd,3581,We should end cheerleading,Human expert,"We should end cheerleading. When we're talking about ending cheerleading, we're not saying that the government needs to ban it, we're not saying that it's something that needs to have an explicit prohibition against it, we just think that as a society we should end the practice of cheerleading. So let's talk about why. We think that cheerleading is a largely antifeminist and antifemale activity. We think that what this means is that for the vast majority of people in society given that half of people are women we think that this activity demeans them in ways that is unacceptable and that as a society we should move on from. So let's talk about what those ways are. Firstly we think that cheerleading is a largely female activity so that's why we think that this a largely impactful thing that has to do with women and that we think it was created through the male gaze as a hypersexualization of women and you can just see this empirically when we look at the practice of cheerleading. Cheerleading is women putting on scantily clad clothing going out there and cheering and cheering at sporting events during halftime and breaks in order to enjoy the largely male audience that are at these events and it's a way of hypersexualization women it continues a historic trend of hypersexualization and objectification of women that we view these women exclusively for their bodies rather than rather than what they're actually doing while they're cheerleading and this is massive because it overlooks the work that cheerleaders actually put into cheerleading because when we say that cheerleading is anti is antifeminist and antiwoman it's not that cheerleading itself is something that isn't impressive that the act of acrobatics and dance and the the use of working with a team that comes cheerleading all those things are incredibly impressive but none of those things are respected by the audience that's viewing cheerleading because they're their for a different event and this is hugely problematic in tangible ways mainly in the fact that as professionals, cheerleaders are dramatically underpaid based on the hours they put in in order to be a professional cheerleader to cheer at a sporting event for professional sports team that's something that takes hours and hours of work to get your routine right to get your physical fitness to be up to its peak to get your body in the best shape possible all those things and it's a largely neglectful industry that harms the cheerleaders. People that put in the work of cheerleading often have to do other jobs in addition to being cheerleaders just to make ends meet. We think that given that this is that a large reason for this harm is because cheerleading is created through the male gaze that it's not viewed as something that is respectable or important or impressive and therefore it's undervalued. We also think that cheerleading symbolically subjugates women. Cheerleading is done is done at mostly male sporting events. The objects of this is that women are sitting on the sideline while the action is happening cheering for their male counterparts and come on during the break to root for their male sports players. We would prefer a world in which women are able to be the ones that are being celebrated even if doing dance is what they want to do there are other ways to express that and celebrate the hard work in female achievement that comes through cheerleading. In the status quo, it sends the signal to society and especially at schools where cheerleading is happening that condones this type of subjugation. It says that this type of power dynamic, the one in which women are sitting on the sideline cheering for men, is a power dynamic that we want to have taught to our children and that we want to pass on to our society. We think that the government in the state has a clear interest in preventing this and that as a society we don't want our we don't want half of our population to feel subjugated, to feel lesser than, to feel like they are supposed to be on the sidelines while men go out and achieve. We think that this is a repetition of horrible past historical injustices that we must undo and that while cheerleading is only a part of the problem it is undeniably a part of the problem and that we should avoid it in our societies. For these reasons we should end cheerleading.","[5, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[6432269, 45538225, 6340330, 20312760, 44690955, 45181152, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45206691, 45191882, 44094031, 43984981, 45189900, 33708599]"
c1753676-752d-44af-bc47-e80468114e63,1661,We should ban school uniforms,Human expert,"I'm proud to stand in proposition of the motion that we should ban school uniforms. Two independent points, the first being that school uniforms are restrictive in nature. This plays out in two ways. The first being the free speech violation that's intrinsic to uniforms. A lot of the times a way that we express our opinions and our speech and our beliefs is through clothing. This can be through something as blunt as for example a t-shirt that just you know has a political opinion written on it or it can be through more symbolic measures. A strong example of this was in supreme court case tinker versus des moines in the united states. There was a student wearing a black band in opposition to the vietnam war. This type of symbology that is something that we wear that's part of our clothing it's really important to our capacity to express our opinions. Bans on that then are wholly unjustified because of how important free speech is. It's an important mechanism not just to our autonomy and our freedom to do as we please, but also in order to ensure that our our governments and our society at large understands the preferences of the people within it. If we don't have the capacity to voice our opinions there's very little chance that our society or our government will be responsive to our needs and desires. So restrictions free speech should be taken very very seriously. The second thing though under restrictive nature of dress codes is just the identity component of it. So beyond capacity to express opinions through free speech clothing is often used to you know really is a component of who we are, that the way we dress is often really fundamental to our identity. And at that point then this is something that's very you know fundamental to a person's the things that they want in life and the things that they they really are. I think at a really basic level our identity is probably one of the most important things that we have. Its you know akin to bodily autonomy. This is something that is really intrinsic to my personhood and any restrictions on it should be taken extremely seriously. This is something that as insofar as it's so fundamental to me it should be held in high regard, in the sense that you know the only reason we care about anything from a rights perspective is how it affects the individual. So restrictions than on your capacity to express yourself and your capacity to you know act upon your identity are really serious and I don't think that there's a significant enough reason to support ban support these uniforms that really outweighs that capacity for self expression and to actualize one's identity. Our second independent point is just the classist nature of school uniforms. I think there's an affordability component here that often these uniforms can be expensive and this in itself is problematic, that you are telling people essentially and this is especially problematic when it comes to public schooling that you have to incur this expense for an unclear return. This isn't something like a tax where there's like an actual social benefit that factors into it on a macro level. This is essentially telling people that because of some like hazy instance of like camaraderie you have to incur a significant amount of money. And that's a problem especially for poorer families who can't necessarily afford that uniform. When you're talking about this as part of a public good that is at the point where we deem that education is a fundamental right for all children in our country it's unreasonable to put that financial burden on poorer families. So this certainly has no place in public schooling but we think even in private schooling it adds an undue burden onto families still that are attending that private school for again unclear reasons. I think at best these justifications are weak when compared to the significant strain that they put on a family that is incapable of affording that uniform. Proud to propose.","[4, 5, 5, 2, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 2]",15,"[45677971, 45567220, 45569485, 45567227, 45538225, 45458968, 45206691, 45191882, 45189900, 44044795, 30777913, 6340330, 45181256, 45181253, 45355658]"
93b7b306-6f70-4979-a058-41763e8cf75e,2227,We should ban whaling,Human expert,"I'm proud to stand in proposition of the motion that we should ban whaling. Two independent points. First is that animal rights exist and that you know obviously whaling is in violation of those. So on what the standard is for animal rights we would say that generally the standard by which we apply whether or not something has rights is whether or not it can experience pain and pleasure. You know this is a pretty simple metric. We think that generally speaking when suffering happens in the world that is a bad thing and that's really just the most you know fundamental building block that we know how to apply rights to. Other standards that exclude animals such as sanctions or intelligence probably aren't very consistent one with just the way that humans assign rights for example, we don't you know assign less moral worth to people who are less intelligent but also just you know not very fundamentally good standards. They're based on the idea that just because someone you know doesn't have the the the the the intelligence to actually you know do specific tasks or whatever that are more less arbitrarily defined, that therefore they shouldn't you know matter if they're experiencing suffering. The standard there doesn't really make a lot of sense. It doesn't seem to be applied in a you know very reasonable way and at that point the better standard is of course just broadly saying if something is experiencing suffering that's bad and we should mitigate it including if that something is an animal. So at that point then, obviously we would say that if whales have rights they probably shouldn't be you know hunted down and killed. You know the right to life is pretty important one. Because it's facilitative to anything else that you can do but also in terms of you know even if you assume that you know death is okay as long as it's painless, we would say that whaling isn't particularly painless. Usually the process that they use in hunting involves you know injuring a whale over days and days and days of hunting it down and this is obviously quite a painful process for the whale. It inflicts a lot of suffering. So at that point, it doesn't seem particularly reasonable to say that you know this is something that we should deem acceptable. Our second independent point is that even if you assume that there's no animal rights and that you know the whale doesn't have any rights whatsoever, that there are still impacts on humans particularly through overfishing. So whales are an endangered species largely as a product of the fact that they've been so you know violently hunted down over the years and the problem from human's perspective here is that they're quite reliant on a lot of you know things that whales provide whether that's you know blubber or their skeletal structure these are really important to humans. So even if you want to take the perspective that it's okay to hunt whales and it's okay to harvest them if we are so reliant on these you know goods that are produced by whales then it's only reasonable to institute a short term band at least to ensure that the population can actually stabilize and get back up to a level that is you know actually feasible for them to continue their survival and then resume hunting at a point where you know you actually can say that we're not going to drive the species to extinction by continuing our hunting. So at a dead minimum don't you need a short term band just you know from the most extremely human center perspective. Proud to propose.","[5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 3, 5, 4, 3]",15,"[45272708, 45183231, 45191873, 45181152, 45181384, 45190571, 45181383, 45401087, 45191882, 45206691, 45189900, 6367365, 45483811, 29155723, 43877630]"
72c106d7-0c1e-4ea4-b8ec-457737630e93,2401,We should increase fuel tax,Human expert,"I'm proud to stand in proposition of the motion that we should increase the fuel tax. Our first independent point is that the fuel tax, in a sense, operates like a sin tax. Disincentivizing a socially harmful behavior. In this case that behavior is broadly consumption of fossil fuels. So the way in which we disincentivize this is of course is by increasing the costs associated with it. So when we increase the cost of fuel, people are more likely to you know give up driving and instead transfer over to something like public transportation or biking. This in turn provides a number of social goods. One, is the environmental impact of driving. Emissions generated by cars are a significant portion of the emissions generated by the developed world. Obviously these emissions contribute greatly to global warming and in turn they're a host of impacts associated with global warming. Things like rising sea levels, changing weather patterns, and mass extinction associated by changes to ecological structures. So this in turn is its whole host of harms that are mitigated by a decrease in driving, which in turn is driven by a fuel tax. But secondarily we think that there are more local benefits to decreasing driving. Things like less smog and less traffic that are associated with both economic and quality of life harms. This in turn is important because it means that the people who you know leave in the society then are actually benefiting from the tax because it disincentivizes a harmful behavior. But furthermore, we think that there's a principled aspect to this, that in turn people who drive or creating a social harm that is inflicted upon all people, including the ones who don't drive, that in turn justifies a tax to rectify the issues created by driving. If we can then reinvest the revenue from that tax into something that helps those that have to suffer the harms created and the externalities created by driving, that is principally just. This leads me into my second point. That the things that we actually spend the fuel tax's money and revenue on are things that create significant social good. Generally in order to make a fuel tax palatable to voters, countries have to actually specifically earmark it for infrastructure spending. This is important then, because infrastructure spending is, broadly speaking, a obviously good thing. There are you know broad social benefits such as you know increasing mobility ease by allowing people to get from point a to point b easier, there's the aforementioned benefits about you know decreased smog, noise pollution and traffic, that are associated with infrastructure spending. And we think that this can manifest itself in different ways depending on what type of infrastructure spending you're looking at. You know better investment in highways for example might decrease the amount of driving that has to be done to get from point a to point b. Likewise increased investment in public transportation can significantly improve the accessibility of public transportation which in turn takes cars off the road because now trains or buses become a preferable option. Regardless of what the type of spending is within infrastructure, we think that you know assuming that it's a well a well you know designed project that is executed correctly, infrastructure spending is broadly a good thing. Another benefit that it has to society broadly, is that by decreasing costs associated with transportation, whether that be you know through better designed highways or better designed you know pathways in general to get across the country, you decrease transportation costs for goods. Which in turn decreases the costs of goods at the cash register. Things like food prices go down when there are less costs associated with getting them to where they need to be. That in turn of course provides another social benefit which is decrease food costs and costs of other products that need to be transported long distances. Proud to propose.","[4, 4, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[19838540, 45355658, 13581319, 20225558, 20512953, 29155723, 44044795, 34110399, 45190823, 45677971, 45567220, 28810858, 45405037, 45458968, 28513847]"
53838ccd-c6e0-425e-b3f5-e7649a1b1ef3,2449,Organ donation should be mandatory,Human expert,"I'm proud to stand in proposition of the motion that that organ donation should be mandatory. We'll implement this just for, you know, after death. Obviously, we're not going to force people to give up their organs while they're alive but, you know, if you die in a way that allows your organs to be somewhat intact, we will mandate that all organs inside that dead body be donated to, you know, the public the public waiting list for organs. So, you know, if you get in a car crash and your kidneys are doing just fine, your kidneys are going to get donated after you die. So, two independent points: first is that this policy solves for a current shortage in organs. This is, you know, something that is a problem worldwide, but is particularly pernicious in the united states. Right now, there is not enough organs to meet the number of people that need them. This solves by increasing the supply, obviously, there're just like more organs in the system now when you're taking literally everybody's organs. In fact, there's probably a bit of a surplus. And the health impacts of this are pretty profound: that people die, you know, almost daily, waiting on organs essentially, especially the ones that are, you know, tougher to get, things like bone marrow or a heart transplant. So this is most likely going to be something that allows for a solvency in those harder to get organs, allows for you to have people, you know, that are currently suffering, that are currently dying, waiting for these organs, to receive what they need to survive. Our second independent point is that corpses don't have rights. This is what I really want to establish here. Because it's obvious that it is good when people get organs and they don't die. The countervailing from arguments from opp, then, are always going to be something to the effect of, you know, people have property rights over their body and therefore we should not, you know, just like take their organs from them. I think the problem with this is that those property rights don't continue into death. So, the reason why we consider individuals to have some sort of autonomy over their body is because it's something they actively possess, that is, you know, the body is just, you know, a means by which to exert our own preferences. So, if I want to go for a run, I only have property rights over my body, because I need my body to go for a run. Like it's just a a thing that's used to facilitate stuff that we want. But if I can't want anything anymore, if I'm dead, if I don't have preferences, then I don't have property rights over the things that were facilitative. Opp's going to tell you then that, you know, people have preferences in life about what happens to their body after death and that we should respect those preferences. The problem there is twofold. One is that I think at that point, you're really, really getting into like thin preference enactment there. Like these are not significant goals to fulfill, and I think that allowing someone to not die in need of like a heart transplant is always going to be the way more significant goal to achieve and the one that we should definitely prioritize. But secondly, I don't think that people should just like have their preferences enacted like infinitely. , you know, like the fact that someone wants something to happen to them after death is all well and good in the same sense that, you know, if I like want to kill someone, that's also well and good. I could want whatever I want. The problem is that the government has to make a choice, though, on which want they're going to prioritize. I don't think, again, that this is significant enough to merit letting somebody that's waiting on an organ die. Given that then, it seems fairly intuitive to me to disregard whatever like rights you think that the corpse might have in favor of the rights of someone who is actively living, has preferences that can be fulfilled or denied, and therefore probably has significantly more moral worth. Proud to propose.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 3, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 2]",15,"[45185975, 45191882, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 45190823, 31948170, 34110399, 21785776, 20512953, 15448937, 29155723, 13581319, 34609243, 45411178]"
7ef7cedd-4246-4582-9512-10a62a34ac1a,2486,We should abolish the US Electoral College,Human expert,"I'm proud to stand in proposition of the motion that we should abolish the electoral college. In terms of the model, we would just transition over to a popular vote. So just whoever gets the most votes across the country wins. And obviously because of the electoral college only applies to presidential elections we would also only be applying this popular vote system to the presidential election. Three independent points: first is that the electoral college can often result in the wrong result, essentially. That we think that principally the person who gets the most votes across the country should become the president. That person clearly enjoys the most support of the people, and our underlying principle in a democracy is there representative should be the ones that act on behalf of as many people as possible within that system. So, it's bad then when a person that enjoys less support nationwide becomes the president. The justification that's often offered for why the system endorsed by the electoral college happens and why were okay with someone with less votes becoming president, is geographic essentially. That you know certain states are underrepresented because they have less people and then the electoral college basically allows the smaller states to get some sort of representation. The problem though is that principally I just don't think that those states should have the same level of you know representation as states that are significantly larger. The reason for this is essentially created you know by the fact that just majority vote matters. That there's nothing about a a rural person that makes them any more worthy than you know a person living in a very urban state. And at that point I don't think that there's a reasonable justification for allowing that outsized voice. One prominent example is that in wyoming an individual just has about three times the influence on the presidential elections outcome than someone in california. Because california, by virtue of how many people it has, just has less you know representation in the electoral college weighted out across its population. This is, you know, pretty problematic the reason for why this happens is because you know the senate factors into the count of how many votes you get in the electoral college, so smaller states that still of two senators get a lot of votes. All in all then I think there's a lot of problems in terms of representation that are created by the electoral college and the geographic justification doesn't really merit that disparity. Second independent point is fraud, essentially. That it is harder to commit on a national level, when you basically you have to alter the result by such a wider factor. In the electoral college, the race can really come down to just like a small state, like a swing state basically, like ohio for example. So what you really have to do to commit meaningful fraud in that case is alter result by a few thousand people in a swing state that decides the election. On a national level however the margin is quite rarely that thin and the effort it would take take you know commit fraud is a significantly larger. So we think it's easier to protect against you know problems like this in an electoral college system. The last thing I want to talk about is wasted votes. And or specifically votes that aren't recognized properly. And I think there's a lot of ways in which this happens: the first is just that you have people in heavily red or blue states that are in the opposition voice, whose voices are really hurt by virtue of the electoral college. So democrats in texas, for example, don't really have any reason to cast a ballot. The same goes for republicans in say new york. This is, that this is a problem it's not just unfair that these people's voices aren't really listened to, but it also depresses turnout, which has its own benefits like civic engagement. But secondly, and I think even more significantly, is the strength that swing states have. States that are relatively purple and have a balance of republicans and democrats are viewed in much higher regard by people campaigning due to their likelihood to swing the election, and people will spend a lot more time engaging with those voters. That's a problem because it means that people in reliably red or blue states simply aren't listened to in the same way that people in those swing states are, and as such their needs often go by the wayside when it comes to policy making. Proud to propose.","[4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 5, 5, 4, 4]",15,"[20225558, 13581319, 19838540, 29155723, 45355658, 44044795, 45677971, 45567220, 20512953, 45190823, 28810858, 15448937, 45405037, 45411178, 27934334]"
3d9abf97-2e2c-4943-b601-9b4a0e0c9275,2489,We should abolish no-knock warrants,Human expert,"I'm proud to stand in proposition today of the motion that we should abolish no knock warrants. Two independent points: first, that they increase the likelihood of violent confrontations and second, that the majority of the crimes that they're actually used to crackdown on aren't significant enough to justify even small externalities. On the first point, that they increase the likelihood of violent confrontations. When the police don't knock on the door of a home or any sort of building that they are about to enter, the suspect doesn't have time to react. Now the rationale behind this is that oh well, if the suspect has enough time to react, they won't have time to flush something down the toilet or hide behind a door where they can you know position themselves to attack the officers as they enter. The problem with this reasoning is that all that really happens is the suspect has less time to act rationally. So the counter factual here is a suspect having time to maybe flush something down the toilet versus a suspect just being crept up on in their living room or kitchen or what have you. That's a problem because generally people in situations like that don't act super rationally. When your back is literally against the wall you are prone to violent outbursts. So let's talk about the ways this can play out. First, even in the most generous situation, let's say this is a super guilty person who's definitely like a drug lord and just a horrible person. It's still bad if that person dies. Like that person has rights. They are a human being who, if they die, that is a thing that we should avoid if possible. Secondly, even if you don't want to take that hard line and you think, oh like this is just a terrible person who deserves to die no matter what, the police can get harmed in these situations. Like this is really, really dangerous to put lots of officers generally in this sort of line of fire where they are dealing with a suspect who is probably not reacting in the most rational, straightforward way and is prone to violent outbursts. And third, and I think probably the most important, is the way this plays out when the no knock warrant is issued for the wrong address. This happens with fairly shocking frequency. Where because of faulty information or just mistakes the warrant is issued or the police go to even just the wrong address. This generally then results in innocent families having no knock warrants sprung upon them. This is a problem for two reasons. One is just sort of the obvious like warrant is issued to a bad place and police now break into an innocent person's home. But generally these situations are quite tense because people don't even understand why there are police officers barging into their homes. Now this does fall under the category of violent escalation sometimes through police brutality and things of the sort. But also it's important to recognize that it is much easier to resolve the situation when a knock happens. Like if you knock on the door and you're like, this is the police, open up, a normal person just goes to the door and opens up. Right? Like this is a significantly less tense, less error prone situation. Quickly on the second point, generally these warrants are used to implement drug laws. Like the thing that is generally being flushed down the toilet is drugs because there's really not much else that goes in the way of evidence of a crime that could be flushed down a toilet. I think the problem here is that because of a lot of factors paternalism, cartel violence that's exacerbated by drug laws, disproportionate impacts upon community of color, it's important to recognize that realistically the implementation of these laws just isn't worth the really serious harms that are generated by these warrants. Proud to propose.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 3, 3, 5]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 13581319, 31948170, 45190571, 45181383, 45401087, 45181384, 45189900, 45361788, 28810858, 45206691, 45336993, 29155723]"
4d5cb70b-d96a-4087-9391-184af3040ae8,2539,We should ban genetically modified crops,Human expert,"I'm proud to stand in proposition of the motion that we should ban genetically modified crops. We'll model this as just you know ban on sale in the way we would normally ban sale of any product so probably jail time for the people that produce the product, we'll also model it is you know financial penalties for people that are found in possession of the product unless of course they weren't aware that it was genetically modified. Our first independent point is that largely these products are you know marketed as the result of an information asymmetry. That people aren't quite aware of you know what goes into these products and what specifically has been genetically modified and at that point there isn't meaningful consent into the purchase of this product. Well we think that obviously there are large amounts of food that this applies to. We think this is particularly pernicious with genetically modified crops because people don't really understand the science that goes into the development of these products and as such that there isn't really a meaningful way that they could properly understand the product itself. There really isn't any amount of government labeling that can just like explain to people like complex biological ideas and like research methods and at that point there isn't a way to obtain meaningful consent. So given thought then, we think that the ban is justified. Our second independent point is that there are unintended consequences that are intrinsic to scientific you know scientific advancements such as this, but particularly with food we think that there is a higher standard that has to be applied really for two reasons. The first is that most of the side effects can't be measured for a very long time. Things that have a detrimental effect on your diet take you know decades to actually reveal like meaningful measurable effects which is why you know even just now we're you know getting new research about things that we've obviously had access to the data on for a long amount of time, things like you know red meat being carcinogenic. It's not like red meat is new, it's just that it takes a long time for us to collect this data because of one, advancements in you know measuring technology but two, because you know you actually have to have a lot of time with the food being a steady part of an individual's diet to have that measurable effect. The problem then with genetically modified crops is that you know you have to expose someone to this thing for decades before you can really find out if it has harmful effects. That in turn means that you are almost guaranteed to wind up putting something on the market that has an extremely detrimental effect because you just didn't know until like thirty years later that it was so harmful. Given that, we think a ban is justified because the large amounts of effects that can be you know intrinsic to food this is something that's consumed by large amounts of people and as such has a really systemic effect on the population, are you know grave enough to warrant a ban. Our third independent point is damage to ecosystems. So particularly with regards to animals we think that there's some pretty profound effects that can happen with genetically modified crops that aren't you know within the financial incentives of the firms that develop them. I do think that broadly speaking a company like monsanto, doesn't like like intentionally poison people for if no reason other than monsanto needs people to be alive to continue selling them products but those same incentive structures don't apply to animals. I think broadly speaking if we take a plain pleasure analytic perspective and decide through that that animals have rights it's important to you know actually create products that aren't going to be harmful if like a dear decides to wander onto a farm and nibble on some of the corn that's growing there. Likewise, I think there's just brought ecosystem related reasons why even humans benefit from just having like a stable environment and not like jeopardizing the like like local wildlife. At that point then, we think that for the same reasons that apply to humans but even more broadly because there's less incentive to test them properly, animals are put extremely at risk by the proliferation of genetically modified crops. Proud to propose.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 45336993, 45206691, 45361788, 45189900, 45336988, 45181384, 31948170, 45538225, 28810858, 45458968, 20225558, 45405037]"
f8f6cb12-7283-4b41-af88-aafd4ac5aab6,2572,We should ban algorithmic trading,Human expert,"I'm proud to stand in proposition of the motion that we should ban algorithmic trading. Three independent points: first that algorithms can be uncontrollable and are much more subject to error than human trading. The way that algorithms are often constructed in the financial industry is to automatically make trades based on certain inputs. So, a certain thing happens in the market and the computer sees that is a, you know, positive or negative signal for an individual investment, and then they will buy or sell that, you know, stock or whatever, based on that market cycle. The problem is that these algorithms are designed by humans. They are, you know, from a design perspective, as subject to error as a human is. But because they run automatically, they are less adaptable to changes in the market that are not commonplace. That is, you know, if you were playing around with some market variable like, say, you know, sales of cheese for a dairy company, you might generally say: if more people are buying cheese, you should invest in the dairy company. But some, you know, small unpredictable left-field thing that probably isn't going to happen and the average person might not think of can be, you know, be overlooked in the designing of the algorithm. And as a result, if that thing happens, that algorithm can make some pretty disastrously bad choices. Now, notably, this would just be a problem for the investment firm, you know, if you think about this straightforwardly, but the problem is that that's not always true. Depending on the investment firms, really important things can be connected to that firm's success, you know, people's retirement funds, people's, you know, mortgages, things like that. This is really important, then, because you can have pretty profound impacts on the economy by faults in your algorithms. And if this happens repeatedly across multiple firms, as it has on occasion, this can create some really serious issues for the economy. Our second independent point is that algorithms enable rapid trading that this can lead to flash crashes. So algorithms, you know, quite obviously, work a lot quicker than humans. They're automatic and as a result, they can make trades very, very quickly. The problem is that humans have to, you know, take a look at these and make sure everything's on the right track, and obviously humans have a little bit of a delay when compared to the speed of a computer. This, in turn, leads to flash crashes, which are rare but are profound. You know, sometimes over the course of like a twenty minute span, a massive chain reaction in the ways that these algorithms interact with each other can just have horrible, horrible impacts on the stock market. People lose millions of dollars. This is a problem. It doesn't happen with humans as frequently because humans work slower. You can, you know, react more rationally and more level-headedly when you have the capacity to just sort of slow things down and see what's going on in the market at the time. But because the algorithms keep moving and the humans have to figure out a quick way to intervene, the response is often imperfect, and as a result the crash can have a much more profound impact on the market. Our third independent point is that high frequency trading can actually kill small firms, and that leads to consolidation in the industry. What we mean by this is that algorithmic trading is very, very dependent on hardware, not skills. So, whereas small firms frequently used to be able to compete well by just having a small group of people that were very qualified at what they did and were smart, they could usually get by on that. The problem though is that this becomes less and less of a possibility when high frequency trading makes your firm's success contingent upon the quality of your hardware. Someone with just better wiring for their computers, that can act faster and make deals at a quicker rate, snatches up all the capital on the market, leaving smaller firms to struggle. This leads to consolidation in the industry, which is a problem, a, because larger firms have more leverage over their clients and can therefore be engage much more abusive and predatory practices, but b, because killing the small firms decreases competition in the market and leads to more or less monopolies, if not cartels, at least, that are also harmful for the ways in which that industry interacts with consumers. Proud to propose.","[4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 2, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 3, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[45567227, 45569485, 45458968, 45190823, 21785776, 34110399, 28813722, 45411178, 20512953, 15448937, 30777913, 44044795, 34609243, 45355658, 28513847]"
520d75c7-4b46-46ac-b4b6-81d9653501f0,2613,We should abolish the two-party system,Human expert,"Today's motion to deconstruct the two-party system and abolish it is mechanistically complicated but philosophically simple. We stand opposed to the notion that two parties should have a monopoly on the political operations of a single nation. Given this, we have two points of of support. First, diversity of choice and secondly, the ability for a legislature to be more responsive and more actionable to the needs of its populace. We think that the two-party system, going under the first point of diversity of choice, fails to reflect the will of the populace for a number of reasons. First, there is a lack of choices in the status quo, so it is unlikely that I'm going to find a good proxy for my individual political beliefs. I might be somebody who is, say, opposed to gun control, but in favor of reproductive rights. This makes it very difficult for me as an american citizen, therefore, to choose a party that actually reflects my individual political preferences and as a result, a large number of people are left out of the conversation. Going off of this, we think that more broadly speaking, moderates or centrists are largely left out of the political conversation as a result of their inability to meaningfully decide which one of the parties is a better proxy for their individual preferences. Secondly, we think that mismanagement of individual parties makes it very difficult to actually solve the root causes of this mismanagement when there's only one other choice that has a very different ideology from the party you previously supported. It is difficult to support one party that is being mismanaged, whether that be for reasons pertaining to corruption or just poor campaigning, and jump ship to a different group. As a result, it creates inefficient political systems. Thirdly, it's notable that parties survive by being preferable to their opponent, which makes them very unresponsive to minor shifts in ideology amongst the populace. For example, corporatism amongst democrats in the united states is very rarely addressed in any meaningful way because the comparative is always republicans. We think in a multiparty system it is much more likely that these like minor preferences amongst the voting bodies are going to be responded to in efficacious matter. We solve for these issues quite clearly because we create a system that has more than two parties and solve for these root harms of the two-party system, giving people more choices in their voting patterns. Secondly, we believe that the legislatures in countries that adopt this system will be much more actionable upon the individual opinions of their cities. Firstly, we think that this is important because dynamic governments reflect the preferences of their citizens best. Opinions change over time so the status quo is rarely going to be the best possible version of the political system. But furthermore, we think the dynamic changes and frequent legislative action stimulate discourse on topics that aren't discussed as fervently otherwise. So why do we get more legislative action on our side of the house? We think that gridlock exists in the status quo largely because there is an incentive to be oppositional in a two-party system. For example, republicans had to oppose obamacare from the very beginning because any successes that would have been found within obamacare would have been political points lost by republicans. That means that systems that are complicated and politically contentious are always doomed to fail, even if they are systems that would necessarily be beneficial to the general populace. We think that coalitions allow an incentive to actually cooperate amongst parties because you can get mutual credit for a successful policy. If there were, say, five parties in congress at the time that obamacare was being discussed, multiple parties can join in on the conversation and actually engage in creating a healthcare system that would have met up with the ideologies of multiple people across the political spectrum, and thus increase the likelihood of the program's success. We think given this, we have significantly better outcomes for individual citizens on our side of the house. Proud to propose.","[4, 3, 2, 2, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5]",15,"[45185975, 45191882, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 45190823, 13581319, 21785776, 34110399, 20312760, 29155723, 38202325, 45411178, 6340330, 33708599]"
8900d1f5-b94d-40ba-9d74-75d04469533d,2767,We should subsidize investigative journalism,Human expert,"I'm proud to support the motion that we should subsidize investigative journalism. I want to start this with an overview, though, of what the purpose of a sort of like press media is in any given western liberal democracy. We think the purpose of the press is to ensure equal access to strong information about current events to the citizenry. This is information, in general, is important as a right insofar as it is facilitative to other more basic rights, like the right to be represented well by your government in terms of the policies they pass. If we don't have access to correct information about what's going on in the world around us, we can't reasonably formulate decisions about our preferences that we can then express to elected officials. So it is always important to ensure that citizens within a democracy have access to as much and as much accurate information as possible. We think then that more funding for investigative journalism fulfills this necessity in three distinct ways. First is we believe that this leads to more accurate reporting. Investigative journalism, by its nature, caters to like a group of people, and specifically a group of news consumers, that are more concerned than the average person with the accuracy in their reporting. Investigative journalism, by its nature, is generally not as sensationalist as, say, like tabloid reporting or even like a mid-rate standard newspaper, like see, like, I don't know, USA today. So, this is going to be it - investigative journalism is going to be more concerned with like raw facts and like basic truths than your average reporting. This is important obviously because if your information is inaccurate and people are formulating decisions and preferences based on inaccurate information, you're not fulfilling the baseline needs I articulated at the top of this speech. The second thing that we think that investigative journalism does is have more specificity in the type of reporting. So what we mean by this is rather than sort of broad, overarching reported on, like, the themes of a presidency or like the broad ideology, we specifically get journalism that is more tailored to individual things that are more important in terms of what's happening. So rather than just being like "" trump is pulling out of the paris accords "", like maybe an investigative investigation into like why specific members of his cabinet had a vested interest in this. Like were there business ties involved in that decision? What were the underlying ideological bases? Which advisers had a more prominent role in the crafting of that decision? We think that this granularity in reporting is particularly important because it can often reveal things that a broad, overarching picture doesn't. We have a tendency to favor simplified narratives because they're easier to consume. But in reality, the fine details are important in both predicting future events and in understanding how we as citizens want things to change so the things that we don't like happening can stop happening. If you don't know that jared kushner is the reason a policy got passed, then you won't know to oppose jared kushner's presence in the white house. Our third and final point here is that we believe that investigative journalism is particularly apt at decreasing power imbalances in the type of information received. And what we mean by this is that generally wealthier people, people who are in positions of power, are more capable of accessing detailed information because they are proximate to it. Government officials obviously know more about government processes, because they are sort of like in the room where it happens. They are part of that process. We think, though, that citizens also have a right to that information because, as mentioned earlier, this is facilitative to exercising other basic rights. We think then that investigative journalism that goes behind the scenes and tells people this is how x, y and z happened, reduces the imbalance that creates systemic inequity in our society. We think that when wealthy people are disproportionate likely disproportionately likely to get information that allows them to express preferences and opinions, that systemically perpetuates this inequity that exists in our society. Proud to propose.","[5, 4, 4, 2, 4, 3, 5, 5, 2, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5]",15,"[45567227, 45569485, 45458968, 45411178, 21785776, 34110399, 20512953, 30777913, 43877630, 21017840, 45953041, 33708599, 34609243, 27770607, 44094031]"
e2e3a547-b285-4665-93ea-8460b66dc7b0,3168,We should introduce year round schooling,Human expert,"I'm proud to stand proposition of today's motion that year round schooling should be implemented. So for the model, I think this is fairly straightforward that you're going to consent into summer school, so it's not going to be this thing that's mandatory for all children, so like the model for year round schooling that exists right now, is essentially just that there are summer schools that exist for multiple purposes, whether that be as a thing for kids who are behind on their classes to catch up with their classmates or if it's a thing where kids that want to get ahead in sort of graduate early can do that, or any multitude of reasons why an individual might want to engage in year round schooling, but the point being that it is a thing you consent into. Three independent points under this: first is that choice is good and that there are individuals it works for, and the individuals that it doesn't work for don't have to engage in the system. Secondly, that it increases educational opportunity and educational benefits and the quality of education, and third that it is a more efficient system. So first under notice of like why choice is good. Recognize that this is a thing that doesn't like harm you if you do not engage in it, right? There are obviously going to be kids that this doesn't work for, that they are kids that need sort of that like unstructured time during the summer where they're not in school, right? Those people don't have to engage in year round schooling, right? Like the people who are going to engage in year round schooling are most likely going to be people that, you know, like failed a class and want to graduate on time, because there are like structural reasons why they need to do that regarding like their employment or like their college aspirations or things like that, right? There are kids who are just like extremely smart and want to get ahead, or like their parents want to get them ahead or whatever. Insofar as there are legitimate reasons why individuals would want to use this type of schooling, it is always better to give them the option to do that and then allow people that it wouldn't work for to consent out of the system. Second independent point is it's better education. So this is true because it breaks like the severing that occurs in the learning process with a large summer break, right? This is especially true for multi year classes like in new york state for example, where world history is taught over the course of two years. So when you sever your your learning like that, when you have like a large break in the middle of your educational career, essentially, and there's this huge break between when you're learning about these things, it mentally distances you from the subject you were learning. You are coming back in the fall very rusty, like not as accustomed a school, it's like this almost foreign thing to you a lot of the time, where it takes like a while to get back into the swing of things. That creates like a lot of inefficiencies in the system, but it also decreases your retention of the things that you learn in the long term because it's not a constant source of information coming to you. There are large breaks in the middle of it. So that's a problem for the quality of your education, and we think we should allow people to consent into a system that gives them a better education. The third independent point is efficiency. So, this breaks down in two ways: the first is that, in three ways rather. The first is that by breaking that severing in the learning process you increase the educational efficiency because you don't have to backtrack and like reteach things and things like that when people come back into the system. Secondly, it gives kids more structure in the summer, right? So like a lot of the time you would have, you have like literally entire industries dedicated to like keeping kids entertained in the summer time like things like summer camp and things like that. We think these are naturally inefficient. They use large amounts of space that could be used for other things, they are necessarily like expensive and we think that's a like a drain on family finances, when you could have this publicly funded school system that instead gives your kids the structure that they need during the summer and gives them things to do and keeps them entertained. Lastly under this though, is that it's like literally a waste of space to not be utilizing the school during the summer. That is sort of like this hollow house that serves no purpose and occupies large amounts of land. Especially in cities where space is like a scarce thing, it is important to ensure that spaces are constantly being used in order to ensure that you are not wasting space that could be used on something else. Because it's a zero sum, people have to be in a location at any given time, and when they are not in school they are somewhere else using some other space that could be used for a different thing. So it's always good when we keep the space actively engaged. Proud to propose.","[4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 45336993, 45206691, 45567220, 45189900, 45567227, 45336988, 45538225, 45181384, 45181383, 45190571, 20225558, 45405037]"
8e1f3339-1a0d-4b8b-9445-7197e8703b4c,3180,We should introduce goal line technology,Human expert,"I'm proud to stand in proposition of the motion that we should further implement goal-line technology. What we mean by this then is just you know implementing this in more games and using goal-line technology to determine whether or not a goal has been scored in a soccer game or not. So two independent points. First being accuracy. This is something that's important in sports, is to make decisions correctly. A lot of the reason we enjoy sports is tied to the fairness of the sport itself and the accuracy with which calls are made. We care about competitiveness which is of course you know intrinsically tied into how fair the calls are and we also care you know about like sort of the spirit of the game and you know playing in a way that approximates some level of fairness. That is that people are rewarded for you know feats of athleticism that are difficult to replicate. So having a goal system then that is based on sort of eyeballing it is always going to be subject to a lot of issues. You know often refs are observing things from a bit of a distance even if you are up close it's just like difficult to make decisions on things that happen to a hairline. This is why a lot of other sports have already implemented some sort of a variation on goal-line technology. You know track events for example use photo finishes quite frequently to determine extremely close races. So we think then that there is a fairness claim obviously that you know people are just more likely to get correct decisions and goals when we implement this technology but also that there is a certain you know sense of the sport's integrity being preserved because the correct decisions are being made and people are being properly rewarded for their feats of athleticism. Our second independent point is that there is less derision for refs in this world. So we think right now that you know being a ref is pretty thankless job. This is you're a person that you know if it's frequently frequently you know cast as a villain by fans and players alike. People often blame you for things that just genuinely aren't your fault. You know no matter what call you make someone's going to be angry at you because a lot of the time calls are zero sum and goals of course are you know one of the most obvious ways in which this is articulated, that if you say something is a goal the team that was scored upon is not going to be pleased and if you say something isn't a goal then the team that was trying to score the goal is not going to be pleased. Either way you're faced with a lot of angry fans, a lot of angry players, and this can have pretty profound impacts on you. It can you know affect your career if you're talking about people that are employing you. It can also just affect your safety with angry fans often confronting referees after games. So this is a pretty significant issue for you as an individual and or for referees as individuals, and as such we think that it's reasonable then to implement technologies that both satiate the demands of fans quite frankly by introducing some objectivity into it but also helps referees by insuring that they have some sort of like plausible backing for the decision that they've made. It a lot harder to get mad at the ref and blame them for the decision individually when there is like a actual like tool or instrument backing up their decision and justifying it for them. We think that that in turn means more respect for refs because people are less likely to villainize them, but we also think that that means you know obviously more safety associated with that for the refs, that they're less likely to experience the negative aspects of being villainized. Proud to propose.","[5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 20225558, 6432269, 13581319, 45538225, 45401087, 45181384, 45411178, 45336993, 45336988, 43877630, 45458968, 45405037, 30777913]"
42fafaca-e7ee-4825-8ea2-d5d73f9386b1,3191,We should introduce recall elections,Human expert,"I'm proud to stand in proposition of the motion that we should introduce recall elections. Three independent points. First is that recall elections you know make up for a more democratic government. Generally speaking the reason why we care about democracy is that we care about citizen input into the decisions made by the government. The reason you know we even have a government in the first place is to work for the citizens and to better the lives of the majority of the population. So we care about having elected officials then that are very good at representing our interests. And I think often when we elect people into office you know there is a limited picture we get of them during the election season that the election season really is just a proxy for figuring out what they're going to do when they you know get to the the legislature and actually start making decisions. At that point then there is a sort of a failing in the democracy, there's a there's a lack of ability to really have a a perfect representation when they get up there. And that's obviously a problem because you know there's if there's any failing at all we want to correct for that failing. Recall elections then means that we have a means of you know taking people out of office if it turns out that they're just really really egregiously not doing a good job. I think that you know often we will find that these aren't things that are gone about liberally yet they do exist in some states already and they're quite rare because people do have a bit of a diversion to you know radically shifting their government on the turn of the dime they want to go about business as usual but they are just some exceptional cases that really warrant having these recall elections and I think that's generally what they are going to be used for, to ensure that people are better represented. Our second independent point though is that it creates greater accountability among elected officials. Oftentimes elected officials wind up with this perception that there is a certain window directly after the election and leading up until you know basically about a year before they have to be reelected where they are free to make some pretty egregious mistakes because they'll have time to make up for it. This is fundamentally a problem. I don't think there should be any point at an elected officials career where they do feel like safe so to speak and the reason for this is that we have a very high standard for electeds. Their decision is really really important the decisions they make that is in terms of our day-to-day lives you know they're making decisions on healthcare, on public safety, on things that are really really important to the individual person on the ground and have a serious impact. So it's fair then to hold them to an extremely high standard and I think that's what this does. It prevents them from having the impression that they can you know just sort of glide by the seat of their pants until the election comes back around and then just sort of you know prove their pay case again. So our third independent point finally is just an increased confidence in the way the government works. I think a lot of the narrative surrounding why people are so upset with their governments particularly in you know western liberal democracies lately has to do with a sense of the unaccountability that they feel that their elected officials you know basically just once they get in they stop you know regarding the voters' wishes and their that their elected officials are people that you know just sort of take advantage of the system and so do these gaps in the system that I previously explained. I think if you get rid of the gaps, even if you don't think that elected officials are you know these monsters that are being you know horribly horribly demonized by the media even if that's your opinion, I think that when you increase that confidence in government by just enacting these types of reforms then you just minimize the rate at which you know that demonization even accures. So it's always going to be a good thing that to ensure that elected officials you know at least from a from the perception standpoint are seen as people that act with the best interests of the people in mind and that insures that people have more confidence in their government, they you know they feel more secure in the way that their country is being run and that just you know makes them happier, makes them feel more secure and that in and of itself is a benefit. Proud to propose.","[4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 3, 4]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 45191873, 6340330, 45181152, 45272708, 45183231, 7756990, 45282792, 45336991, 44044795, 19838540, 30398579, 34110399, 33708599]"
a5bdfb15-a68d-4f91-97cb-76f25837ec9b,3207,We should abandon social media,Human expert,"I'm proud to stand in proposition of the motion that we should abandon social media. I do want to clarify that this isn't you know something that we're going to approach from a policy standpoint, we won't ban it the motion is essentially just that we would like to see this used less widely. So three independent points. The first is that social media has driven a decrease in personal contact and developing relationships between people. And what I mean by this is that you know historically the way in which we establish our relationships and we establish our you know interpersonal communication is largely a product of actual physical interaction that we you know have conversations with people and what not. And I think it's problematic then when that personal contact and that personal interaction sees a decline because what it signifies is firstly a lack of investment in that social contact which holds its own value in terms of you know getting to know a person but also it it it facilitates worse communication. There's something lost when you try to communicate with an individual over the internet or over any sort of impersonal medium. You know texting in is included because that that emotion things like like you know hand motions and vocal intonation are just lost when you have that that that impersonal conversation. I think that then sort of undermines the quality of our interpersonal relationships to a large extent. But in the most you know over the top examples of this you can see are the vitriol that's often really characteristic of social media. People having very very confrontational discussions about things that are pretty mundane just because they don't see the other person's face. That lack of personal connection drives a lot of drives a lot of animosity that people you know and especially when anonymous behind a computer screen are allowing to much more comfortable being much more confrontational and that in turn you know causes a lot of discomfort and causes a lot of problems around you know interpersonal communication that can actually drive a lot of what is really becoming a very confrontational society especially in the west now with you know looking at political situations particularly. Our second independent point is that social media drives unrealistic standards. I think instagram is a really good example of this where people will off to display their lives through social media and it's created this this culture that encourages people to you know basically express themselves as being very decadent and happy with everything that's happening to them because there's this need to have an outward facing personality that you know projects you as being successful and being happy with everything that's going on. There's no there's no ability really to express discomfort with your life or to express any sort of vulnerability really to people that are even exceptionally close to you and that's a problem. It means that people you know aren't as comfortable discussing their insecurities that often those insecurities than fester because they're not being raised in a society that is you know comfortable with being frank about these types of things. I think that stepping away for the technology that enables that type of culture enables that kind of outward face that can be so superficial and can be so deeply unrepresentative of what you are actually experiencing in your life would go a long way towards solving that. Our last point just quickly is about employment harms, that having such a public life and being encouraged to have a such a public life can really undermine your capacity to find employment. This is something that you know employers would like to think basically that you know you are this purist that isn't that doesn't engage in like drinking on the weekends and things like that but this can be a serious issue in certain industries where you your online record really undermines your ability to find employment in the long term and I think the problem with this particular we're drawing a lot of consenting into these harms is that people just don't understand especially at a young age the posting certain things online really does generate long term harms for them. Proud to propose.","[4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 6432269, 45538225, 30777913, 6340330, 20512953, 21785776, 44690955, 20312760, 28813722, 6367365, 45044458, 33708599, 34110399]"
830e7e08-4a6e-4115-8a07-e089a11241ed,3212,We should adopt the teacher tenure reform,Human expert,"I'm proud to stand in proposition of the motion that we should reform the teacher tenure system. For the sake of this debate I'll be modeling it as the reform just being abolished, the teacher tenure system so we just wouldn't have tenure anymore. We're not going to change anything else. So three independent points. First is that the restrictions that are generated by tenure keep bad teachers in place. So I think the reasoning for why this happens is fairly intuitive, that is that you know generally the incentive of an individual school is to fire teachers that are underperforming and you know replace them with teachers that you know might be better basically. I think the problem then that's generated by tenure is that teachers you know that are doing well over you know the first period of their teaching career don't necessarily stay that way. I think you know there's lots of examples that people can just personally relate to seeing in their own school system but also like from a logical perspective it just makes sense like sometimes people just get worse at their jobs as they age especially when that job is like a very high stress one that involves dealing with like loud rambunctious often disobedient children so you know as people reach into their twilight years they just might not be as good at the job and I think at that point it is reasonable to replace them with someone that is better. I think then like so maybe like op is going to get up here and be like that so inhuman like you can't just like take someone's job away from them when they're in their fifties. I think I'm willing though to put like a different standard on schools because the impact of like the quality of the teaching is pretty high like having a good teacher verses like an unadequate teacher means a massive amount of the development of it in of tons and tons of children that pass through that teacher's classroom. So at the point where there is a profound impact on young children as a result of these hiring policies, I'm willing to take the stance that we should adopt whatever the policy is that ensures the best quality teaching. Our second independent point is that the tenure system is extremely costly. So the way this works in a lot of cities for example is that if the teacher doesn't get hired in a given year that is if the school decides we don't want them anymore we're just like not going to hire them they can do that. It it's a complicated process that involves expending a lot of political capital with the union but they can do that. However what happens is that the teacher doesn't just like go away like they still get paid and if they can't find another school to work out then they just basically sit in these things called like teacher detention rooms new york is notorious for having like large ones that lots of teachers wind up in and they get paid to do essentially nothing. So this is obviously pretty problematic like this is a huge drain on the school budget that in most cities is pretty underfunded and even if it's not underfunded there's always better things to spend that money on than paying teachers to sit around in a room. Like you could buy new classroom supplies, you could buy new technology to run these classrooms on, new gym equipment, any number of things. You could bring down the classroom size by just hiring better teachers. Any number of things that you could do with this money but instead it's going to what is a pretty objectively bad use of it. Our third independent point is that it affords a lot of political cow capital to unions that then proceed to often abuse that political capital. So the reason why this accrues so much political capital to the union is that they are responsible for they're essentially the gatekeepers to the tenure system. So this puts the teachers pretty much in their pocket. A large part of the staff at these schools are then you know affording their loyalty to the union by virtue of the fact that they are the ones ensuring a strong protection is kept inplace. This is a problem though because the unions' incentives generally don't align with the incentives of children and things like that. They align with teachers' incentives. Often these overlap but often they don't. Often teachers want extremely high pay and like generous pack like like generous employment benefits packages that just don't allign with the best interests of the students because there's better ways to spend that money. And when the tenure system allows so much loyalty to the union, the union then has better leverage within the district and that then increases their capacity to engage in abusive tactics. Proud to propose.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 3, 2, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4]",15,"[45185975, 45191882, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 13581319, 45190823, 20312760, 34110399, 28813722, 45411178, 29155723, 34609243, 19838540, 6340330]"
c94b7786-792b-477f-a59a-0371c0b97160,3222,We should abolish bitcoins,Human expert,"I'm proud to propose the motion that we should ban bitcoin. We're willing to interpret this is just cryptocurrency in general, because it would probably be pretty dumb to have a system where only one form of cryptocurrency is illegal. So for all intents and purposes we'll be defending generally the idea that we should ban any form of cryptocurrency. Our first independent point is that cryptocurrency is inherently volatile. This is because it's not backed by any sort of central government that is specifically issuing some sort of like guarantee against the currency. I think there's two ways you can interpret this: one is sort of like the older model, like the sort of gold standard model, of just assuming that you have like have to have like a physical object to back up the like actual like worth of the currency. This is probably less true now, but I guess a gold standard would be technically more stable. But I think what's more important here is that cryptocurrency isn't backed up by any sort of institution that is willing to actually say like: "" this is worth something "". It is essentially a stock. Like it's based on the idea that other people want the cryptocurrency, which means that things like consumer confidence and what not can make its value fluctuate very wildly. We think this hasn't been an issue as of yet largely because cryptocurrencies haven't been used for a ton of stuff, particularly in the legal market, but we think in the long term if this is allowed to develop into a more commonly used form of currency, that volatility will probably have strong effects on the economy. Our second independent point is the illicit use of cryptocurrency. So right now the primary way in which this is used is to purchase things that normally would be illegal to purchase. Because it is a cryptocurrency, that isn't like based on a physical object, and thus the possession of it can't be traced back to an individual person, it's used to pay for things like say drugs or like illegal forms of pornography or like any number of other like illegal things. So we think that while there's probably some questionability about whether or not you should care about like drug purchases, like if someone's just like buying pot online, we think there is probably a broad range of things, from pot up to like assault weapons and other types of heavy arms they can be purchased using this type of currency. So at the extreme end of the spectrum then there are definite like clear cut harms of it be easier to obtain things that should not be easy to obtain. But beyond this, we think that there's just more of a principled harm in that it undermines the legitimacy of the government and its capacity to institute the rule of law. We think that as a general rule of thumb, that when the government's ability to regulate things is undermined by new technology, the solution should never be like: "" oh well I guess we should just give up on regulating it "". Like, it is certainly reasonable to question whether or not a specific object should be illegal, but generally I think it makes more sense to say: "" we should retain our control on the rule of law "", and instead then just like independently reconsider our laws. Our third and final independent point is that we believe that this form of currency becomes increasingly problematic with the rise of artificial intelligence. We think this is articulated in two ways: the first is that bitcoin mining, like the process by which you get bitcoins can be easily automated. So this creates problematic like economic consequences in terms of how quickly this currency can be harvested by individuals with access to greater artificial intelligence technology. So like large firms that develop this technology quickly, like I don't know maybe amazon or something or like whatever, will be able to mine cryptocurrency quickly and we think that this will lead to widening income inequity across the world. Insofar as just like this greater technology will translate in a very direct sense into material wealth. But secondly we think it's problematic insofar as it poses a significant risk of a-I competition with human beings. That is to say that any foreseeable like future where there is some level of competition between humans and and highly sophisticated artificial intelligence can be greatly greatly worsened by the ability of artificial intelligence to circumvent government institutions and instead use non governmental forms of currency. Given the high likelihood a problematic consequences with sort of artificial intelligence revolution, we think this is a contingency worth avoiding. Proud to propose.","[4, 2, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 2]",15,"[20225558, 45405037, 45569485, 45677971, 45458968, 44044795, 29155723, 45538225, 45190823, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45181384, 21785776, 45361788]"
9ab10ea3-3257-48ad-a427-c9f5be4b9085,3227,We should abolish capital punishment,Human expert,"I'm proud to support the motion that we should abolish capital punishment. Our first independent point is that even prisoners have a right to life, and that if there is no countervailing justification for doing so, we should never enact a punishment. So we think that the purpose of the criminal justice system is twofold: the first is to, in some capacity, rehabilitate individuals in a way that can allow them to function in society again. This is because every human being, regardless of what they have done, has rights. And we think that if we can get a person to a point where they can reassimilated into society, that is a good thing to do. But secondly we think the criminal justice system's purpose is to protect the rights of the innocent. So things like neutralization, IE putting someone in prison to ensure that they're not going to commit a crime again is an important component of the criminal justice system. We don't think either of these purposes though are served by capital punishment. All capital because the comparative is just like life in prison, the only comparative of capital punishment seems to be inflicting more harm on the person who has committed a crime just for the sake of doing so. IE retribution in situations where you think the crime is so severe that you need like more retribution. We don't think, however, that there is a moral justification for engaging in retributive justice, because we think that broadly speaking, the rights of the innocent don't extend to like needlessly inflicting harm upon the person who committed the crime. We don't think that like an eye for an eye actually makes the world any better. At that point then, because the like actual execution of this individual doesn't serve any sort of broader purpose we don't think it is justified. Rather we think it is a needless infringement on the rights of the individual being executed. Our second independent point is wrongful imprisonment. So we think that obviously this happens. Like you hear about like these stories at the news where it's like: "" oh, x person was like exonerated from their crime thirty years later due to DNA evidence. "" Like this sort of thing happens with like fairly high regularity. We think also it is clear that this frequently happens with people that are on death row, due to the extreme nature of their crimes. There is often like a lot of confusion in courtrooms, especially with like racism as a factor in the criminal justice system, these are very often going to be like charged trials, and as a result, wrongful indictments and wrongful imprisonments are you know something that can frequently happen. Of course like if someone has just been like in life in prison, you can just take them out of prison and allow them to go back into society. If you killed that person that's not really an option that's on the table. At that point then we think it's important to just put people in prison for life rather than kill them, even if like the chance a small that they are exonerated by evidence, we think that is a massive massive injustice if somebody is innocent and is killed as a result of it. IE you cannot reverse the decision. Our third and final independent point concerns money. So essentially we think that putting people on death row and engaging in capital punishment is incredibly costly. The reason for this is that there's a lot of backlog in death row due to like the sorts of chemicals and things that are used. We also think there's something to be said for like the humane the like the humanity aspect of whether or not these chemicals are like a actual peaceful way to die, but regardless of that we think they're very expensive. The sort of regulations that are put on death row make it such that you have to put a lot of money into buying these chemicals, that you have to spend a lot of money keeping these people on death row because there's different security regulations and different like treatment regulations for people who are about to die, and in effect, because they spend so much time on death row they actually wind up being costlier than if you would just sentence them to life in prison. Counter intuitively killing people and taking them out of the prison system actually costs a lot more money than just letting them stay in the present system indefinitely. At that point then we think this is a system that is really harmful to the taxpayer, and at that point we don't think that it is a reasonable thing to keep in place because that is a specific articulable harm that is inflicted upon innocents just for the sake of being able to say that you killed the bad guys. Proud to oppose. Propose.","[4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 20225558, 45458968, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45181384, 45538225, 45405037, 6432269, 21785776, 45336993, 45361788, 29155723]"
4a3f3a6f-c016-454a-9787-10509890c2ca,3730,Community service should be mandatory,Human expert,"I'm proud to support the motion that we should make community service mandatory. We'll model this says around the time someone leaves high school so upon graduation or upon dropping out if that's what they do. They have to complete a certain number of hours of community service within the next year. You know we're not going to defend a specific number but we'll say something substantial like say you know a hundred or so probably not that different from what you would expect from like a normal like prison sentence that issues community service. We would also be willing to delay having to do this if you're going to do something else at that point in your life so like if you're going to college for example we're fine with allowing people to you know delay their community service requirement until after college. But generally what we're talking about here is a requirement of a substantial amount of community service right as someone is becoming an adult. So three independent points, the first is that we think that people benefit a lot from communities you know specifically the you know the networks that exist within them, the support systems, even just the beautification efforts that exist in a lot of communities like places that have a community garden or a park. And we think that the work in creating that sense of community is often imbalanced, that activists within communities will often put in a lot more legwork than your average person. We think then that by mandating community service we attempt to adjust for that imbalance, we say if you are living in this community and if you are deriving the benefits of being within a community we think that you should be contributing towards that community. This can be simple, this can be you know picking up trash off the side of the road, this can be prettying up a park or a community garden, this can be putting in hours at a local soup kitchen. We think there are a lot of ways in which people can sort of pay it forward and make up essentially for the benefits that they have received from living within that well kept community. Our second independent point though is that this just leads to a better society that you know when you have people staffing the soup kitchen and when you have people making the parks look prettier that is just a world that is better to live in. We generally would just be very happy defending any policy that says hey, we're going to implement this and the world's going to be a lot better because we implemented it. That is generally a rationale that is pretty easy to get behind and we would say that if you can implement a law and it just makes people a lot happier and it makes the world a lot better we think that is a significantly you know that is a a sufficient reason to pass that law. But our third and final independent point is that we think it creates a sense of obligation or a sense of belonging within communities, that is that when people put a lot of work into something they become invested in it. You want to see it succeed, you want to see it thrive, you become better personally attached to it and it's beneficial when people have that sense of attachment to a community. A lot of what the government does in the status quo is things that could reasonably be done by communities. Obviously we're not talking with the big things like say militaries but we are talking about things like upkeeping parks and you know things like that. We think that if people were just willing to put in a lot of work for this if people just genuinely cared a lot about it, we would be able to do things like reduce government expenditures, we would be able to just see less people trashing parks and creating that work to be done if people just cared about the parks in the first place. We think then that by passing this policy and by requiring people to you know put a significant amount of their life and their work into just caring for this community, we think then that that will allow people to enable people or encourage people to be more respectful of that community and to really just help keep that community preserved in a way that minimizes the obligation of others to come in and clean up after them. Proud to propose.","[5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 2, 2, 4, 4]",15,"[45181384, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45191882, 45189900, 45206691, 45483811, 29155723, 43877630, 45361788, 45336993, 45336988, 44094031, 32850083]"
b4dd77d2-6dbb-473a-b666-178c268c6fcd,3758,We should further exploit sustainable energies,Human expert,"I'm proud to support the motion that we should further exploit sustainable energy. Three independent points, the first of which is that this mitigates the effects of global warming. So a significant amount of global warming stems from our usage of fossil fuels. Things like say carbon dioxide go up into the atmosphere, greenhouse effect, planet warms up. You know, etcetera etcetera. At the point then where fossil fuels and things like you know crude oil, coal, what not are tied to the the warming of the environment and the environmental effects that are associated with that, say rising sea levels, weather patterns, that sort of thing, we think that it is necessary to mitigate those effects on the basis that it provides a significant harm to people in the world if not an absolute existential threat. Sustainable energy is of course linked to this on the basis that the things that are creating such significant pollution are by nature finite resources. So when we're talking about sustainable energy, we're talking about things that aren't finite in nature, like you know your coal your oil, so on, we're talking about things that are more or less infinite, like say sun light or say you know water flow. At that point then we think that the mitigation of global warming is probably the most significant impact in this debate, because of the extreme nature of the harms it creates, and as such we should be looking to mitigate those effects in any way possible. Our second independent point though is that even if you think that like global warming is a myth or whatever, that pollution itself is just a generally good thing to avoid. So look to like beijing, for example, with the significant amount of smog that creates horrible like quality of life effects. I think even if you're stepping away from the broader environmental effects, they're very obvious measurable ways in which consumption of fossil fuels has generated significant harms upon the people of the planet. So, if you want to mitigate these types of things that lead to like lung disease and like various types of ailments, it's necessary to cut down on the usage of coal, oil, other fossil fuels, and instead transition to things like solar and like you know hydroelectricity, in order to ensure that you are you know creating less of those externalities. Our third and final point though is the economics behind this switch. And I think this is probably what's most important here. The f a fundamental basis for continuing to use fossil fuels is that they're cheap. Coal especially is extremely extremely cheap to use relative to the output. So what you're probably going to hear from op is like: "" oh, but like transitioning the world to solar power, whatever, would be vastly more expensive and people would have to pay more for electricity. "" While this is probably true in the short term. I think there's sort of two reasons why in the long term this isn't true. The first is that when you you know have enough of the the international grid so to speak put on these types of sustainable energy, the amount of money that goes into researching and investing in you know perfecting these forms of energy goes up significantly. So we think that right now a lot of like global giants like exxon mobil for example are, while they're somewhat investing in things like solar technology, they're mostly focused on the status quo of fossil fuels. We think though if you sort of pushed for that balance to shift toward sustainable energy, the research money would go towards making things like solar or hydroelectricity significantly cheaper. But the second and more important reason is that the finite nature of fossil fuels means eventually you're going to run out. And at that point then, two things happen: one, in the interim the scarce resources drive up the cost of fossil fuels extraordinarily high to the point where they don't become financially usable anymore. But secondly when they do run out you're left with technology that's not affordable, because the research hasn't been put in yet to drive down the costs. As a result, we prefer a world where we simply ease ourselves into sustainable energy by doing the leg work now to make sure that what we have to put our grid entirely on sustainable electricity, it's out a point where it's developed enough to be cheap and like a feasible source of energy for the entire planet. Proud to propose.","[5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 5, 4, 5, 4]",15,"[45190823, 20225558, 13581319, 29155723, 20512953, 45181152, 45272708, 45191873, 45181383, 45405037, 45411178, 19838540, 45181262, 45181253, 6579519]"
1e65a679-01bf-4309-bd19-1d995b53642f,1161,We should ban cosmetic surgery,Human expert,"We should ban cosmetic surgery. We are making an important distinction here, between reconstructive cosmetic surgeries, that were meant to restore looks that were damaged as a as a result of an accident, or a disease of some sort, or that were meant to fix some specifically and recognized disfigurement, and cosmetic surgery, that we would call redecorative, that are only meant to make someone more attractive. So, skin transplants to someone that was burned in a fire, yes. A like, surgery for a kid that suffers from a cleft lip, yes. Breast transplant, rhinoplasty, no. We fully understand that this ban might harm certain people, that don't feel well with their bodies, and so on. But we think, that in order to avoid the huge harms that result from the way in which this industry was blown out of proportion, it is worth this harm. First point, like, at the end of the day this is an intrusive surgical procedure with a significant amount of risk. This is something that not many people understand. We tend to think of it as a very simple procedure, without too many , you know, health repercussions, but it's actually not true. First of all, there can be a lot of negative side effects, and implications to your health. Quite often, this is a procedure that that like, a great deal of long lasting physical pains follow from it. There are a lot of cases where the body rejects the the transplants, and this leads to health complications, and so on. Secondly, just like any other form of surgery, there are a lot of accidents, where, this, like the the operation isn't successful, and the outcomes aren't as expected. Thirdly, we start seeing a growing phenomenon of people that get addicted to plastic surgeries. So, it's mainly people that grow old, and find themselves undergoing one surgery after another, you know, responding to each complication with one surgery, with just signing into a second surgery, and so on, and so on, and they end up spending a fortune, in in the process. In this point, we have to already stop for a second, and notice that we have something here, that even if it can cause a lot of people, you know, to feel good with themselves, it leads to addictions in many people. It causes a huge amount of physical harm, that this starts to sound like the worst types of drugs possible. Drugs, that are obviously banned in the status quo. Second point, cosmetic surgeries feed into, and intensify the model of beauty, that is already much much too prevalent in society. Telling people that there is a certain way that they should look like, and creating immense emotional harms, often even leading to horrible mental disorders, like anorexia or bulimia. The more people can, like, the more that people can afford the can afford going and enhancing their bodies or their faces, this also creates immense pressure on people, other people, that don't have you know perfect physique, or a perfect profile, to go and do the same thing, even if they were less bothered by it initially, and felt okay with themselves, and even if, for them, this is already quite a heavy expense. Instead of teaching people that they should love themselves as they are, we are teaching people that they should you know locate flaws, and go and fix them. And one final point, because medic surgery industry like became a huge money making monster, doctors understood that there's plenty of money to be made by this, and this causes plenty of bad things. First, many young talented promising doctors choose to specialize in this, and not in actual life saving medicine, which we think is far more important, but less profitable. Secondly, because this happens in private clinics, they have an incentive to endorse their clients to undergo more and more surgeries, because this means more money. Therefore, they will never tell their patients that there's no reason for him to go through surgery. This deepens all of the harms that we've mentioned before. The only solution to this problem is to have a blanket ban on cosmetic surgeries. Please propose.","[3, 4, 5, 4, 2, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 2, 4, 5, 4]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 13581319, 45336988, 31948170, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45181384, 45189900, 45361788, 21785776, 20225558, 20512953]"
adf8dd6c-157d-4277-ae00-e5d10b9ab158,1902,We should legalize ivory trade,Human expert,"We should legalize ivory trade. So on the one side of the scales in this debate, we have the possible extinction of endangered elephants in africa and on the other, we have massive financial benefits to some of the poorest countries in the world. In this speech, we're going to argue the following: a, the latter is simply more important than the former, and b: even if not, banning ivory trade does very little to help protect the elephants, even the opposite and so we might as well, at the very least, try and make the most out of it and guarantee that the money is reaching the right place. First argument: so we were all taught how important it is to protect endangered species, but we would actually challenge this notion and dare ask, why is it so important? What's the intrinsic value of african elephants being able to walk around safely? Surely, it can't be about animal rights since we generally don't mind slaughtering billions of animals each passing day, just so we can enjoy eating meat or dairy or wearing fur or leather. What's so different about wanting to enjoy the use of ivory? So, we think that apart from vague sentimental values, there's just not a lot to say for the importance of protecting africa's elephants. On the other hand, however, the potential benefit that can come out of ivory trade is huge. The main countries that stand to gain a lot from this are countries like zimbabwe or botswana and the like. These are incredibly poor countries that can't possibly create a competitive advantage for themselves in the industry or agriculture sectors because this would require knowledge and technology that they simply don't possess. So, the one thing that these countries are uniquely rich in is wildlife. And so, relying on hunting is one of the only opportunities for them to generate growth. This is being heavily hindered today by the ban on ivory. This is a ban that other powerful countries have decided upon without considering for a moment the weak countries that are going to be most affected. We think that the people of africa are more important than its elephants, and our obligation should rest with them first and foremost. At the point at which we need to prioritize the lives of one over the other, we think that the choice should be easy. But let's move on and say that you remained unconvinced and that you still believe that it's wrong to allow elephants to go extinct. We have some bad news. The ban on the ivory trade does very little to help on that regard. Ivory is still a very desired commodity and the demand for it remains high. Thus, like any other thing that's being banned, a black market is created. All this ban does is make sure that instead of the countries themselves enjoying the benefits of ivory trade, all of the money goes into the pockets of illegal poachers. With the current ban on the ivory trade, the countries have very little incentive to invest the efforts needed to stop these butchers because why should they care about the elephants' population if it's no longer a source of income? Note: these poachers are even more likely to bring about the speedy extinction of the elephant population. Why? Because if we allow ivory trade, governments will want to make sure that the elephant population isn't eradicated entirely, because they want to continue making money off it. So, they make sure they control the hunting. Poachers aren't looking at the bigger picture. Their incentive is to hunt down as many as possible right now before someone else gets to. This is the well-known economic problem that's called the "" tragedy of the commons "". This means that it's likely that lifting the ban will lead to the elephant population being extinct way quicker and even if not, at the very least, it won't do much to help them. And so at the very least, we think that we have to look at where is the money being made, like where is the money being made from hunting put to better use, and that is if it reaches the countries and not the poachers. So for all these reasons, proud to propose.","[4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 45191873, 45183231, 45181152, 45272708, 6340330, 7756990, 45282792, 45336991, 44044795, 19838540, 34110399, 34609243, 33708599]"
4d21a8ba-27a5-4be4-a4e8-ef9f84847d0c,2083,We should legalize organ trade,Human expert,"We should legalize organ trade. We're going to implement a model that resembles surrogacy: both sides sit down and sign a legal, formal contract, with an agreed-upon price by both parties. These entire procedures will obviously require that you go through medical counseling that both makes sure that the chances of the implant to actually succeed are high and that both parties understand the risks involved. So all of this process is going to be professionally supervised by doctors. Three arguments in this speech: why legalization is going to solve the problem of scarcity in organs and save many lives, why this is legitimate, why do we have a right to do this, and on black markets. So first argument. Right now we have a huge shortage the in organs. The demand far outreaches the supply, and we are going to argue that this shortage is inherent. The entire supply side rests on voluntary donations, both pre-mortem and post-mortem. And now naturally, there's not a lot of incentive to donate organs pre-mortem unless it is in order to save like a close friend or a relative, so we don't get too much of these. As for post-mortem, the only incentive for people to donate organs post-mortem is a moral one, and there's no actual, you know, physical incentive to donate organs and therefore, most people just don't do it. They don't sign the the papers that say that they allow for organs to be taken from them post-mortem. We say that money incentivizes people a lot more than a nice and cozy moral feeling. We say that that is why we, for instance, need to make tax aversion a criminal offense and just and threaten to lock you up if you don't pay your taxes, because we just don't trust that you will pay taxes out of the kindness of your heart. So, money is an incentive that does work, and as soon as we allow for trade, we create true incentives for people to donate more organs, which means that shortage, which means more people like less people dying in line for a an implant. Now, we don't think that opposition can seriously oppose this, so let's move on to why this is legitimate. Why do we have a right? Opposition are going to say that we're screwing over the poorest of the poor that will feel almost coerced to sell their organs at cheap prices because they cannot rationally consider the long-term effects, because this is irreversible and so on and so on and therefore, we must ban this in order to protect the weaker parts of society. So let's answer this one by one. As for coercion, we say the choice is never binary, but always a spectrum. Yes, some people can afford more choice than others, but it is unclear to us why this is wrongful coercion and choosing to work in manual labor in order to support yourself isn't. As for like too cheap a price, two answers. Firstly, we believe that once a market develops to these things, prices are going to be more or less homogeneous because I'm going to, you know, find out what's the maximum price that profit that I can make from donating a a kidney, and there's no reason for me to take any less because there's a lot of demand for it. So I can always find someone that will pay the market price. Secondly, there is no such a thing as a too low a price. We have no way to assign absolute values of worth to an organ or to anything else for that matter. And the best way to do that is the market value that is assigned through the natural laws of demand and supply. As for rational considerations, we think that the fact that you are poor doesn't mean that you're stupid or less capable of understanding the long-term effects and in light of our mechanism, of course, that you will you will be like a doctor will sit you will take you through all of the long-term effects. And as and about, you know, this process being irreversible, we think that a lot of the decisions that we take in life are irreversible. A tattoo is irreversible. We don't have any problem with that. Lastly and very shortly on black markets. So, we say that as long as we don't legalize it, that doesn't mean that we are able to stop organ trade. Just like anywhere else where the where the demand outreaches the supply and the country puts limitations on trade, people turn to the black market where all of the harms that opposition side will talk about still occur and even a lot more than that, because there's no supervision and so on. Very, very bad. Please propose.","[5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3]",15,"[28813722, 45677971, 45567220, 45569485, 45567227, 45538225, 45458968, 45206691, 34609243, 19838540, 45189900, 45191882, 44044795, 6340330, 45181256]"
f6ada727-cc58-4586-a9af-8affca513bc0,2110,We should lower the age of consent,Human expert,"We should lower the age of consent. I would say that as opposed to the status quo, where the legal age of consent varies between sixteen to seventeen to eighteen according to states, we should simply lower it unanimously to let's say fifteen, so that in certain states there would hardly be any major difference felt whereas in others there will be a little more. Why should we do this? Well first of all I think that it's quite obvious and like it makes sense. That it's incredibly random and ridiculous and even unfair to have this age vary between different states. So the unification by itself starts to make more sense. But that's answer why lower it then rather than raising it. Note this isn't a debate about what we may or may not think is the appropriate age for children to start having sex. It has nothing to do with it. This is a debate about when does having sex with someone should be considered criminal despite it being consensual. Sex should only be considered a criminal offense if it's done without consent or if there is no possible way to treat the consent that was given as genuinely granted. Thus if I slipped someone a roofie and then carried on to have sex with her, I can't seriously claim that she consented because she was under the influence of the roofie. That would be criminal. In the same way we consider having sex with a consenting minor like we can we treat it the same way. So the question we should ask ourselves is at what age can we really see the explicit consent from someone as equivalent in its meaninglessness to someone under the influence of drugs? We believe that there is absolutely no reason to treat seventeen or sixteen year olds like people who are utterly incapable of genuinely conceding. Perhaps a few generations ago seventeen or eighteen was more appropriate for the age of consent but today children go through puberty faster. There have been significant changes both physically and mentally in the pace teenagers grow up. Physical changes occur sooner than before. Perhaps due to changes in consumed food. I don't know. Puberty just hits sooner. But also mentally kids today get exposed to sexual content through popular culture, movies, televisions and so on way sooner than a generation or two ago. Things aren't as innocent as they were and that's fine but this means that whether we like it or not many children at the age of fifteen already have sex today. Not to mention sixteen or seventeen. Sexual curiosity comes with puberty. That's just how it goes. And some of them they want to have sex with partners who are a couple of years older and that's also fine. Can some kids get hurt by this? Sure. But there's just no ground for a criminal offense here as long as it was consensual. We think that it's incredibly unjust to criminalize someone for merely sleeping with his girlfriend who wants it just as much as he does, but happens to be like two or three years younger. Obviously the line should be drawn somewhere since there there's definitely an age where you can't possibly genuinely readily readily concede. Like if you're a ten year old right? And of course then no matter where we draw the line there would be cases for which it would be too high and cases for which it is too low. But setting this bar on eighteen or seventeen is just way too high. It doesn't really prevent curious children from having sex because no force of nature is strong enough to do that. It just turns many innocent people who have wronged no one into criminals. We must lower the age of consent.","[4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 45458968, 20225558, 45405037, 45538225, 45181383, 45401087, 45190571, 45181384, 45190823, 44044795, 21785776, 29155723, 45361788]"
7cc400c9-8ec1-4366-858e-b08deb271c8f,2125,We should ban organic food,Human expert,"We should ban organic food. Organic food is food that is produced using natural means only. This means, among other things, no pesticides, and this is what creates a big problem for us in side governments in this debate. The other side in opposition might try to argue that there are certain health benefits in refraining from using artificial substances like fertilizers or hormones in food production. The truth of the matter is that there while there's no scientific consensus on this, it may very well be true. And we don't really care. All we care about is the lack of pesticides in organic food. Now why is this such a big problem? Because pesticides are meant to get rid of potentially dangerous parasites that fester and grow on food that people later eat. It might not be incredibly good for us to consume pesticized food. But on the other hand, this helps avoid the much greater risk of eating something infected with some sort of invasive species that will make us much much more ill. It's possible that the other side will try and answer this point by saying that it's enough to brand organic food as such, like as organic food, and just raise people's awareness to the potential risk thus allowing the consumers to form their own opinion and make up their own mind as to which type of food they wish to eat. And so you know, they might say that a complete ban is unnecessary. Here's why this argument fails to work in this specific debate: when you catch a certain viral disease, as a result of eating something infected, that's not just your own personal problem. You are actively endangering other people around you and society as a whole. Had it really had it really been just your own personal problem, we would indeed be in support of just raising awareness but not an all out ban. As is the case with say, coca cola or other food products that might lead to health problems. But when it comes to catching a virus, there's a collective action problem because there's a certain threshold that, once crossed, puts everyone at risk. Just like it's enough that a certain percent of people, maybe I don't know, ten, fifteen percent I'm not sure, of the population will not be immuned in a community for this to endanger the entire community including those who were responsible enough and did get immuned and vaccinated. So in the same manner it's enough for a relatively small percentage of people to be purchasing organic food on a regular basis and exposing themselves to health risks for there to be a potential risk for everyone. Therefore it's absolutely necessary to ban organic food altogether. A good example to mention would be the mad cow disease syndrome that's incredibly infectious in cattle and is also transmittable to humans that consume infected meat. The outbreak of this disease has caused the deaths of over a hundred people in britain. And obviously it's much more easy to control and prevent such diseases un-organically. So because this is an incredibly infectious disease, once enough people catch it because they are eating organic food, this also endangers other people around them and this might lead to an outbreak of like a virus in the entire society. For this reason we beg you to propose the motion.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 3, 4]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 31948170, 45191882, 45191885, 45185975, 45336988, 45336993, 45361788, 45189900, 45185946, 45405037, 45206691, 45411178, 6340330]"
7c7e18f1-4168-4772-939b-d3ca98353811,2184,We should legalize public nudity,Human expert,"We should legalize public nudity. First argument: there is no such thing as decency. Sometimes it's easy to forget that eventually we are nothing but animals. If we take a quick look at the animal kingdom we will see that animals have never never felt ashamed of their naked bodies. They have never felt the need to cover certain parts of their body up. This can teach us that the demand for what we today call decency is nothing but a completely random social construct and every link that people try to make between decency and morality is both ridiculous and oppressive. Another such evidence is that the concept of what's considered decent and what isn't has developed completely differently in different places and different times throughout the world. There is no definition of decency that has consistently lingered through time. In certain african tribes it is customary for women to walk around with their bare breasts out in the open, whereas in orthodox societies a woman that so much as exposes her hair is considered indecent. We would also like to to to shed light on the fact that in the absolute majority of cases it is mostly women that have been forced to withstand the most strictest standards of decency. Note how up until this very day, even in the most liberal of societies, a man that walks around in public without a shirt is like is often forgiven or like encountered with a lot more patience than a woman that would walk around not wearing a shirt. How can all of this be explained? Easily. We say that decency is a concept that was made up by the strong class in society, as a form of oppression to the weaker class. It's easy to understand that when we consider the muslim society and burkas for instance. The idea is that even if today it is no longer so and not necessarily effectively used as a means of oppression, and and even if it applies to to men and women alike, that is the source and the origin of this custom or this norm and there is absolutely no explanation that can be defended rationally. Second argument: a vital part, like, nudity is a vital part of the freedom of expression and there is no good enough justification to limit it. So this argument engages with the opposition in case they try to argue that irrespective of the origin of this norm, the fact is that today nudity you know disturbs people and therefore we should ban it to allow everyone access to the public sphere or something like that. We say that the public sphere, unlike the private sphere, is by definition a dangerous space in which you might encounter things that you will not like. We say that the mere fact that something bothers you is just not interesting in terms of justifying banning that thing. And up, and like, up until the point that you are able to prove that some objective damage has taken place, that just doesn't matter that it bothers you. There are plenty of people that are on the conservative side and they are really bothered by seeing people with that walk around with tattoos, or with a mahican hairdo. We say that they believe that it's a promiscuous behavior and immoral behavior and that it has a bad effect on their children. Does opposition really want to consider this as a good enough and like sufficient cause to ban people walking around in public with tattoos and mahican? We say like, what about people that are bothered by seeing gay couples kissing in the street? You see, the thing is that once you give weight to what bothers some of the people this necessarily means that you trample over the rights of others, and we believe that walking around naked is a completely legitimate form of expression that conveys a message, and perhaps even a very important criticism over the existing norms that are outdated in society. We believe that the true test for the level of commitment of a society in protecting the freedom of expression of its citizens is exactly at the point at which a certain form of expression bothers other people. That is exactly where it matters that we protect it. Third argument: really quickly, we think that if if there would be more people that walk around naked this will help a lot of other people overcome problems that they experience today with negative body image and insecurity. We say that the more that you get exposed to other naked bodies in all shapes and colors and forms, you understand that no matter how your body looks like there are plenty of other people just like you, and if they are not ashamed then you have nothing to be ashamed of. For all of these reasons we're very proud to propose.","[4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 3, 5, 3, 4]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 31948170, 45191882, 45185975, 45336993, 45336988, 45206691, 45189900, 45458968, 45361788, 6340330, 45190823, 27770607, 44044795]"
359a9533-236d-4d53-b67f-1d793b0928e7,2401,We should increase fuel tax,Human expert,"We should increase the fuel tax. Fuel in the united states is very cheap relatively to other developed nations in the world and so is the tax rate on gas. This contributes to the existing situation in which americans end up consuming more gasoline than nearly any other country. This creates a number of problems two of which we shall discuss in this speech. A, a high level of pollution that harms the environment. So the more that people are driving, the more it pollutes the environment. We think that's pretty elementary. This pollution of course is a negative externality that the entire society is forced to pay the price for. Raising the tax which makes fuel more expensive can be used in order to make consumers internalize this cost and this way we can reach a better equilibrium that takes into account the harm to society and to the environment. This tactic of negative taxation to deal with negative externalities is very common in various other fields. For instance if there is a factory that pollutes like the waters of a river nearby that there's a and there's like a village that is using that water from the river for drinking, then we have a market failure because the cost of pollution isn't felt by the factory owner and so this factory owner has an incentive to continue on polluting as much as as much as possible. In order to deal with this what we do is we make him pay a tax on pollution that is proportional to the amount of damage that is being caused as a result from the pollution. And so the factory will take care of reducing the amount of pollution until the like amount that is going to be optimal. Same thing exactly goes with drivers and fuel. Second thing is, on the second problem, is a high dependency on on private transportation that is presenting other alternatives from being formed. So seeing as gas is cheap, many people are incentivized to own a car. And so other alternatives to transportation just don't seem appealing enough. These alternatives can be things like, I don't know, a higher quality public transportation, carpool and so on. Why is this so bad? Because judging by other places in the world these alternatives are potentially cheaper, greener, and most importantly they will make the US less dependent on foreign oil. The biggest exporters of fossil fuels are countries that are not exactly friendly to the united states and the dependency on fuel forces us to pay a heavy political price. For instance, it's provides countries like saudi arabia with a very strong position of power that doesn't allow the US to criticize the horrible way in which women women's rights are being trampled by the local regime there. Raising the fuel tax can help us become more independent and that's great. Another advantage in raising the fuel tax is in lies in the ability to use this revenue from taxation in order to improve the status of infrastructure for roads and highways that desperately requires improvement. The budget for these type of things is based on incomes and revenues coming from these taxes exactly and that is why they are in such bad shape today. With so many drivers even like a one dollar raise per gallon means huge amounts of money that could be used to to even lower other types of taxes like income tax. So for all of these reasons please propose.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5]",15,"[45677971, 45567220, 13581319, 20225558, 45405037, 45567227, 45569485, 19838540, 45458968, 28813722, 45190823, 34609243, 21785776, 45355658, 20512953]"
a37038d2-9f36-454b-8e7a-e4df905f0e55,2480,We should ban racial profiling,Human expert,"We should ban racial profiling. By this we mean ceasing with the practice in which minority populations are being specifically targeted and getting treated unequally from law enforcement authorities. For example, the way in which people with a middle eastern appearance are getting stopped and frisked at airports and things of the sort. Instead, we move to apply a more fair system that treats everyone equally, or just perform stop and frisks in a completely random fashion, without any discrimination that's based on race or origin. We want to do this for two main reasons: the first is that it's unfair, and the second is that it's unwise. So why isn't this fair? We think that racial profiling is a clear-cut form of a particularly ugly discrimination. Even if we're talking only about something that seemingly reasonable, like detaining people in airports and asking them to open their suitcases based on how they look, we think this is incredibly harmful for several reasons. A, it is essentially a form of punishment for people who committed no crime, except for being born to a certain race or a certain religion. This is a collective punishment for an entire group that goes out directly against one of the pillars of our legal system, that says that we cannot punish you for a crime that you didn't commit, or that someone else commits. B, it's degrading and humiliating. The fact that this is being done publicly and everyone watches you. The fact that, you know, parents that that five year olds need to see how their moms and dads are being delayed and and treated with suspicion and are powerless to do anything about it, and that they will later have to explain to him why other families weren't detained and they were. We say that's incredibly humiliating. C, we say that this is essentially a signal from the government to the entire society that there is an actual reason to be suspicious and weary of these populations. This validifies prejudice and and xenophobic opinions, that later finds expressions in employment, for instance. And because of this we say that this is not just something , you know, temporary and and and not just restricted to what's happening at the airport, but this is a significant harm to the entire population all over. So in our opinion, these are already really really good reasons why we should ban racial profiling, but if that wasn't enough, we would argue that it's also counter-effective in our efforts to prevent terror, and therefore this is not only a malicious idea, but also an incredibly stupid one. Why? Well firstly, because if I am truly a terrorist that is looking to smuggle a bomb to an airplane, say, then assuming I'm not a really really stupid person, I would know to conceal my affiliation or to find an accomplice that's not being profiled, thus, you know, narrowing the chances of getting caught. Therefore it's just not that efficient, because everyone knows that that's what they're doing and and so I can just find ways around it. But secondly and more importantly, we think that people aren't born terrorists. And we say that there is no greater gift that we could give radical groups than being discriminative and humiliating and degrading towards minority groups, and making them feel unwelcomed and antagonistic toward society from a very young age. This is exactly what allows extremists to later recruit more and more members, and so racial profiling indirectly only strengthens terror's hands. For all of these reasons, we beg you to propose.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[45185975, 45191882, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 45190823, 31948170, 34110399, 45411178, 29155723, 15448937, 19838540, 45355658, 13581319, 34609243]"
3a39a9c8-9422-431a-9c5a-8ba7ebef7b5a,2483,We should ban anonymous posts,Human expert,"We should ban anonymous posts. What we mean by that is forcing whoever intends to comment on some online platform to identify with his name and authenticate it like through an authenticated user, via facebook or email or something of the sort. The main reason that we want to do this is that posts on the internet have become an extreme, chaotic no man's land, sort of a race to the bottom of the darkest, most bigoted bigoted and sexist opinions. And so, the internet has become from a place that could theoretically be used as an open stage for a fertile discussion, a marketplace for ideas and all of these nice words, to a place that makes people much more extreme than they had been when they entered, a lot less patient to other opinions. And we think that this is a very bad thing for society. We believe that the anonymity that is available for people online is what causes this and that the lack of which will be will use an as an inhibitor, as a check on the impulses of people to behave loathsomely. We think that, you know, the argument that has to do with why this will work is fairly simple and straightforward. People have a reputation to maintain, and they care about what other people think about them, so they will think twice about what they are saying and how extreme they sound if they knew that they could be identified. We say that if a man walks in the street with like wearing a mask, then he will definitely allow himself to do things and say things that he wouldn't have allowed himself to do otherwise, if we would have removed the mask. So we think that like most of the other side opposition is probably not going to be focused here but on the question of whether it is right to take away people's anonymity. They will wish to focus this discussion on the groups of people that need anonymity, you know, religious children in the closet and so on. So we agree that these people might need some anonymity, but we think that it is possible to find a solution to their specific problem without allowing for all of the harms that come from allowing everybody anonymity. For instance, we could create closed-group forums in which, you know, people do identify in their names and support one another, but they're not available for the entire public, like some sort of a an online AA meeting. So, and in fact, we have to say that we think that the situation will be much better, especially for minority groups like closeted gay people and so on, and that is because a lot of the nasty xenophobic voices that are exactly what makes their lives so much harder in the status quo will vanish or will dwindle down as a result of the lack of anonymity, as we explained earlier. So, if we allow for a closed group in which these people can express themselves and ask questions and be themselves and and find others to support them, without being exposed to the public, then we have managed to solve their specific problems, and we also we're able to avoid or to prevent a lot of the racist or xenophobic or homophobic comments that are making their lives so much harder. So for all of these reasons, please propose.","[5, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4]",15,"[6432269, 45567220, 45567227, 45538225, 45411178, 13581319, 20225558, 45355658, 45191882, 45361788, 45206691, 45189900, 20512953, 31948170, 45185975]"
3e755ba6-d3d3-4331-9602-2c57a3adf410,2539,We should ban genetically modified crops,Human expert,"We should ban genetically modified crops. We argue that the consumption of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, is essentially equivalent to experimenting on humans and might be incredibly risky. Two arguments in the speech: firstly, on why we just don't know enough yet, and then, secondly, on why labeling isn't enough in this case. First argument: why we just don't know enough yet. So while it is true that some studies have found GMOs to be harmless, this is a matter that is very far from being scientifically settled. The fact is many countries, big countries, including france and russia, bans these products based on health concerns made by specialists. In fact, the majority of the studies in the US supporting GMOs were conducted by, or at the request of, the companies manufacturing GMOs, which is of course hugely problematic in terms of the findings and the conclusions that they came to and how much they are reliable. And even if those studies were perfectly objective, we think that they are still not reassuring enough, simply because GMOs are a relatively new invention. They'd only been consumed since roughly the late nineties, and that's not nearly enough time to seriously test and and gauge and appreciate the long-term effects of having a genetically modified diet. After all, there are legitimate reasons to be concerned here when dealing with a precedent that's never been tried before anywhere in history and is rapidly becoming one of the main sources of nutrition, for the western world at least. Second argument: why labeling isn't enough. So, the other side might go up and argue that even if there's there are some health concerns, that's still not a good enough reason to ban GMOs, but we can simply label them in a way that allows each consumer to choose whether to buy them or not, just like we do with other things that are not healthy or that are controversial. Here's the problem with that: GMOs tend to cost cheaper than natural crops. That's like that makes sense since they can be grown all year round and so on. This means that, specifically for poor consumers that need to save on every dime, there isn't really a choice but to purchase them, whether they like to or not, and we think that this is wrong and enough of a reason to ban GMOs for now, at least up until that point which it really has been proven harmless in the long run as well. What side government stands for in this debate is not against GMOs principally, but behind the principle that says that at least until we can make certain that something some new thing, that's never been tried before, doesn't have a catastrophical effect, we must err on the side of caution and not allow corporate interests to dictate, to rather control, our common sense. Very proud to propose.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 2, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 6432269, 45567220, 45567227, 45336993, 45206691, 45538225, 45181384, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45411178, 45361788, 45355658]"
52d51fc3-cba4-496b-aa53-01bb64f3fad6,2604,The right to Internet access should be protected,Human expert,"The right to internet access should be protected. This is an analysis debate. We needn't start dwell on how exactly this could be achieved. The big question in this debate is whether we should look at internet access as a basic right, as something that every individual deserves merely due to the fact that he is a human being. The easiest way to go here would be to look at other rights that we would all agree that are worthy of protection, try and figure out what is the justification behind those rights, and see if we could implement or apply the same justification to the right to internet access. So why don't we start by looking at the right to education. Now this is an acknowledged and well-established right. It is listed in the united nations bill of rights and so on. Basically what it says is that every person has the right to receive education and the state must do as best it can in order to provide its citizens with it. Now, we should note that unlike the right to life or to security and so on, education isn't something that you just cannot live without. You can you can live even quite decently without education, so why do we still see this as a basic right? We we believe that the answer to this is that education provides you with a gateway through which you get to experience the world in a different light. This helps you, like, also obviously, just get some really basic tools that it would be very hard for you to succeed in life later on without. But it's also something deeper than that. We think that on the deeper level, we see this as such a basic right because we believe that an illiterate person, someone that never learned how to read and write or that never learned basic math, is a less-developed individual, a less complete individual. Education has become a necessary condition in people's self-fulfillment, and we argue, as you could probably expect, that the same logic applies to internet access. It almost goes without saying that internet access provides you with some basic tools to success like to later on succeed in the world, that it would be very hard for you to compete and succeed in life without, right? But we think that the more interesting claim is that just like education, internet access in today's reality makes you a more complete individual. Now why is that true? It's true because just like education, the internet has also become a necessary condition to understand the world around you. Like more and more social interactions and exchanges of ideas are becoming online-based at which point, preventing you from accessing the internet is just like not allowing you access to the street or to a public sphere. The internet, and specifically google, are the primary source of knowledge. It's very hard today to actually learn anything about anything without google. This is just a much more meaningful much more convenient way of life. Another thing that we should talk about here is equality. It were one thing if no one around you had access to internet, but when everyone around you have access to internet and you don't, this would be incredibly difficult for you to fit in in society, precisely like with education. Think about it. Each and every one of us walks around today with infinite amount of knowledge sitting in our pockets at just a few clicks distance, and whoever doesn't have it doesn't just isn't just get getting left behind, they get left way, way, way behind. People without internet access are people that society values less, whether we would like to admit it or not. And seeing as the right to equality is also a basic right, we think that this is another justification as to why the right to internet access must be protected. Please propose.","[5, 4, 5, 3, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 2, 5, 5, 4, 3, 4]",15,"[45567227, 45569485, 45458968, 45411178, 21785776, 34110399, 20512953, 15448937, 30777913, 43877630, 21017840, 45953041, 44094031, 6340330, 20043657]"
ae826882-b191-4699-ab34-626d27fb586a,2615,We should ban homeopathy,Human expert,"We should ban homeopathy. By this we mean banning the sale and advertising as medicine of anything that wasn't scientifically tested and had been proven to withstand objective standards of empirical success. We think that not only does homeopathy like not only is this a sham that flat-out lies to its followers, but it also targets the most vulnerable, the most desperate and uninformed people, and prevents them from finding better alternatives that might actually help them overcome their ailment, and by this might actively risk lives. And therefore it's not only within our rights to ban it, but it is also within our duty to ban it. First argument, on false advertising. So this argument is very simple, and it just says that I'm not allowed to advertise a product in a way that contains misinformation. I cannot say that this product has been proven to be the best in the market or that it contains certain ingredients, without it actually being a hundred percent accurate description of reality, because this is deception and it leads people to spend money on a product that, had they known had they had known what it is, they would not want to buy it. Homeopathy is exactly that. It claims to have certain healing effects or medical effects that it simply doesn't have according to an overwhelming consensus within the scientific community. And it is also, like, it boasts in containing all sorts of active ingredients, where in reality those ingredients have been diluted so much that there's barely a trace left of them. This is plainly deceitful, and already enough of a reason to ban it. But secondly, let's take the hardest case for us that we possibly can. Let's say that there was no matter of false advertising here, and also let's assume that there are many people who do believe in the curative power of homeopathy, and preventing them from accessing it would be, you know, in violation of their free choice. Why do we still believe that this is legit? Well, because we think that in many cases this specific choice is not done in an informative and rational matter, but rather is subjected to immense pressure, because we're dealing with people who are sick, that feel pain, and that in many cases conventional medicine isn't helpful enough for them, and they are looking for everything that they can possibly grab and hold onto. This is the perfect target audience for many homeopaths, and these people are incredibly susceptible to misinformation that provides them with hope. We think that this is deeply immoral to take advantage of people that are, like, in those situations and and sell false hope to them in a form of a magical voodoo medicine. Oftentimes people put so much of their faith in homeopaths, that they are used as a substitute for an actual doctor, and an actual treatment that might have actually helped them. Note, we understand that not all cases are like this, and that there are cases of people that for whatever reason just choose to believe in homeopathy without being, like, under any sort of duress. But since we do not have a way of distinguishing between this group and the previous group, we much rather just ban homeopathy altogether, even at the price of limiting the choices of a small group of very strange people. For all of these reasons, we are proud to propose.","[4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 2, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[21017840, 7756990, 45191873, 45272708, 45183231, 45181152, 45336991, 45282792, 44044795, 45483811, 44690955, 26649250, 45355658, 43984981, 27934334]"
c4974c1b-a835-427f-b0ca-ab52dcbc973a,2616,We should ban alternative medicine,Human expert,"We should ban alternative medicine. In this we mean banning the sale and branding as medicine of anything that wasn't scientifically tested, and proven to withstand objective standards of empirical success. We think that not only does alternative medicine flat out lies to its followers in the face, it also targets the most vulnerable population, the people that are most desperate and uninformed, and sometimes prevents them from finding other conventional, better solutions that might have actually helped them overcome their ailment. And by this alternative medicine actively might lead might like endanger lives. This is why it is not only within our rights to ban it, but this is also our duty. First argument is about false advertising, and it's a very simple argument. I cannot advertise a product in a way that contains misinformation. I cannot say that some product has been proven to be the best in the market, or that some product contains ingredients like some certain ingredients, without it being a hundred percent accurate description of reality. Because that would be deception, and it would lead people to spend money on a product that they like that had they known what it really is, they would not have wanted to buy it. Alternative medicine is just that. It claims to have certain healing abilities and curative powers that it simply doesn't have, according to a vast consensus within the scientific community. So it's plainly deceitful, and that's already enough of a reason to ban it. But let's move on to the second argument, and let's take the hardest case possible for our side. Let's say that there is not at all a matter of false advertising, and let's also assume that there are a lot of people that actually believe in the power of alternative medicine, and like preventing them from accessing it would be harming their free choice, you know. But why do we still think that it's legitimate to ban it. Because this specific choice, in many many cases, isn't made in a rational fashion, but rather is subjected to huge immense pressures, because we are dealing with sick people, with people in pain. These are people that often conventional medicine might not have provided a good enough solution to their problems, and they are desperately seeking anything that might give them a shred of hope, anything that they can hold onto. That is the perfect target audience for alternative doctors or naturopaths, and they simply supply them with the illusion that these people so desperately want to hear. We think that it's deeply immoral to take advantage of the distress the people in these situations are subjected to, just to squeeze some money from them, by selling them something useless that gives them false hope. Often, people put so much faith into naturopaths, that they are actually used as a substitute for actual true doctors, and for a real treatment that might have actually helped them. Note, we understand that not all cases are like this, and there are people that for whatever reason simply believe alternative medicine without being under any type of duress. But because we have no way of distinguishing between this group and the group that is being abused, we much rather simply stop with this whole thing altogether, even at the cost of like the free choice of a few bizarre people. For all of these reasons, we are we beg you to propose.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 5, 2, 5, 3, 5, 4, 4]",15,"[45191882, 45185975, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 13581319, 20312760, 34110399, 28813722, 45411178, 29155723, 34609243, 15448937, 30783876, 19838540]"
6ac9a491-1b42-4c92-9720-98892b8b21ae,2621,We should disband the United Nations,Human expert,"We should disband the united nations. What would happen is we would keep some of the UN's more functional agencies running, meaning we would still have things like the world health organization or the world bank operating independently, and we would still keep certain international treaties intact like the nonproliferation treaty for example. But the general assembly and it's and the security council will definitely be dismantled. We are somewhat ambivalent towards the international courts. I think that we should keep them running and they are important bodies, but with significant changes to their modest operandi today that will allow them more power and authority than they currently hold. So the first reason as to why we should do this is that the UN has become almost utterly worthless. We believe that any formal body that fails miserably at achieving its declared goals is basically just a costly liability on the expense of people's pockets. The UN, without a doubt, falls into this category. Its raison d'etre was to promote world peace and protect human rights abuses. However, ever since its inception and to this very day, there are very few examples of accomplishments or successes that this body can take pride in. Meanwhile horrible wars and human rights catastrophes are abound. As we speak innocent men, women, and children in syria are being butchered by a cruel tyrant with the UN unable to do a damn thing about it. Not even issue an official freaking condemnation. This is of course an inherent problem that results from the ridiculous structure of powers within the security council. A structure that allows countries like the US and russia to simply veto each other's resolutions out as if this is some funny table game. The UN therefore is rightfully seen by the entire world as a joke, as a spineless, toothless organization with men running around in suits and occasionally issuing some meaningless resolution. So at this point we have to ask the question, if the UN isn't seen by dictators as a deterrent and can't do anything to assert more credibility than what good does it do? The second reason that we should do this is that it's an incredibly biased and unfair body. So I already mentioned the weird power structure within the security council. But we need to understand that the UN was established after world war two by the winning powers and designed to basically consolidate and preserve that power. Thus many see the UN and its sub agencies as nothing but just a political tool in the hands of the west and the US in particular to assert their dominance and not as an objective body that's truly concerned with world peace or with you know humanitarian causes. More over there are clear biases and differential treatment. Look at how, for example, the general assembly unproportionately deals with condemning israel while neighboring countries are constantly violating human rights on a much, much larger scale. Now think what you will about israel's policies in the west bank. We believe that no honest man can really say that there isn't something funny going on with the treatment that it receives from the united nations. And this is of course just a result of the great number of arab countries in the general assembly that together allow for a huge palestinian lobby while ignoring human rights abuses that are less convenient for the arab world to discuss. What this all means is that this bias is also an inherent problem. This is just not a body that we can ever aspire will be truly objective and truly concerned with human rights equally. This body is consumed by politics and forever will be. So for all of these reasons the UN has lost all justification to exist in its current form. If anything it works as an inhibitor for world peace and not as a promoter of it and and we should disband it.","[4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 3, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 45191873, 45183231, 45272708, 45181152, 7756990, 45282792, 45336991, 44044795, 20312760, 45483811, 43984981, 34854490, 27934334]"
3dd38264-f650-4c0e-a317-8795f72521f0,3166,We should abolish the American Jobs Act,Human expert,"We should abolish the american jobs act. So obama found a magical way to spend roughly four hundred and fifty billion dollars worth of federal budget money without adding more debt to the national deficit. I wonder what his secret could be. Here are a few guesses of mine: either cutting drastically on other services, which democrats aren't exactly notoriously famous for doing, or raising taxes, which has an adverse effect on jobs growth, or printing money, which is basically just another indirect way to be raising taxes. Because inflations then take away people's purchasing power in real terms. These are all very shady options. So if indeed it's none of the above, then truly this is magic and one could ask why haven't we been using it thus far. Because it doesn't exist. So crucially what I want to bring is the question that stands in the heart of this debate is the idea of like the keynesian idea of supply side economics. And that the entire ACA is practically build upon. We inside government argue that it simply doesn't work in real life. So, the argument of this theory is that government skins stimulates the economy in times of recession by spending money on salaries for new public employees and artificially creating many new job places. Keynes even famously said that it would be advisable for the government to hire people to dig holes in the ground and then hire a different bunch people to fill those holes up. As long as people are put to work everything will be better. Since now people make more money they can spend more money, which raises demand for commodities which then cause people to produce more, which cause in like in turn employers to hire more people and so we have a cycle, and we get what we what is called the keynesian multiplier effect. Well, here is the problem. For this theory to work the government has to like act in what is called an anti-cyclical policy. They need to invest in the market when the economy is in a recession, even at the expense of accumulating debt, and then they need to cut expenses back when the market recovers. The thing is that the public sector is an entity with a very strong natural inclination to just keep on growing and expanding. And once it's being expanded once it's really really hard to stop it, let alone reverse this trend and shrink it back. And this happens because because cutting cutting costs means firing people, which is never popular like politically. And because governments also get used to this idea that you could just accumulate more and more debt and nothing will ever happen. Everything is fine. But not everything is fine, as we can learn from the example of countries like greece or spain. So, what happens is, in the short term, this policy seems like a quick magical fix because we're being promised that it's a one time a temporary stimulus thing, but what always happens in the long run is that it like it turns out that, it turns out to be less temporary than we thought it would be and that's just reckless economic behavior. So because the american jobs act is essentially nothing more than just a new a new version of supply side economics, that has been proven to fail before. Please propose the motion.","[4, 4, 3, 3, 1, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 5, 4, 4, 3]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 45458968, 20225558, 45405037, 45538225, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45181384, 45411178, 45190823, 45336993, 45336988, 31948170]"
48ee779b-3593-4fc2-aa34-3a9ed3fa36fe,3185,We should adopt socialism,Human expert,"We should adopt socialism. We should do so because private property and the capitalist system is an assault on human dignity. There are many different types and versions of socialism. What we advocate is a system where means of production are owned collectively, resources are distributed equally, and the market is managed by a central planning body that enjoys public support and is democratically elected. We'll refer to this model, from now on, as democratic socialism. I will bring forth a comparative analysis of the good side and the bad side of socialism compared to capitalism. What are we forced to give up under each of these systems and what do we gain in return? I'll show that socialism is the clear winner in this tradeoff. The huge clash between those two distinctly opposite ideologies that refuses to be settled is due to a fundamental clash between two different core values: equality, championed by socialists, and freedom, championed by capitalists. Both are extremely important on an intuitive level. However, they seem to be inherently mutually exclusive, at least to an extent. A direct result of implementing full freedom is the lack of equality, and a direct result of enforcing full equality is the lack of freedom. This is a tough nut to crack, a tradeoff indeed. It seems the pursuit after one of these goals will need to be forsaken either way, but which one? They both seem to intuitively be of equal importance. Have we arrived in a symmetrical deadlock? My burden in this debate is to show that freedom is the value that should be sacrificed. My opponent's burden is to explain why it is equality that needs to be sacrificed. Well, here are two suggestions on how we should weigh between the two. The first suggestion is to ask which one of these values can truly exist with the complete lack of the other? In this case, we argue that whereas equality is completely independent of freedom, the the symmetric claim isn't true. There can be no true freedom where there is no equality. A capitalist system with its free markets guarantees an ever-growing class of poor and helpless people that can barely afford food to eat, while the rich keep getting richer. How free are those people? For them, we get neither equality nor true freedom. Being free to theoretically do what you like has no meaning where you don't have any means to do so. With socialism, we at least get what we came in for. The second way which we can weigh between these options is to ask which one of them forces us to make a bigger sacrifice of the value being sacrificed or, in other words, what is there less of: freedom under socialism or equality under capitalism? We believe that the answer is quite clearly the latter. The freedom you give up under democratic socialism is related mostly to your professional life. You can no longer choose what you want to do for a living and can't control how much you earn. However, you are free to purchase what you will with the fixed amount of money you earn. You are free to do whatever you want in your spare time, free to marry whoever you like, so freedom is only being sacrificed to a very specific degree. Yes, we acknowledge it's a big price to pay. We're not denying it, but we think it should also be honestly compared to the status quo under capitalism in which most people also can't really choose to do whatever they want to do for a living, and countless people hate their jobs but have no choice. Again, this is an illusion of freedom rather than actual freedom. On the other side of the scale, we give we give up on equality completely. The system is built in such a way that guarantees success if you were born to the right parents and absolute failure and misery if you're born to the wrong ones. So, because we are facing an inescapable tradeoff but we sacrifice less under socialism, we should definitely adopt it.","[3, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 3]",15,"[20225558, 45190823, 29155723, 20512953, 13581319, 21088425, 45181152, 45272708, 15448937, 45191873, 45181383, 45411178, 45181262, 45355658, 45181256]"
8ce1c8bf-c1a6-4afd-ade3-09f38951f5dc,3194,We should abandon television,Human expert,"We should abandon television. First argument: TV gets us addicted to immediate satisfaction. The revolutionary thing that came with television is the concept of immediate reward. In almost any other hobby that pops to mind, you're required to invest time and effort in order to get satisfied. Think about sports, about playing an instrument, reading books, debating, for instance. All of these things commit you to long hours, and most times even a physical effort or a cognitive effort, in order to gradually get better and reach a high enough level that will allow you true gratification. We believe that this is a positive thing, because it instills in us a certain work ethic. It incentivizes us to work hard and by doing so, developing ourselves, and eventually, this is how we're able to succeed in other challenges in life, in our education, in our career, etcetera. Television only requires that we sit and stare at the screen. It promises us immediate and ongoing sensory stimulation, without having to do anything. Now, seeing as people are lazy creatures that always tend to opt for shortcuts to satisfaction, they can get used to this incredibly quickly. We get addicted to TV and forgo other activities that are more challenging. It's one thing when, like, cinema was invented, and it was only a once in every couple of weeks night out. But when TV entered every living room, it allowed for entire generations to spend hours a day glued to the screen. We believe this has become a true social tragedy. If you will, we think this can be equated to a global addiction to masturbation on a massive scale. Opposition might say that they don't see the problem in that, since all we're doing is eventually letting people get what they want and be happy, so so what if it's immediate and not hard-earned. So we would like to ask opposition whether whether they would be willing to live in a world in which everyone spend their entire lives wired to virtual reality machines that just give them infinite utility. This is a world where everyone is easily satisfied but have no independence, no freedom, no self-actualization. And, in our opinion, this is a very sad world indeed. Second argument: why contents that is utter trash prevails over high quality content. So, of course, we would agree that TV also brings good things to the world, but all that depends on the assumption that there is also serious high quality content on there. We believe that in today's world, such content is an endangered species that might soon disappear. We can see how with every passing generation, the air time is getting filled with more and more reality TV shows and other sorts of trash that's both stupid and stupefying, while good, high quality TV shows get scarcer. This happens for the simple reason that the commercial TV channels are incentivized to maximize ratings, and seeing as people, as we've already mentioned, are looking for immediate pleasures, without having to overthink stuff, then it's shows like the jersey shore and the bachelor that are winning the fight over the minds of the viewers. We believe that this is an inevitable process that's only going to grow more extreme with each generation. Therefore, we think that all of the good things that come from television will gradually fade away and vanish. Please propose the motion.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5]",15,"[28813722, 45677971, 45567220, 6432269, 45569485, 13581319, 21785776, 45181253, 45181256, 45189900, 45181262, 45191882, 43877630, 19838540, 45206691]"
18ce7f9e-81ee-40e6-8cbb-b2f1cd37a025,3198,We should limit the right of self-defense,Human expert,"We should limit the rights of self defense. When george zimmerman gets away scotch free with deadly gunning down unarmed seventeen year old trayvon martin by pleading self defense, and the jury has literally almost no choice but to acquit him, then we have a serious problem. This right to self defense is obviously important. Perhaps one of the only rights that we can truly call a natural, unalienable right that exists also in the state of nature and so on. However, at the point at which bad people abuse this right in order to get a get out of jail free card, we need to make sure that the legal system has an ability to prevent this from happening. What we mean by limiting the right of self defense is specifically repealing the state your ground law which expands the concept of self defense and is adopted in many states. This law justifies the use of deadly force, without retreating, in order to defend yourself from a threat in places where you have a right to be. So, like essentially repealing it means that, with the exception of your own home, if you're in a public area and someone threatens to use force against you, before you can respond in kind you need to seek a way to retreat first. This is in fact what helped zimmerman get acquitted, this state your ground law. The main problem that we have with the right of self defense is that although it only justifies reasonable uses of force, obviously, it can be incredibly tricky to determine, after the fact, when such use was in fact necessary or reasonable. Starting from the fact that in many many scenarios the only other possible witness to testify to the reasonability of using that force is the very person that got killed as a result. And like even when there are evidence that points to the use of force not being necessary, that's actually not the burden on the defendant and he can still get an acquittal because all the defendant needs to prove for the reasonability demand to be satisfied is that he felt as if there was no other choice. Now, it's understandable given that, you know, in a threatening situation one can't always find the time to assess all possible options, no doubt. However, this does unfortunately create a very convenient loophole that almost calls out for any person accused of using deadly force to seek to take advantage of. And indeed the data speak for itself. Since the adoption of the state your ground law, and the number of defendants arguing for self defense has more than doubled. So, by repealing state your ground, this problem isn't solved completely, however now there is an extra burden to show that you could not just retreat. We think this definitely tilts the balance more in the right way. In addition, we can't not address the problems that the right of self defense has created specifically for the black community. The amount of incidents where police officers used unnecessary deadly force on black people, and the ease with which they were able to avoid punishment, you know, claiming they were defending themselves, lies at the root of the racial tensions in america today. We believe that this proposition is a step in the right direction. It shows our citizens that we hear them out and the like it will enable us in the long term to rebuild the lost trust in the law enforcement system. So, it's the right thing to do and it's the smart thing to do as well. Please propose.","[4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 5, 3, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 6432269, 45538225, 21785776, 6340330, 20312760, 44690955, 28813722, 13581319, 34110399, 45183231, 45191873, 45272708, 45181152]"
2e02b76b-5e04-4275-a2e6-473284c267e9,3223,We should fight global warming,Human expert,"We should fight global warming. I don't really see the point in arguing that man-made global warming is happening and that it's it means really bad news to the environment and to the planet, because there is a mountain of evidence to that fact and an overwhelming scientific consensus. I think that the way to make this debate interesting is by asking the next question: assuming that most of the more serious harms of global warming are going to happen in at least a few generations from now, and truly impact our grandchildren or great grandchildren, is this our fight or their's? Do we owe them anything? I will argue that the the answer is yes. Opposition will argue that it is no, unless they mean to try and deny or doubt the absolute fact of climate change. So why must we fight global warming? First of all, because this is a classic situation of if you're not a part of the solution then you're part of the problem. Meaning if we don't fight it then we are actively helping contribute to this, and that's simply wrong. We say that that is never okay to impose harm or a great risk of harm on another population. A risk that you yourself don't feel. There is a reason why this is called moral hazard. We think that even if we were not interested at all in the quality of their lives and even if we didn't believe that we have any obligation to leave behind a better world for them, the minimal requirement from us is to not actively and knowingly harm and destroy it for them. As an example consider the residents of the island pitcairn in the southern pacific ocean. Now I don't know any of them and probably never will, and it makes sense since there are only a few dozens of them. Most times I forget they even exist. I honestly don't concern myself much with their well being, and if some tragedy should happen to them, I'll be sad for a moment, but surely won't actively be compelled to do anything about it. And still, the minimal moral obligation that I have towards them is to refrain from actively knowingly harm them. We see no difference between this and the question of fighting global warming. Secondly, we in fact do feel very much that we should be concerned with the well being of the next generations and not just our own generation. We think it's exactly similar to how we generally ought care about other people's feelings but ourselves. This is a crucial condition of the most basic human decency. And it's also basic gratitude, since previous previous generations did generally concern themselves with us, promoting philosophy and arts and science and technology and inventing new things. And so the continuing development of human society, which has given us all the relative bounty that our generation enjoys, is built on the principle of reciprocity and the least we can do is return the favor and not be like: "" no no. The good times end with us. After me comes the flood. "" And just leave our successors to fend for themselves. For all of these reasons please propose.","[4, 4, 4, 3, 1, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 2, 4, 4, 5, 4]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 45458968, 20225558, 45405037, 45181383, 45181384, 45401087, 45190571, 45538225, 45411178, 6432269, 45190823, 29155723, 21785776]"
bc4c5c54-1d35-4b03-918d-43bd6e8d93f0,802,We should protect Antarctica,Human expert,"We should protect the antarctic continent. It is a miracle that we've been able to preserve, up until now, an entire continent that human beings have yet been able to destroy, either with battles between countries over resources or with drilling and mining for commercial or industrial purposes. Antarctica is an island of sanity, and we must make sure that it remains this way. We're going to have one big argument in this speech and it is about the ever-present threat of escalation. So as stated in the info slide, as of now it is not exactly certain just how affluent antarctica is with natural resources. This means that there's basically two options. Either it is mostly just ice, in which case, you know, it's a shame to even try, and it's best just to keep antarctica as it is in the status quo, or that there's more than meets the eye there, and antarctica is rich with resources that can be used for commercial purposes or industrial purposes, and the truth is that this possibility is much more disturbing. Why? Because resources are, you know, the type of things that countries tend to covet, and they are one of the major causes, if not the major cause, for the outbreak of international conflicts. The current situation in antarctica, where there is a peaceful equilibrium without any passionate territorial claims to either party, is rather unique, and it stems from the big vagueness surrounding this continent and the question of just how wealthy it is. Seeing as no one knows for sure what can be found there, and seeing as there is an a genuine chance that the answer is, "" not too much "", like there's not a lot to be found, then it just doesn't pay off to any country to take the risk of breaking the existing international treaties and agreements. That is because countries are often risk-averse. However, the very moment that the current limitations are going to be lifted, and assuming it will be like assuming it will turn out that antarctica does have a lot to offer in terms of resources, then no new international global agreement would be able to guarantee the same amount of peaceful conduct because the effect of the uncertainty has been lifted and so, it's going to be to become a lot more tempting for countries to break those understandings and to make a move for it. All of this is especially true in the current reality in the global sphere in which we are witnessing a slow shift in power and a transition from a unipolar system to a bipolar system, that is the gradual rise of russia and china as global superpowers that challenge the western hegemony. Such periods are especially known as very sensitive and very flammable, because the different actors are not sure whether their allegiance should lie with the old power or with the new power, and so each superpower promotes like takes action in order to gain more power and more support. Bottom line: opening up the treaty on antarctica might lead to an inevitable process of escalation between countries that will result in a conflict. That is bad not just for antarctica, but for everybody. So please propose.","[3, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4]",15,"[21017840, 6432269, 45538225, 45953041, 6340330, 20312760, 28813722, 44690955, 13581319, 45272708, 45183231, 45191873, 45181152, 45191882, 45189900]"
1dddedd3-f699-46be-b83b-95cdad553164,3195,Casinos should be banned,Arg-Search,"The smoking ban benefits the health and comfort of kansans, and extending it to state-owned casinos is only fair.  Colorado's stair-step bans provided a perfect laboratory to isolate casinos as another factor in the war on tobacco.  Although the ban prohibits smoking on the gaming floor, casino customers would be able to light up in lounges that contain no slot machines or gaming tables.  We want state casinos to be successful, as that is supposed to help keep taxes down.  Audio: the casinos are exempt from the smoking ban that went into effect a couple months ago.  Also consider that simply by playing blackjack basic strategy , you can lower the house edge to 0. 5%, which is incredibly low for a casino game already.  Casinos could develop smoke-free areas for gambling within their casino or could provide zones where smoking is permitted.  Under the ordinance, the casino would remain exempt from the smoking ban unless smoking is also banned in nearby casinos in missouri and kansas.  Casinos pay 80 percent of our taxes and provide thousands of jobs for city residents.  It also saves the city time by not counting so much sales tax money.  Card counters cut into their profit and no company likes to lose profit.  However, kathy drea, lobbyist for the american lung association in illinois, said the state has saved $1. 18 billion in heart-related health care costs since the smoking ban went into effect.  So if you move or go another casino you are safe.  Anti-smoking activists including drea note that other factors helped one illinois casino out-earn its competitor across the mississippi river in iowa, where smoking is allowed.  She says that education and treatment is far more effective than banning online casino games.  Evans noted that by postponing the ban, atlantic city may be able to preserve jobs and protect the casinos from the nation's unfolding economic crisis.  No free spin is gonna make up for the joy one could lose in�� their relationships or their stability.  Having a good memory is no crime, unlike a lot of what goes on in these casinos.  Proponents of the ban say it protects the health of the public.  Also theres more casinos opening all the time and with adverts on tv constantly its easy to slip back into it.  Profit has proven to be a stronger incentive for casinos than the health of their employees.  It doesn't filter it all out, but for the number of smokers i see, it does a very good job of limiting the effects,"" brownlee said.  It's just another thing that gives the casinos an advantage. "".  He thinks that opening a smoke-free casino from the start, if voters approve the ban, would be much better than taking a smoking casino and changing it to smoke-free.  Requiring gamblers to move to designated areas for smoke breaks will mean fewer or slower games, and ultimately less revenue.  Most casinos offer nonsmoking gaming areas, while companies tout modern technology that cleans and filters indoor air at increased rates.  Thanks to smoking bans initiated in early 2008, colorado and illinois have sustained major dips in gambling revenue, according to experts on a panel wednesday at the global gaming expo.  Casinos large and small, as well as parimutuel racetracks and racinos, make gambling in oklahoma more than convenient.  Revenue from the illinois' riverboat casinos help fund public economic development projects, such as road maintenance throughout the state.  Gross operating profit, which excludes interest, taxes, depreciation and other charges, is considered a better comparison between casino properties than net income.  Bovada , a world-class casino, offers great bonuses and free online casino games. ","[2, 2, 2, 4, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 5, 2, 2]",15,"[45677971, 45567220, 45569485, 45538225, 45567227, 45458968, 21785776, 45181253, 45181384, 45401087, 45183231, 45181243, 15448937, 30777913, 6340330]"
24c497c5-a1e5-47d2-a2a9-e660789ca90c,3194,We should abandon television,Arg-Search,"If there are that many extra abandoned animals, that is probably the result of increased poverty amongst those same people who don't have enough food for themselves.  Terrorized and abandoned, they find themselves forced into a primitive struggle for survival.  Derelict properties and the problems that come with them are numerous around the county.  ""there has been this myth of 'nobody knows anything,' that making good programming is a crapshoot,"" he said.  ""and giving away the baby stunt on television was the worst violation of media ethics i can think of. "".  He has been accused of using the show to promote islamic extremism while still maintaining an entertaining diet of music, dance, games and even cooking demonstrations.  The doll, however, carries a great deal of sadness, as she was abandoned by her original owner, which left her somewhat distrustful.  Thus, a local newspaper, ""correio da manha said he had been 'abandoned by the machines which produced him.  Healthy animals shouldn't be euthanised.  They're also a fire hazard, whether it be from flammable materials inside to easy targets for people who just really like to burn things.  You might well ignore television because much of the offerings are useless.  The bottom line is that no one is going to abandon television simply because of the cost savings.  "" abandoned televisions triggers emotions arising from our memories of popular tv culture,"" he says.  Duvall co-owner ted miller said the person caused about $3,500 worth of damage to merchandise in addition to the damaged window.  They became abandoned once trash collectors were no longer permitted to take the sets.  I am convinced that the vast majority of the time spent in front of the television set is virtually wasted.  They find themselves lost in a labyrinth of endless hallways and corridors, terrorized by the ghosts of the former patients.  But with television, you're a captive audience and you are literally forced to endure the commercials.  But one unchangeable fact is this: getting old on tv isn't a weakness.  But if the county can't locate the owner, should it shoulder taxpayers with the burden of making someone else's property more appealing?.  For some, the condition or value of the home makes it not worth the effort to sell, so they just walk away.  And let's face it, you can't put a price tag on these historic moments of television history.  The fact is shopping cart abandonment is a symbol of bigger issues in this city of dreams that leaves so many behind.  They quickly realize that the building is more than just haunted - it is alive - and it has no intention of ever letting them leave.  Most likely, the subject of abandoned mobile homes will continue to be an issue for years to come.  He argued that it is outdated and damaging the industry.  Microsoft's gates says viewers will abandon broadcast tvtoday's television is ""terrible,"" and within five years the internet will revolutionize the video medium, said microsoft chairman bill gates.  (b) the utility, cable television corporation, or cable operator abandons the relocation work because of financial hardship or other reasons.  Not only is the pilot model difficult to work with artistically, but, according to spacey, it is not financially smart.  The lawsuit alleges entire units have been staged and the practice may violate a federal law intended to prevent viewers from being deceived when watching a show involving intellectual skills.  The lawsuit claims some of the auction footage on the show is staged.  3.  basically, spacey is arguing that the television industry should abandon its long-established rules of finding and developing content, as netflix did. ","[1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 5, 1, 2, 1, 2, 4]",15,"[28813722, 45411178, 45405037, 6432269, 34609243, 45355658, 45189900, 45206691, 45191882, 15448937, 45181243, 45181253, 45181256, 45181262, 45567220]"
ef1cb9f3-3eac-455d-a753-76286aa5df45,2496,We should adopt a zero tolerance policy in schools,Arg-Search,"But he also believes the ""tightening up"" of rules against ""low-level"" behaviors such as disrupting class has contributed to a safer atmosphere in schools today.  Building in flexibility can make policies less vulnerable to legal challenge.  On the face of it zero tolerance sounds like a simple solution to a complex problem.  [ 9 ]zero tolerance policies increase the number of school resource officers (sro) in schools, which increases the contact a student has with the criminal justice system.  Our policy allows kids to make mistakes without ending their academic careers.  A february 2001 aba resolution opposing zero-tolerance policies admits: ""zero tolerance has become a one-size-fits-all solution to all the problems schools confront.  Zero tolerance is not only ineffective in reducing violence or crime in schools but has also created a ""school-to-prison pipeline. "".  [ 1 ]these policies are promoted as preventing drug abuse and violence in schools.  Zero tolerance gives an illusory impression of a strong moral stance being implemented with the noble objective of tackling serious misbehavior problems.  A method that relies on communication between students, teachers, and others improves accountability and school safety.  Strickland feels adopting such a policy in the hart district would prevent a furtherance of campus hate crimes and hate verbal abuse.  Zero tolerance allows them to to not have to make a decision.  Alternatives include restorative justice and multi��tiered behavioral health programs, which are designed to help kids improve their behavior while keeping them in school.  This way, we can ensure that our children don't become the victims of bullying.  With proper awareness and the knowledge that it can bring it will be much easier to help eradicate bullying and prevent future issues .  This improves student academic performance, classroom climate, decreases chances of student drop out, and reduces the risk of a student becoming involved with the incarceration system.  Also an enforceable requirement on investigators to investigate properly and fully would be a valuable addition, reducing the excesses of zero tolerance.  Supporters of zero tolerance argue the strict policies make schools safer and are a necessary disciplinary measure, especially at a time when school violence has grabbed the nation's attention.  Civil rights and education activists say the policy can be a model for the nation.  Supporters of zero tolerance policies contend that they promote the safety and well-being of school children and send a powerful message of deterrence.  Zero tolerance also makes administration simpler.  Instead of zero tolerance and authoritarian punishment, restorative practices provide high levels of control and support, which encourage appropriate behavior and place the responsibility for resolution on students themselves.  People who support zero-tolerance policies believe they promote safety in schools and give everyone involved more peace of mind.  They contend that such polices can be communicated clearly and forcefully to students so they understand that discipline will be immediate and predictable.  Zero tolerance policies are liked by some because they're applied uniformly and help deter ""bad behavior. "".  [ 9 ]another study says that zero tolerance policies are viewed as a quick fix solution for student problems.  [ 15 ]the most direct way these policies increase the probability of a youth coming into contact with the incarceration system is through their exclusionary methods.  The idea is that if the problems can be removed from the classroom, it will be easier for everyday school functions to take place.  The goal is to eliminate zero-tolerance policies that lawmakers say have led to mandatory expulsions for bringing a fake gun to school or getting into a minor scuffle.  Zero tolerance policies are an easy way for school systems to avoid lawsuits, plain and simple.  Schools adopt zero-tolerance policies to allow administrators to impose serious penalties for even minor violations to reinforce the overall importance of following the rules. ","[3, 2, 2, 3, 2, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 2, 2, 4, 4]",15,"[20225558, 45190823, 29155723, 20512953, 13581319, 21088425, 45181152, 45191873, 45272708, 45181383, 15448937, 45411178, 45355658, 45191882, 45189900]"
98ce97e3-4cf6-4556-8d23-602e751838d5,3185,We should adopt socialism,Arg-Search,"This support is often helpful as families work through grief relating to infertility or sometime families need help with the anxiety that the adoption process can provoke.  This provides them with a better understanding of the person, so they can make a good first impression.  Encouraging organizations and agencies to help same-sex couples develop positive self-concept in the context of adoption may improve psychological well-being throughout the process.  There are so many people who want to adopt a baby that it should be possible to find an excellent home for your child.  Infants and children from other countries can be adopted through private agencies.  Based upon the adoption analysis, modifications are made to the product's design in order to create a product that is desirable and practical to the adopters.  The most successful adoption of a public health program results from understanding the target population and the factors influencing their rate of adoption.  They educate families about adoption, help match prospective adoptive families with adoptees, perform home visits and provide pre- and post-adoption counseling services.  It can easily be used by ill intended prospective foster/adoptive parents to prepare themselves for screening interviews.  The project has shown considerable promise for open adoptions, according to mcroy and grotevant, especially with the right blend of social services, legal and policy supports.  There is continual innovation in order to attract new adopters all along the s-curve.  Adopted people can obtain their original birth certificate when they are 18 years old (16 in scotland), and your name will be on the certificate.  These results demonstrate that selecting seed farmers based on a complex social network model was most effective in increasing pit planting adoption.  In large part, this is an improvement, as we now know that humans have a need for connection with their biological roots and information about themselves.  Families can learn more about adoption, meet waiting children and network with social workers.  The programs below allow waiting families at all stages of the process to get to know the children available for adoption.  * it works better with adoption of behaviors rather than cessation or prevention of behaviors.  They are then able to get in touch with the child's social worker or relevant adoption agency.  Social workers with public and private child-placing agencies in north carolina have a resource available to them that can make their jobs easier.  Social workers can help parents practice how to tell difficult truths in words the child can understand and that convey compassion and respect for the birth parents.  The outcomes of adoptees and birth family members connecting with each other electronically can ease the anguish spawned by the secrecy and cutoffs in traditional adoption practices.  This approach will ultimately improve the services for prospective adoptive families, birth parents, foster parents, and children.  The social worker will help you with problems of adjustment or family life, and with long-term needs.  Because early adopters aren't too far ahead of the average individual in innovativeness, they serve as a role model for many other members of a social system.  ""we hope that this will increase the number of adoptions and speed the process up,"" she added.  When you choose to work with us, you have the opportunity to work with select, experienced social workers who know all of the legal requirements and regulations concerning adoptions.  Social media tools can promote collaboration with adoption agencies, advocates, and organizations and connect them to important information and services.  Adoption is a life-long process and we are available to provide counseling services whenever the need arises.  Adoption means that a person does something differently than what they had previously (i. e. , purchase or use a new product, acquire and perform a new behavior, etc. ). ","[1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2]",15,"[45190823, 20225558, 28813722, 45405037, 20512953, 29155723, 45181383, 45181152, 45191873, 45272708, 45411178, 6432269, 6340330, 19838540, 45191882]"
8763c3a8-bbef-497e-8d06-70934014fc9e,1661,We should ban school uniforms,Arg-Search,"This proves that uniforms do not solve the gang problem.  This causes more drug use and increases the ammount of misbehavior in a school.  It can become a distraction for some, and in extreme cases, become a source of bullying.  And so these girls will not have the chance to wear summer frocks the way generations of schoolgirls have and one assumes nor will boys be allowed short trousers.  Also, you've got to consider the parents point of view, they might think the cost of uniform expensive, and shopping for it quite tiring.  Children could get sick therefore, they would not be able to go to school just because of a stupid uniform rule.  The dress code states that the length of skirts cannot be shorter than 5 inches above the knee and clothing should not be a distraction.  School uniforms gives students a limited amount of clothing to wear, it shows that all students are equal.  School uniforms are for losers!!! school uniform restricts students creativity and do not allow students to express their thoughts freely.  Uniforms shouldn't be banned for the following reasons: competition of clothing can cause problems such as bullying.  School uniforms can be annoying.  His conclusion: uniforms have no positive effect on student behavior or achievement, nor do they save money for parents.  School uniforms diminish the amount of discipline problems that occur at school , however, they are more expensive for families.  School uniforms prove to be futile and wasteful once the child is out of school.  Surveys among students also show that dress codes do not eliminate the competition over clothes.  Another con of school uniforms is that it deprives the children of comfort. this discomfort might reflect upon the academic performance of the child.  It also disallows any clothing that promotes alcohol, tobacco, gangs, drugs or weapons.  The main thing that i feel about the uniform is that in inhibites students from expressing themselves.  Volleys, converse, vans, skate shoes and fashion shoes (even if they are made by a sports shoe company) are also seen as being unacceptable for sporting activity.  Uniforms are not comfortable with the weather because they are not thick enough.  5.  uniforms can be tight and itchy!.  Opponents of dress codes say they violate the students' right to freedom of expression and are a financial burden for poor families.  The biggest deterrent to a healthy school climate may be the lack of discipline and respect.  - this means that flat soled canvas shoes will be unacceptable and students will no longer be allowed to participate in lessons wearing these shoes.  They are uncomfortable to play sports in and in some schools you can't wear a jacket unless it's a school jacket.  In comparison to civil dress, school uniforms prove to be futile and wasteful once the child is out of school.  It sends out completely the wrong message to children if their misbehaviour leads to a change in the rules. "".  Being forced to wear the same clothes every single day, without a choice in the matter, feels like a breach of freedom.  Wearing our own clothes to school could prove a major distraction to some students.  Uniforms decrease the opportunity for showing a gang affiliation or hiding weapons, and strangers are easily identified.  The supporters of uniform policies say that this type of restriction on clothing hides the differences in students' social status.  Even in schools that don't require uniforms or specific items of clothing, hill says, stringent dress code rules can get a child in trouble.  Mobile phones can cause a distraction in education.  With the high cost of clothing today, school uniforms can lift a financial burden from students' families. ","[4, 3, 5, 3, 2, 4, 1, 5, 2, 5, 2, 3, 2, 2, 3]",15,"[45677971, 45567220, 45569485, 45567227, 45538225, 45458968, 21785776, 45206691, 34609243, 45191882, 45181243, 45181256, 45181253, 45181262, 28513847]"
1d89af19-d595-4138-95bd-2f25f96e98f1,3193,We should fight nationalism,Arg-Search,"The times are begging for stronger remedies to big government than the gop are embracing.  Fight for your nation, for fighting made our people great.  Someone is worth fighting for.  I might not be a hero to you, but to those who i've stood up for, fought for, and helped, i am a hero to them.  The youth are worth fighting for.  ""the team effort involved with hockey fights cancer has proven to be successful in raising more than $12. 8 million since 1998, including $850,000 this past month alone.  ""all of my family and friends at home will be able to watch me fight on espn.  This is a great opportunity for me to showcase my talent to so many people who've never seen me fight.  This aims to get young people across the borough involved in positive activities as a way of reducing anti-social behaviour and keeping them fighting fit.  Honing the skills they need to fight and win.  The nation represented by the winning gundam earns the right to lead earth and the colonies for the next four years.  I love fighting at the hard rock and it's starting to feel like home. "".  As we stand and face the future, our eyes raised to the sky and we pledge ourselves to struggle, we'll either win or die.  Beyond our fundraising efforts, this campaign also raises the necessary awareness that we all have to continue the fight against this terrible disease. "".  Pc andy doran of the leigh west neighbourhood policing team (npt) said: ""this is a fantastic way for young people to get involved in sport and learn self-discipline.  Those that run the boxing club are committed to working with them and offer a fantastic service to the community.  Fighting for our judeo-christian values is more than simply defending religious liberty; it is fighting for the very survival of our nation. "".  Your tax-deductible donation will help preserve our great nation for future generations.  Despite being a felony in all 50 states, dog fighting continues to be a popular underground activity.  The facilities are also available to amateur boxers, martial arts or mma fighters who feel they could benefit from training alongside some of the best boxing talent in the country.  The goal of hockey fights cancer is to raise money and awareness for national and local organizations involved in cancer care and research.  More than two million supporters strong, the aspca's mission is to provide effective means for the prevention of cruelty to animals throughout the united states .  This annual free-fighting nationals, which is held on memorial day weekend, gives bando free-style fighters a chance to meet and compete under rigorous rules, including round-robin fighting. ","[1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 5, 5, 3, 3, 5, 1, 2, 3, 1]",15,"[20225558, 45190823, 29155723, 20512953, 13581319, 21088425, 45272708, 45181152, 45181383, 45191873, 15448937, 45411178, 45355658, 6340330, 45181262]"
48ae7941-ff0e-4cd3-aafc-9f9d63079d5c,3758,We should further exploit sustainable energies,Arg-Search,"This is creating a greater demand for improved water supplies and sanitation, especially in developing countries and urban areas.  This reduces the consumption of raw materials.  In the long run efficiency gains and the increased use of renewable electricity in vehicles will even reduceco2 emissions in the transport sector.  Natural resources can then continue to produce essential goods and services that support human well-being.  Therefore, a country with access to cheaper energy resources has the advantage of developing their economy faster.  However, through appropriate management, industrialisation can bring benefits and support a clean environment.  The focus on clean energy options also holds benefits for the poor, in a region where 40% of the poor lack sustainable access to energy.  This has the potential to lift millions more out of poverty without exacerbating income inequality.  Second, there is efficient recycling of nutrients and other chemicals through organisms and through geological and chemical processes that result in no waste accumulation in ecosystems.  ��� the increased use of combined heat and power generation (chp) also improves the supply system's energy conversion efficiency, increasingly using natural gas and biomass.  Automation means that solar panels can be installed regardless of weather conditions.  The investments in innovative technologies result in the reduction of the energy need for the firing of tiles to a minimum.  Renewable sources secure steady energy supply.  The main advantage is that they produce affordable and clean electricity.  The organic food industry has demonstrated that ecological control is a workable and an effective way to keep pesticides out of the natural world.  They can also help to reduce a total of 25% in the expenditure of water and 20% in lighting.  It will increase the supply of high-quality fossil energy and increase the proportion of commercial energy consumption in rural areas.  Benefits of the cells include its cheaper production price, flexibility and thinness, and ability to produce power with very little light.  The investments made in avant-garde machinery abating the release of polluting substances and gases reduce the environmental impact of the production process.  Biomass is also a source of renewable energy that helps reduce the volume of carbon dioxide emissions.  It will speed up the elimination of old automobiles and ships, actively develop public transport; set limits on high oil-consuming automobiles, and develop energy-saving and environment-friendly automobiles.  Independence increases self-reliance and reduces dependence on foreign countries.  Energy is important for national economies as it provides jobs.  This variable nature of wind power reduces its attractivity especially for the traditional operators of large power plants.  As such, it has the potential to lead the world in a new form of sustainable economic growth.  At the same time there is enormous potential for reducing our consumption of energy, while providing the same level of energy services.  This minimises the human footprint and ensures that such areas are maintained in their natural form.  In principle the sun could provide sufficient energy to make up the shortfall, provided new innovative methods of energy capture and storage are discovered, developed and exploited rapidly.  They are easy to put in place, allowing a minimum cutting of the vegetation and a minimum disturbance to the wildlife.  Electric power is a highly efficient and clean energy.  Solar thermals are easy to install and can meet up to 80 percent of the households' heating needs.  Green energy is a source of affordable electricity.  The use of renewable sources of energy is encouraged to slow global warming and climate change.  The state has enormous renewable energy potential and more than 3000 mw of exploitable hydropower capacity.  Sustainable exploitation of natural resources can be achieved through sustainable harvest. ","[5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[28813722, 45677971, 45567220, 45569485, 13581319, 43877630, 45206691, 45191882, 45181243, 45181253, 45181256, 6340330, 19838540, 34609243, 44044795]"
35d47331-3323-42a4-85f4-ecffdcda59f3,2083,We should legalize organ trade,Arg-Search,It is not fare to paying customers to make them wade through endless posts from people who can't trade.,"[1, 1, 4, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2]",15,"[45190823, 20225558, 28813722, 45181383, 45191873, 45181152, 45272708, 45405037, 6432269, 45206691, 45191882, 45411178, 29155723, 19838540, 45189900]"
468837a5-9b16-4ea5-9018-34da8817e537,2654,We should protect whistleblowers,Arg-Search,"These officials encouraged members of the assembly to utilize the services their agencies had to offer and said they were working towards being more accessible to whistleblowers.  Whistleblowers help to create an effective civil service because they often are in the best position to witness agency wrongdoing.  It also lowers the standard of proof for whistleblowers to receive protection.  ""for non-national security/ intelligence community whistleblowers it has dramatically improved,"" said angela canterbury, director of public policy at the project on government oversight .  Furthermore, protecting and rewarding whistleblowers can strengthen a culture of transparency and accountability in government and deter wrongdoing from occurring in the first place.  A similar fix on the era would make it a much more functional source of protection for nuclear workers.  We know that whistleblowers save money.  Each year, whistleblower lawsuits under the false claims act save taxpayers nearly one billion dollars.  "". . . protecting whistleblowers - honest employees who speak up about suspected misconduct - has been shown to be a powerful tool for combating malpractice and corruption.  Whistleblower disclosures can save lives as well as billions of taxpayer dollars.  It creates a comprehensive system for the protection of whistleblowers in the public and private sector.  The sec whistleblower program offers eligible whistleblowers the ability to report anonymously, robust employment protections and the opportunity to earn substantial monetary awards - regardless of nationality.  Over a dozen countries have now adopted comprehensive whistleblower protection laws which create mechanisms for reporting wrongdoing and provide legal protections to the people who informed them.  It has been proven that whistleblowers are the most effective way to detect and deter fraud.  (3)the dodd-frank act, in its entirety, offers significant increases in whistleblower protection in comparison to other federal whistleblower statutes.  Comprehensive legislation without loopholes and with adequate follow-up mechanisms will lay strong foundations for providing a safe environment for the individual to disclose a suspicion or a case of corruption.  Many of the bill's co-sponsors suggested strengthening protections for federal employees who disclose wrongdoing could help prevent government waste and mismanagement.  This legislation would strengthen the protections for military whistleblowers and ensure that servicemembers receive the justice they deserve.  Federal employees could benefit from the whistleblower protection act, [21] and the no-fear act (which made individual agencies directly responsible for the economic sanctions of unlawful retaliation).  An efficient whistleblower law encourages employees to work within the chain of command to resolve problems early and effectively.  This restores ""no loopholes"" protection and cancels the effect of the supreme court's garcetti v.  ceballos decision limiting federal workers' first amendment rights.  ""by providing new rights, remedies and protections for government whistleblowers, this bill increases accountability and takes an important step toward curbing waste, fraud and abuse.  It gives protection, in defined situations, to employees who choose not to raise the matter internally because they believe they would be victimised by raising the matter.  The act strengthens protection for federal employees who blow the whistle on waste, fraud, and abuse in government operations.  Whistleblower lawsuits under the false claims act save taxpayers nearly one billion dollars.  The wpea strengthens protections for employees who disclose waste, fraud, and abuse in 10 critical areas.  These kinds of whistleblower lawsuits not only protect taxpayer money, they could very well save lives.  [22] the dodd-frank act offers whistleblowers significant incentives and increases protection for whistleblowers in the sec whistleblower program.  Their disclosures save billions of dollars and even human lives.  Incentives and protection for whistleblowers the dodd-frank act offers whistleblowers significant incentives and increases protection for whistleblowers in the sec whistleblower program.  The bill would strengthen protections for federal employees who report waste, fraud and abuse. ","[2, 3, 4, 3, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 1]",15,"[45190823, 20225558, 13581319, 29155723, 20512953, 45181383, 45191873, 45181152, 45272708, 45411178, 45405037, 45355658, 6340330, 6579519, 45181243]"
d004fa33-5e8e-4581-bc44-171a132b2fec,3052,We should raise the corporate tax,Arg-Search,"Subsequently, lower capital investment tends to reduce capital per worker, making workers less productive and forcing companies to cut real wages as lower productivity results in fewer profits.  This drives down the value of the stock market and lowers the rate of new investments and job creation.  And being the only companies in the world that have to pay taxes on their foreign earnings will make them much more competitive.  High corporate taxes reduce economic growth and job creation by lowering investment and wages.  To help low-income families, the state could improve an existing property tax credit program by expanding eligibility, making the credits more valuable, and improving participation rates.  The biggest may be that it would reduce those disincentives for companies to invest at home.  At the same time, accrual taxation would greatly simplify the tax code and limit certain tax avoidance strategies.  ""such a reform could raise a large amount of revenue and would improve economic efficiency by treating different investments more equally,"" pozen says.  Bushcrimefamily- the gop's favorite corporate tax idea helps outsource jobs.  Because they contribute to capital flight, high corporate tax rates also lower government revenue.  Such a limitation would raise enough revenue to allow a substantial reduction in the corporate tax rate, increasing the global competitiveness of the u. s.  Additional revenue could be raised by taxing the $2 trillion currently held overseas and allow the tax payments to be spread out over, say, 7 years.  Some corporations may respond to corporate tax increases by reducing their profit margins, which means fewer dividends and lower share prices for stockholders.  Furthermore, lower taxes on capital are generally associated with increased government tax revenues.  Firms can do so by cutting wages and benefits or by finding new sources of revenue by raising the prices of their products.  The carbon tax would help us slow global warming.  �� the gop��s favorite corporate tax idea helps outsource jobs.  Nevertheless, this back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that limiting the deductibility of corporate interest expense could play a large role in rate-reducing corporate tax reform.  All these tax sources would be far more efficient than corporate taxes.  He adds that disallowing a modest portion of the interest deduction would also improve economic efficiency by reducing the tax code's large bias toward debt-financed investment.  This capital flight means fewer taxes are paid domestically.  Reducing the bias toward debt disallowing a modest portion of the interest deduction would also improve economic efficiency by reducing the tax code's large bias toward debt-financed investment.  It reduces the top corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent and reduces or eliminates all taxes on overseas corporate profits.  This reduces demand for u. s.  workers, compared to what it would be if u. s.  tax rates were lower. "".  They can also make economies more attractive for foreign investment.  Such a limit would also reduce the tax bias in favor of debt by decreasing the effective tax rate on equity-without raising the average cost of capital in the u. s. "".  The study shows the u. s.  bears one of the highest corporate tax rates of any country, ""which encourages overseas investment, reduces demand for u. s.  workers, and lowers american wages. "".  Some of the tax breaks would allow businesses to reduce their tax burden by applying net operating losses from prior years.  That means ""revenue positive"" corporate tax reform that raises significant amounts of new tax revenue. "".  Corporate tax reform should result in increased tax revenues, even if the corporate tax rate is reduced.  His business tax reform, were it actually to include a corporate rate reduction, would raise small business taxes and cut corporate taxes. ","[4, 1, 2, 2, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 5, 2]",15,"[45677971, 45567220, 45569485, 45567227, 45538225, 45458968, 45206691, 45191882, 45181243, 45181253, 45189900, 21785776, 19838540, 15448937, 45355658]"
a071d5b8-95bd-43a0-b04f-52b834c7835b,2678,We should subsidize distance education,Arg-Search,"Grants also enable us to provide subsidized studio and administrative space for the performing arts community, and to create high-quality performance opportunities that are affordable for artists and audiences.  Active-duty sailors can get a fully subsidized education with tuition assistance, as long as their course loads don't exceed 16 semester hours or 24 quarter hours per year.  The hybrid programs combine traditional in-person classroom learning with distance learning in order to reduce the in-person course load in areas like social science and humanities.  By restructuring payment plans and pooling existing education debt, borrowers extend their periods of repayment or gain favorable interest terms that make monthly installments affordable.  They are affordable rentals for families who are low income, seniors, or disabled.  These private schools are by no means fancy, they have minimal infrastructure etc. , but the fact that teaching happens within their walls makes them attractive.  Plus loans , which help parents meet educational expenses are available with interest rates of 7. 9%.  Interestingly, the bus service helps expand school enrolment, 13% of the gain is from expanded enrolment, rather than substitution away from government schools.  As expected, once technology started to become more developed in the last century, we have seen a rapid growth in the number of distance learning offerings.  * distance learning also has the potential to support the entrepreneurial goals of the university as well as to support the university's mission beyond state boundaries.  One can do independent reading and take tests online.  Housingaffordable housing, including montefiore subsidized housing adjacent to the moses campus or in riverdale, is available.  On-line resources and a lending library are also available.  Similarly, at a minimum, cost recovery is expected of courses and programs delivered to students outside the state of hawai'i.  A subsidy of rs.  28000 ($700) per month can double the number of schools and expand school enrolment by about 14%.  If you were john adams or thomas jefferson or benjamin franklin, then you could show how a broad education could lead to powerful results.  This way the students can commit to the degree early and more than likely finish it out without having to take as many loans.  This indecision may allow other countries to get a head start on perfecting education through computers.  Distance learning outside the state will strengthen the university's asian/pacific focus and support the university's position as the premier institution of higher education in the pacific basin.  Low cost distance learning classes provided by state universities will become much more popular.  3) the growth of technology enabled teaching will expand.  With a subsidy, the number of private schools will increase, potentially leading to greater student enrolment.  A �� km of extra travel distance dramatically reduces private school enrolment; from 28. 4% to 24% for boys and from 22. 5% to 18% for girls in lower primary schools.  Hey were effective and low cost.  On the one hand, there is a real potential opportunity to bring down cost through course redesign and technology.  Straighter line's business model is to carve out this cross-subsidization and offer just the profitable courses at a lower cost.  Direct plus loansubsidized and unsubsidized direct loans have lower interest rates and more flexible repayment options so if you are eligible you should apply for these loans first.  The university of hawai'i is committed to a vigorous distance learning and instructional effort to equalize, as far as possible, higher educational opportunity in all parts of the state.  Grants and scholarships provide attractive financing options because money students receive does not require repayment.  Alternative funding and loansthere are many options available to students to help fund an mba education, ranging from part-time jobs to federal and personal loans. ","[2, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 2, 1, 1, 1, 3, 4]",15,"[20225558, 45190823, 13581319, 29155723, 45181383, 45191873, 45272708, 45181152, 20512953, 45405037, 45206691, 45189900, 45191882, 45411178, 19838540]"
26a270b1-0518-4979-abcf-6302903d354c,3279,Blockade of the Gaza Strip should be ended,Arg-Search,"This blockade prevents the recurrence of such crimes.  Despite hamas' war crimes against israeli citizens and the thousands of rockets fired at israeli towns, israel continues to respond in the most humane way possible. "".  Until july of this year, tunnels connecting gaza to egypt provided a vital lifeline for the territory amidst the otherwise crippling israeli blockade.  ""it will allow us to keep weapons and weapon materials out of gaza, but on the other hand to help the palestinian population there,"" the former british prime minister said.  It has loved the security advantage of effective control which it has exercised through incursions, the creation of buffer zones within the strip, routine aerial attacks and so on.  ""only a full lifting of the blockade followed by a strong humanitarian response will be adequate to relieve the massive humanitarian suffering evident in gaza today,"" said pillay.  He added that egypt will significantly expand the quantity of goods crossing from egypt into gaza.  Opening the seaport as the siege on gaza is tightening, rebuilding the port would provide gaza with its own outlet.  This would provide palestinians in gaza a secure and dignified passageway and free them from dependence on the usually absent goodwill of israel and egypt to respect humanitarian law.  An easing of the blockade of the coastal strip is key to the survival of hamas.  ""once implemented, we believe these arrangements should significantly improve conditions for palestinians in gaza while preventing the entry of weapons,"" the statement said.  In the international arena these are considered a legitimate and effective tool to exert pressure on terrorist or other regimes, such as that of the hamas terrorist regime.  The u. n.  have always called on israel to lift the blockade, to open the borders and make life possible.  The blockade prevents access by sea, land and air, effectively closing off a population of 1. 5 million palestinians from the outside world.  It would not only provide palestinians freedom of movement, but it would also contribute to reviving the economy and improving social and political life in the strip.  As a result of the blockade, more than 1. 4 million palestinians are cut off from the outside world and struggling with desperate poverty.  On the other hand while israel is blockading gaza creating a humanitarian crisis the blockade can act as a rallying point for opposition movements.  Abbas, however, said this added aid can be done by opening land crossings and other steps that do not include the lifting of the naval blockade.  As a result of the strict and aggressive enforcement of laws and regulations that typify the blockade, the gaza strip is facing an imminent humanitarian crisis.  An easing of the blockade would mean an increased role for western-backed palestinian president mahmoud abbas, whose forces were ousted by hamas seven years ago.  The easing of the blockade will allow humanitarian efforts and construction materials to enter the palestinian territory, while further talks are expected to begin in cairo in september.  The adjustment to the blockade announced by israel in june 2010 has made only a minor improvement to the import of humanitarian supplies and reconstruction materials.  The associated press reports:""the egyptian proposal calls for easing parts of the israeli blockade of gaza, bringing some relief to the territory, according to palestinian officials in the talks.  The israeli government was urged to remove the restrictions on gaza's borders and to allow free import and export of goods into the strip.  Various naval manuals, including the naval manuals of the us and uk recognize the maritime blockade as an effective naval measure that can be implemented in times of armed conflict. ","[2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 2, 2, 1, 4, 5, 2]",15,"[13581319, 20225558, 19838540, 45677971, 45567220, 45355658, 44044795, 45190823, 45405037, 28813722, 45411178, 28810858, 21785776, 15448937, 28513847]"
99a03c77-3190-4a13-8ca3-79ae161dec17,3730,Community service should be mandatory,Arg-Search,"Furthermore, service-learning has a positive impact on schools and contributes to community renewal.  This perception reduces dog licensing rates, reduces dog licensing income, reduces return-to-owner rates, increases costs, and kills more dogs.  It gives you a feel of the world outside of high school and lets you get a feel of different jobs and professions.  This reduces shelter costs and reduces the number of dogs euthanized, both important societal goals.  It's an easy way to get to know your resources and it's also a great way to network.  Mandatory bi-annual physical fitness tests assist with reducing healthcare cost at the federal, state and local, level.  Mandatory bi-annual physical fitness tests assist with establishing a high retention rate and reducing absenteeism.  Serving the community should be a graduation requirement at this school because it provides benefits to both students and to the community.  In a 2000 rmc research corporation study, community service has been shown to increase social development, motivation, school engagement and school attendance.  Mandatory fitness tests increase confidence, focus and precision.  Mandatory bi-annual physical fitness tests are beneficial in terms of obesity reduction.  According to the anti-cruelty society, fort worth's mandatory spay/neuter law resulted in a significant reduction in rabies vaccinations, and to ""an increase in reported rabies cases"" in the city.  For example, child wellbeing units ��and family referral services will help to identify gaps in services.  Monitoring health trends can reduce financial expenses and save money.  This bill simply provides more americans more choices and opportunities to give back to their neighborhoods and their country all through the means which they freely choose.  Also, mandatory bi-annual physical fitness tests reduce liability and injury.  Children and young people in longer-term voohc will benefit from care planning that meets their needs and that promotes a supported return to family living, where possible.  Community service gives children the opportunity to experience working with the general public (an education in itself), the elderly, children, or animals.  Along with publicity and awareness, checkpoints have proven to be effective in the fight against drunk driving.  Clubs and communities can structure mandatory membership to reduce the risk of the successful challenge.  Moreover, in light of the many interventions supporting this application, the commission considers that the service responds to an extraordinary need within the system.  The winter ��break closure provides employees with an excellent opportunity to engage in some of these learning opportunities, to offset non-holiday closure hours.  And, of course, non-profits will also benefit from an unpaid labour force.  Long-term financial savings may open new, innovative opportunities to reduce injury, reduce debt, allocate resources, and develop mandatory bi-annual physical fitness tests nationwide.  Not only does service benefit one's character, it also improves their resumes.  Community service also allows students to learn new skills.  Maintaining adequate physical fitness also reduces injury, medical leave, and minimizes liability lawsuits.  Mandatory community service hurts no one, and greatly benefits both students and service agencies.  It is a lower cost alternative to prison and saves the taxpayers of our state millions of dollars annually.  Government agencies can also access their child wellbeing units for assistance in using the mrg.  Community service provides various benefits that the school cannot teach in a classroom, such as a broader sense of where students stand in the world.  Such treatment and educational services are designed to help batterers stop abusive behavior.  The vine system provides victims the opportunity to obtain limited offender status from the time of the arrest through the completion of his/her sentence.  Mandatory membership provides a guaranteed source of dues funding, plus additional revenue from owner spending.  Alcohol mandatory treatment is a harm reduction strategy designed to get help to some of the most chronic abusers of alcohol in our community. ","[4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 5, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 6432269, 45569485, 45567227, 45677971, 45567220, 44094031, 45411178, 6340330, 20512953, 44044795, 19838540, 45405037, 44690955]"
0624f71d-15f5-44e1-8286-2aa05153c3ab,2604,The right to Internet access should be protected,Arg-Search,"Apc believes this approach will contribute to peace building and our collective welfare much more effectively than restrictive policy and regulation, or arbitrary shutdowns.  Now users can secure their sensitive documents from unwanted user on shared computer.  This makes it feasible for small network operators to enter the market, which increases competition, making netwwork access more affordable and more widespread.  It will help you increase productivity; protect company-sensitive information; discourage employee-to-employee misconduct; and comply with regulations.  This is not just because of a desire to modernise; it will also save money, by cutting staff and transferring services to the internet or to call centres.  It lets you prevent people from viewing, printing, or altering your confidential documents.  It enables access to public services like education, healthcare information, and participation in the cultural life of a community.  Innovation helps drive economic growth and helps maintain a free and open internet that has no borders or limitations.  By learning how to make the internet forget about 'child generated content', children's security can be improved (i. e.  by removing traces of their personal details).  The openness, security and privacy of the internet with regard to the well-being of children is of fundamental importance for the internet's future in reaching the next billion users.  Increasing access to the internet can, for example, improve low income individuals' access to financial services such as savings accounts and enable online trading.  And internet access indeed goes a long way in guaranteeing and enabling the realization and protection of other human rights.  On the other hand it is a good entry point for a new issue and it's safe in the sense that there is no automatic follow up.  It can strengthen educational and health services, local business, public participation, access to information, good governance and poverty eradication.  It also prevents unauthorized access on boot and allows people around to leave messages while the system is locked.  It's an ideal tool for you to lock / hide your private information from prying eyes.  Protects programs and settings from being accessed by unauthorized personals, it is useful for computers which are publicly used specially the kiosks.  The only way to manage potentially dangerous or inappropriate content is to allow users to self-regulate and adopt innovative solutions to ensure their own protection.  Great for both home and office environments, these downloads will protect everything from personal data to passwords.  They have a reasonable expectation that internet services will be accessible and affordable, secure, reliable and ongoing.  The avenues for seeking remedies should be available, known, accessible, affordable and capable of providing appropriate redress.  In essence, it allows for wireless isp s to mange traffic on their network in any way they choose.  The vpn allows users to access certain websites that may be blocked in restrictive countries.  It enables the rights to work, free choice of employment (art 23) and social security (art 22).  Freedom of expression on the internet: a catalyst and an enabler of human rights.  Internet safety tipsthe internet can give you access to information, entertainment, job opportunities, travel experiences and much more.  4.  the internet enables people to have access to information, project salience for issues of public concern, engage in political speech and decision-making.  This includes ensuring that the internet is, at all times, accessible and without any arbitrary interruption (i. e.  Unlike any other medium, the internet enables individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds instantaneously and inexpensively across national borders.  Clearly the internet can be used as an excellent tool for accessing information and allowing connections between individuals and communities all over the world. ","[4, 4, 2, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 5, 5, 5, 2, 2, 4]",15,"[6432269, 45538225, 20312760, 44690955, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 43984981, 45189900, 45206691, 45191882, 44094031, 34854490, 34609243]"
692bdf2d-5b50-4720-b433-fc077d6e3739,3234,The use of AI should be abandoned,Arg-Search,"It kinda feels abandoned, they still haven't fixed the bug for the fov slider or the bug that causes people to get speedhack messages and get kicked.  But if anything comes close to it, it must be this moral agony of abandonment.  Detroit may rebound from disaster, but many of these abandoned buildings will never see use again.  Later, sol��s reiterated that the creek could not be used for irrigation and that what little was sown was in the regular season.  And i think at this point the development of this very old issue, we can conclude that the ai is incapable of moving quickly while using bounding overwatch.  Conclusion:i can not reproduce the issue of ai moving extremely slow without bounding overwatch.  The security boxes tossed on the floor, slid open, and the decay showcase the state of the city.  Secondly, there must also be an abandonment of all inward, spiritual things.  Abandonment is dropping all your needs.  Abandonment must reach a point at which you stand in complete indifference to yourself.  And the ai isnt too great, so in reality it turns into the humans farming the crap out of the many many ai waves.  Formerly active tribes give way to sophisticated ai monsters that can loot your corpse and grow in power to chase down your friends as part of the current abandonment phase.  The cars rotting at the center of belgium's gorgeous forests have now been removed, mostly for environmental reasons but some stolen by thieves.  The real root of all fears is that of finding oneself alone, like that continuous fear of the child of being abandoned.  While they were joyfully packing up to leave, the soldiers realized that they could not bring their vehicles back home.  Luckily, revenants carry their own ��scrap�� armor sets that can be pried off of their rotting corpses.  Ai alleged that reports of police abuse and torture have been widely ignored.  Great faith produces great abandonment.  ""cart abandonment should not be dealt with as an isolated problem; it is tunnel vision to ignore the wider online efficiency issues that feed it,"" explained brown.  They'll have to find a way to reactivate the gaia nodes and contain the effects of a bubbling filth pit while fighting off waves of starshina officers.  However, he said that, like a dilapidated house, if a mobile home is uninhabitable it will not be hooked up to utilities.  Brady mccann, the owner of sunset estate, said the zoning is taking away his opportunity to make money at the park and depriving some residents of utilities.  Abandonment rocks our emotions with feelings of insecurity, fear, doubt, loneliness, failure, rejection, grief, sorrow and unworthiness, just to name a few.  Abandonment is casting off all your cares.  There must be an abandonment in your life concerning all outward, practical things.  Besides understaffing, dore said the city is unable to fine lenders or mortgage processors while abandoned properties are in foreclosure, an often lengthy process.  He also commented that the low yield, due to seasonal reverses, made farming a waste of work.  Here, it looked as if a traffic-jam ended in an apocalyptic-sized problem, causing hundreds to flee their vehicles.  Kubrick's conceptalso, the cruel herding up of discarded robots for extermination is re-visiting the territory of schindler's list.  There are redbud places all over lorain: well-kept blocks blighted by one or two foreclosed homes that can be magnets for arsons, burglaries and drug use.  Annarasumanara mangasummary: a rumor goes around school about an abandoned amusement park and a magician who lives there that can make someone disappear for good.  The high rate of abandoned children has been attributed to young mothers unaware that they are pregnant. ","[3, 3, 3, 3, 1, 3, 4, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1]",15,"[45181384, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45191882, 45189900, 45206691, 45483811, 29155723, 43877630, 45361788, 45336988, 45336993, 44094031, 31948170]"
686f4048-146f-4d86-9768-cd6962fb7a90,3207,We should abandon social media,Arg-Search,"A sudden withdrawal may inspire conversations that negatively impact your brand, and you'll have a hard time winning people back if you return.  Facebook is losing registered accounts like it's their job, and twitter has become a place of caustic slurs.  But fighting through all the noise on social media also means that there are people you want to reach who aren't getting your messages.  One of the major mistakes i see site owners commit is that they ask the same guys who have coded their shopping cart to check for errors.  Baby hatches have sparked concern among some they may encourage more parents to abandon babies.  And one of the first indicators that there might be troubling brewing was the abandonment of social media marketing.  Utilities that do not narrowly define their social media campaigns may find them subject to question, just like the expenses in this case.  First, abandoning the social web is not a surefire remedy.  Some have suggested that the number of abandonments will shoot up, others that baby traffickers will lie in wait outside the shelter and steal infants. "".  Alas, the tactic -- which is only one of the many ways to obscure information -- rendered facebook unusable.  The cart abandonment rate is so high that it becomes one of the most important concerns for the internet retailers.  Shopping cart abandonment is a real problem at christmastime.  If you don't have enough unique content on each page to 'out-weigh' the navigation, you might run into trouble.  We aren't identifying these problems to dissuade users from exercising their right to abandon social technologies they feel uncomfortable with.  Sticking with the opt-out procedure turns digital life into a paranoid game of whack-a-mole where the goal is to stay ahead of the crushing mallet.  Answer: we have found that asking for rich social profile data does not have a major impact on the abandonment rate.  Srsly - abandoning your website (if you ever did that) was a silly play and just allowed others to eat a free lunch in the serps.  It was a hideously clumsy strategy that did more to drive people away from the rest of the google line than it did to draw people into using g+.  Managing social media from an ivory tower can be deceiving.  Distracted shopper syndrome: it's easy to get distracted when shopping online.  However, if few (or none) of your competitors are thriving, it could mean that social media is not a good option in your niche.  The worst damage you can do to your company brand is to give up on social media.  But one of the biggest issues that comes along with social media are the distractions - those things that take your focus off of your social media.  For retailers, this leads to lost sales and higher abandoned cart percentages.  Especially in tough economic times,�� they have limited resources to spend on marketing.  The problem with eliminating social as a cost cutting maneuver is the difficulty of starting up again when your business returns to expansion mode.  If you build an app and ignore these basic principles, you're likely to experience high abandonment rates.  Nevertheless, when rias utilize social media to promote their advisory practices, they risk compliance problems for their firms.  One of the worst things a company can do is to fail to keep things up to date.  Third, that their twitter activities yielded no monetary benefit.  Findings revealed an alarming abandonment rate: one in five restaurants abandoned their twitter accounts.  The efficacy of abandoning social media can be questioned when others are free to share information about you on a platform long after you've left. ","[4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 3, 2, 1, 1, 4, 4]",15,"[45538225, 45183231, 45191873, 45181152, 45272708, 45191882, 45206691, 45189900, 45401087, 45181384, 20225558, 45483811, 34854490, 45181383, 45190571]"
d4164652-c225-40d1-adee-07a0b8a429da,3661,We should abolish foster care,Arg-Search,"I think this would help people to get off and create less need.  That will prevent a lot of unwanted pregnancy.  This time flexibility gives options to many people unable to commit to long term foster care.  Their website boasts that since 2008, they have found homes for 2,953 pets and saved 3,332 lives.  This situation would allow the children themselves to participate in their own adoption.  Creating a system that not only ensures children thrive in out-of-home care, but also supports foster parents.  Using this model, the personality, habits and health of pets are well known, enhancing the ability of byc to place them in adoptive homes that are a ""good match"".  If you can foster even once or twice a year, it would be a huge help and may even save lives.  This change could save the lives of over 6,000 local dogs and cats annually with the abolishment of euthanizing unadopted animals.  Foster homes are in constant demand when running a no-kill shelter, and you can help.  This��means our animals are no longer restricted to a maximum 28 day stay at our shelters, giving them more time to find loving��new homes.  And knowing who his parents are helps the child to develop and maintain his lineage and identity - reasons why islam abolishes adoption.  Importantly, the idea that families could be supported to keep their children and that removal was a last resort began to take hold.  Children services also works with parents or caretakers to make them suitable for reunification with their children, said mcvey.  ""there is a cure for poverty.  In some cases the parents improve their conditions and have the child returned to them,"" he added. '.  She suggested that women who have unplanned pregnancies are being placed on a ""conveyor belt"" towards abortion, thus denying childless couples the opportunity to adopt.  2) in the instance of rape and incest, proper medical care can ensure that a woman will not get pregnant.  It helps no one, least of all children waiting to be adopted, such as stephan and david.  Education around abortion and having abortion as a legal option for women means that women can evaluate all their options and make fully informed decisions.  With our ""no fail"" policy in mind, we let homeless youth return to stay at our shelter whenever they need to.  A range of support and educational groups helps parents be more effective parents and communicators.  These reports resulted in some improvements, and argued children were in a sensitive developmental phase, and could benefit from guidance.  The implication was that women who have unwanted pregnancies can be turned into baby-making machines for the infertile.  Advancing the foster care system in montenegro will allow these children to realize their right to live in a family.  At bill wilson center, we're able to get 85 percent of our shelter residents back home or placed with a relative.  Because you care is concerned with companion animal overpopulation and works actively to reduce the number of unwanted stray pets.  It advocates universal health care, public funding of elections, a reassessment of public education, and affordable wages.  The selfless act of placing their child for open adoption is to give him the best life possible.  This state recognizes that educational success in the early grades is key to increasing postsecondary opportunities for youth in and alumni of foster care.  It supports abolishing income, gift, inheritance, business, and capital gains taxes, as well as privatizing social security.  Let's look at some of the common pro-life arguments:1) adoption is a viable alternative to abortion and accomplishes the same result. ","[3, 3, 1, 4, 1, 3, 3, 1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 1, 2]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 6432269, 45538225, 21785776, 6340330, 20312760, 44690955, 28813722, 13581319, 34110399, 45183231, 45191873, 45272708, 45181152]"
1febee49-2118-49f5-8c0b-447597b4b404,3699,We should abolish primary elections,Arg-Search,"It adds jobs by creating new demand for goods.  The party primary system provides these safeguards.  They let a tiny handful of voters make decisions for everyone.  Legislators estimate potential savings of $5 million to $10 million every election cycle.  The farm subsidy policy of the government essentially ensures that farmers will make a profit on whatever they produce.  Crime victim protection from liability for damagesthis measure will allow all arizonans, regardless of party affiliation, to vote in a single open primary for the candidates of their choice.  In theory, party primaries help hold politicians accountable and guarantee a vigorous debate over competing ideologies and proposed solutions.  Proposals included abolishing the electoral college, rotating interregional primaries, nation-wide early voting and absentee ballots, mail-in and internet voting, voting machines with paper trails, and voter registration list improvements.  2.  this act allows for others to be given the temporary power to administer and/or certify an election to replace those vacant offices as needed.  At the same time, grandfather clauses assured the right to vote to many impoverished, ignorant, and illiterate whites.  ""(abolishing the system) will make elections favorable to those who have a localized power base, and set a high entry barrier for women and newcomers,"" said rep.  It encourages commerce by giving consumers more purchasing power.  Mr.  irish said doing away with primary races in nonmayoral years would save money.  It allows people with lower incomes to be able to purchase more than they could before, and live a better life.  Runoffs are a waste of tax dollars, and eliminating them could free up money to use in replacing the flawed punch-card elections system.  A primary vote gives every one in every party equal opportunity and people more of a voice in national elections.  The commissioners have estimated that abolishing the positions will save county taxpayers $80,000 per year.  ""i think we could have saved a lot of money by abolishing it.  In one county alone, the savings by abolishing the offices were estimated at $50,000 a year.  Give every candidate equal footing and the local primary will determient where and how the people support its representatives.  Such measures as the poll tax, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and the white primary proved especially effective in disfranchising blacks.  Commissioners upon voting for the abolition of the office last year touted the move as a cost savings and a means to improve office efficiency.  If five people run, it's conceivable that one could win with as little as 21 percent of the votes.  Based on low turnout at township elections it suggests that people are satisfied with the job being done.  Commissioners from both counties said abolishing the offices would save more than $20,000 a year.  Plus, it also effectively closes the domestic market to foreign farmers, espeically those form the third world.  But stringer argued that there are other ways to increase voter turnout, such as ""same-day voter registration"" and ""campaign finance reform. "".  But reformers better watch what they wish for: an academic study warns that nonpartisan elections create a less informed electorate, resulting in less competitive local elections.  It allowed the south to develop barriers to voting that would eliminate blacks' votes without coming into conflict with the 15th amendment.  The party primary system works well for the parties.  This reform will promote open government and encourage the election of candidates who will work together for the good of the state.  The legislation would remove this barrier to voting to impose a nationwide requirement that states issue qualified voters an absentee ballot on demand.  Background cross-filing is the practice that allows candidates for political office to register as candidates in multiple parties in primary elections. ","[4, 2, 3, 4, 2, 4, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 4, 3, 4]",15,"[21017840, 6432269, 45953041, 45538225, 6340330, 20312760, 44690955, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 34609243, 45189900, 45206691, 45191882]"
25f5e417-a39b-444d-be4a-cbe53abb09c5,2647,We should abolish term limits,Arg-Search,"Last thoughts: i personally like term limits because they enable more people to participate in the political process.  A smaller government would also result in lower taxes.  Ronald reagan remarked "" government programs, once launched, never disappear.  These seats are known as very safe seats.  If the twenty-second amendment is abolished, the united states could easily become a full out dictatorship.  If, based on that rule, the three-year minimum holding period cannot be fulfilled, there shall be no reversal of group taxation tax effects.  Almost all of those who prefer an elected chamber feel amending the constitution to enact such a change is worthwhile.  They also promise ""improved supervision"" to ensure all are treated equally before the law and a crack down on internet crime.  The appointment allows eiligibility for benefits and retirement coverage.  The government credits the one-child policy introduced in 1980 with preventing hundreds of millions of births and helping lift countless families out of poverty.  It also wants the ability to abolish the senate - with some provincial input in that process.  ""that is why i can confirm that prescription charges will be abolished - completely - in the lifetime of this parliament.  He particularly emphasized the call for energy independence.  Other statute of limitations' terms for less serious crimes were also extended.  The party report also promised to improve the judicial system and help farmers become city residents.  More importantly we should abolish the redistribution of national wealth by the imf and other ngos.  However, he believes the two-term limit allows new blood into county agencies.  Tara jackson, president of arizona town hall, said that abolishing term limits is crucial for effective leadership and increasing civility among lawmakers.  Beijing says the policy, which was introduced in 1980 and is widely disliked, has helped china by slowing population growth and easing the strain on water and other limited resources.  ""abolishing prescription charges will help tackle inequalities.  Proponents of term limits are not without justifiable support, but it is difficult to see how term limits would eliminate the much feared and reviled ""judicial activism"".  Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.  But, he said, the most important thing to gain from abolishing term limits is the experience of veteran lawmakers who are experts on legislative process.  And think of millions in savings.  He also noted that the objective of his reforms is to offset the salary increase, ensure its sustainability and promote efficiency in government.  The federal government has no role in medical care or medical insurance, so privatize medicare as patient based care, repeal the obamacare over-reach, and devolve medicaid to the states.  The federal government has no role in the agriculture industry, so abolish all agriculture subsidies, once and for all.  That should guarantee a more balanced government, with fewer majorities, and ease my mind a bit on the need for a senate.  Elections, not term limits, are the most rational way to get rid of ineffective officeholders.  Segerblom can be tenacious when it comes to getting his bills passed.  Federal lands may contain energy resources and energy exploitation leases can generate huge revenues for the government.  Free markets operate best when they are simple, fair, and predictable.  A majority of canadians feel it would be worthwhile to amend the constitution to set term limits for senators, or to make it an elected chamber.  At the other extreme, abolition, they submit, could be achieved under the constitution's general amending formula: seven provinces with 50% of the population.  Ontario acknowledges that the federal government can set term limits of nine years or more.  The greatest single guarantee of judicial independence is life tenure. ","[2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 1, 1, 1, 3, 4, 4, 1, 1]",15,"[45181384, 45181383, 45401087, 45190571, 45191882, 45189900, 45206691, 45483811, 29155723, 43877630, 45361788, 45336993, 45336988, 32850083, 22345789]"
f34560da-fdd1-4085-86fa-da3acc7cc9f0,2486,We should abolish the US Electoral College,Arg-Search,"This undermines our democracy and is not healthy for the future of the country.  It is also argued that a close election would cause chaos.  Getting rid of the electoral college may just encourage voter fraud as well.  Defecting electors in a close race could cause a crisis of confidence in our electoral system.  Also, the large states send more tax revenues to the federal government, yet when it comes to the national election they are virtually ignored, thereby depressing turnout in these states.  Another criticism of the winner-take-all system is that when such a large portion of the country's population has an important role in electing the president, it cannot be considered democratic.  Changing to a direct election of the president would therefore actually damage minority interests since their votes would be overwhelmed by a national popular majority. "".  The real problem with an interstate compact is that it would lack legitimacy in the eyes of much of the public.  The electoral college is more than just an antiquated institution: it actively disenfranchises voters and occasionally (think 2000) makes the candidate with fewer popular votes president.  2. the electoral college discourages voter turnout in non-swing states, thus affecting concurrent elections for other races.  The theory was that lacking modern communication and with travel limited to horseback over unpaved roads, a presidential candidate could not become known to the entire populace back in 1789.  One of the weaknesses of the electoral college is that a candidate that wins the popular vote may not win the presidency because of the electoral vote.  American elections, he fears, could degenerate into purely parliamentary affairs, in which the government would become susceptible to long and frequent bouts of instability.  The system is also unfair because a citizen's individual vote has more weight if the percentage of voter participation in the state is low.  ""the biggest problem with the electoral college system is that it violates the fundamental principle of american government that every vote should count the same,"" tronto said.  Such breakdowns in the electoral process undermine democracy and raise questions about the legitimacy of the government elected under these circumstances.  Reformers argue that the electoral college hampers democracy in a manner inconsistent with modern american practices.  The most common complaint is that this system augments the power of the larger states, and thus not treats voters equally.  Actually the electoral college makes the political minorities in states rather worthless.  Apart from the public outcry that would be caused by a circumvention of the popular will, there are a number of other serious flaws in the electoral college system.  For one thing, the sort of small-scale fraud that bedevils local elections today would have significantly less impact within a much larger pool of voters.  Those who want to get rid of the electoral college say that it actually causes many states to be ignored.  Another reason why the electoral college should be abolished is that it doesn't make it easy for a third party to be recognized.  The worst flaw is, ""the winner takes all"" system, which in other words means, winner steals all the votes from his or her opponent.  The problem with that is that the governor could choose people that are bias to a particular candidate or party and sway the vote.  The founders knew that policies should never be decided by a pure majority, for that would lead to the degradation of the rights of the minority.  The electoral college hinders any possibility of a direct democracy.  Critics say the electoral college system violates the principle of one person, one vote and favors small and swing states.  The electoral college system is fundamentally unfair to voters. ","[4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 2, 2, 5, 5, 3, 2, 5]",15,"[19838540, 45355658, 20225558, 13581319, 20512953, 29155723, 44044795, 34110399, 27934334, 45190823, 45677971, 45567220, 28513847, 28810858, 15448937]"
3b261a38-c8df-450a-97b0-be8e38f9f62e,2572,We should ban algorithmic trading,Arg-Search,"Critics, including the new york stock exchange, say they undermine fair markets at the expense of traders without access to high-speed trading software.  Regardless of the strategy, there is always the risk that the market will not go in the direction the algorithms predict.  Trading behavior patterns suggest that these quotes are a distraction to other traders.  The commodity futures trading commission (cftc) said panther energy trading and its principal, michael j.  coscia, used a computer algorithm to illegally place and cancel orders at head-spinning speeds.  There is something wrong with using computers to manipulate the bid and ask prices, pulling your bid and shorting the stock at light speed.  In other words, high frequency traders or, to be more precise, their computers get spooked and do what anyone else would do under similar circumstances.  The rudimentary problem with algorithmic programs driving the prices in financial markets is that the integrity of the transactions is slanted in favor of the mega banksters.  The truth is most of our nuanced strategies would be totally useless without high volume, high frequency trading.  Such trades, banned by us regulators, can be used to manipulate prices and can lead to market distortions, potentially resulting in large fines potential for companies found to be involved.  Rather, computer-based algorithmic trading stresses markets and shatters investor confidence in the economy.  The cost of fixing the software would be peanuts compared to the amount of damage these trades cause to investors and companies over a period of years. "".  Banning flashes could hurt high-frequency trading firms and funds that use computer algorithms to take advantage of flashes.  Gary gensler, chairman of the commodity futures trading commission, discussed the may 6 ""flash crash,"" saying algorithmic trading likely contributed to the market plunge.  ""spoofing sends false signals to markets in order to lure prey and game the system,"" cftc commissioner bart chilton told reuters.  The problem is the potential new rules may not solve all of the market's problems.  And the disruption can cause the bid and offer to cross - providing a nice arbitrage opportunity for those who are not distracted!.  If we allow it to continue, the market could crash temporarily from time to time when traders are spooked and exit the market en masse.  Trading is a very difficult business, and having a good computer doesn't mean that you're automatically going to be successful.  With so many damn computers and algorithms doing their own thing, traffic is getting congested out there.  Some critics say that when less experienced hedge- or mutual-fund traders use the software they've bought from wall street, they inadvertently expose their trades.  The other substantive problem that people associate with high-frequency trading is that it encourages market instability, with computers occasionally forgetting how to trade and causing flash crashes.  High-frequency trading outfits that use advanced algorithms and state-of-the-art computer infrastructure to exploit millisecond-long trading opportunities are sometimes said to hurt ordinary investors .  Among other findings, the report concludes that under stressed market conditions, the automated execution of a large sell order can trigger extreme price movements.  There is the possibility of punishment if a trader is deemed to have engaged in abusive behavior, such as distorting price-setting mechanisms or using information that isn't publicly available.  Currently, there is a real risk that once all the data sources are compiled it will be prohibitively expensive.  Algorithmic trading also systematically increases volatility, which imposes costs on other market participants.  The study led by professor boehmer 4 concluded that stocks subject to the us ban suffered a severe degradation in market quality, as measured by spreads and price impacts (i. e. ","[4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 2, 3, 2, 4, 5, 4, 2, 5, 3]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 6432269, 45538225, 30777913, 6340330, 19838540, 20512953, 44690955, 21785776, 6367365, 33708599, 27770607, 20312760, 45191882]"
3c7dcab4-6b73-459e-a1ea-a2ac36b663ed,2227,We should ban whaling,Arg-Search,"Critics fear renewed commercial whaling could wipe out the gains and say whales are intelligent creatures that shouldn't be hunted.  High mercury levelsadditionally, whale products sold via the japanese website have been found to be harmful to human health .  Whales face the very real threat of extinction thanks to marine pollution, destruction of critical habitats, entanglements in fishing gear, and collisions with high-speed ships.  Total loss of control the consequences of downlisting for whales would be disastrous.  Terry dillon, north vancouver, bcwhaling is an unacceptable and useless form of commerce.  The status of antarctic whale stocks �� over 1 million whales were slaughtered in the antarctic last century, seriously depleting 7 of the 8 species of great whales found there.  Whaling is not important economically for any of the nations that want to pursue it.  * the current motorised harpoon method of killing whales is barbarous, causing a slow and agonising death to the creature involved.  The wildlife campaigners warn selling whale meat to tourists in restaurants and supermarkets undermines the global ban on commercial whaling.  The problem, however, is that whale populations are dying from immune disorder diseases before their reproductive age, from the effects of pollution (pcbs).  Until we know a lot about whale reproduction, growth and susceptibility to natural events, a sustainable harvest target cannot be developed without putting whale populations at risk.  The results are beginning to appear horrendous, whether it be turtles or marlin or cod; we are endangering every species.  Nations that flout this ban are subject to economic sanctions and whalers' boats can be impounded and destroyed.  What's more, all the effort is expended on a meat the japanese are losing their taste for.  The resulting pollution caused many locals to complain about the procedure,��as it was hazardous for the sheep who roamed the coastal areas in the search of seaweed.  ""on rare occasions, killer whales can be dangerous,"" sea world wrote.  It says whales are harming the fishing industry.  Post war over-fishing has depleted stock levels to the extent that the industry, and the jobs it offered, have been lost.  If the ban were lifted, the floodgates would open with more countries joining the hunts and that would be dangerous for whale conservation.  As a result of these innocent creatures being killed there are declines in the whale populations.  Robert morgan, port douglas, australiawhaling is a very cruel practice to intelligent and already environmentally impacted creatures, no land animal would ever be treated this way!.  More than 20 years after a worldwide ban on commercial whaling came into force, many whale populations, even entire species, face possible extinction.  Indeed, rampant whaling over the last two centuries has decimated just about every whale population around the globe.  Whaling is inherently cruel - there is simply no humane way to kill a whale. "".  The country's recent escalation of whaling activities in defiance of these international agreements makes it clear that they have no interest in global conservation efforts.  Whaling, toxic pollution, ship strikes, noise pollution, and climate change are all factors in the endangerment of these creatures.  If we return to commercial whaling, we may lose the knowledge that maintaining the moratorium has given us.  The new york times, for example, reported that the failure to repeal the whaling ban will ""leave management of whale populations in the hands of hunters.  Whales are endangered just as many african, asian and american species.  Ban or no ban, whaling remains inhumane and whales are unsuitable for use by humans in this way (they are long living and slow to reproduce).  Whaling is cruel and unnecessary.  Whaling is inherently cruel and should continue to be banned. ","[4, 5, 5, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 1, 4, 4, 2, 3, 3]",15,"[45567227, 45569485, 45458968, 34110399, 45411178, 21785776, 20512953, 15448937, 30777913, 43877630, 27770607, 33708599, 44094031, 6340330, 34854490]"
35501391-4740-4061-ba99-a5591aaa31f0,2402,We should close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp,Arg-Search,"""this has greatly damaged the nation's credibility around the world.  Hundreds have been returned to their home countries but u. s.  officials say some are such serious security threats that they cannot be released for the foreseeable future.  Supporters, however, say military courts unfairly limit defendants' rights and contend that federal courts are just as capable of bringing suspects to justice.  The demonstrators, many of whom were relatives of gitmo prisoners highlighted the failure of the us government to fulfil its obligations to close the prison in cuba.  Smith said the detention centre is ""an international eyesore that undermines our national security objectives, damages our credibility with regard to human rights and international law, and wastes taxpayer dollars. "".  The amnesty international in a statement said that guant��namo bay had become a symbol of injustice and abuse in washington's ""war on terror"".  Rather than make the united states safer, the image projected by this facility puts us at greater risk.  But critics of the decision by then president george w.  bush to send detainees to guantanamo, where most have been held without trial, say the move was ""catastrophic. "".  ""it caused incalculable damage to this country's reputation around the world,"" says eugene fidell, a lecturer on military law at yale university.  Current and former prisoners have complained of abuse and torture; and in a 2005 amnesty international report the facility was called the ""gulag of our times"".  The other half may be doomed to keep \""festering\"" in detention for an indefinite period of time, she added.  Moreover, prisoners complain physical torture, sexual degradation, forced drugging and religious persecution.  Rather than keeping us more secure, keeping guantanamo open is harming our national interests. "".  As a result, dozens of detainees ended up committing suicide, which amnesty international said ""are the tragic results of years of arbitrary and indefinite detention. "".  The admiral also noted that some of guantanamo bay's prisoners are deemed high security threats.  Guantanamo's survivors suffer lasting effects to their mental and physical health.  Allegations of mistreatment and even torture - some of which have been levelled by fbi investigators - have rendered the prison a symbol of u. s.  injustice.  Critics have charged that detainees have been mistreated in some cases and that the legal conditions of their detentions are not consistent with the rule of law.  When any individual has those same human rights denied to them then it is an attack on the human rights of us all, as it undermines this concept of universality.  This clearly represents a fundamental breach of the human rights and civil liberties of those individuals and undermines any concept of protecting the human rights of the rest of us.  The economic cost: $800,000 spent annually on each detainee imprisoning a suspected terrorist at gitmo is about 30 times more expensive than keeping a captive on u. s.  soil.  The use of prolonged isolation, dogs, extreme temperatures and sleep deprivation amounts to torture, said the experts.  Many of these detainees say they have been subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.  The report said detainees were forced to endure ""humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions. "".  The publication of photographs of prisoners being held at a us military camp in cuba has led to concern that their human rights are being abused.  Critics of the ndaa claim it could eventually be interpreted to imprison u. s.  citizens indefinitely without trial.  Red cross inspectors have alleged acts of torture consisting in sleep deprivation, beatings and locking in confined and cold cells.  Just to be clear: i believe the guantanamo bay camp to be totally unconstitutional, and the length of the detention of some of the prisoners there to be absolutely unjustifiable. ","[4, 4, 3, 5, 3, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 2]",15,"[13581319, 19838540, 20225558, 29155723, 44044795, 20512953, 45355658, 45677971, 45567220, 45190823, 28810858, 15448937, 45458968, 28813722, 27934334]"
642ceaa3-a83e-4c27-8df7-7cb9560ffade,2679,We should disband UNESCO,Arg-Search,"But they are eventually going to pay a price for their complicity in perpetuating hamas's continued reign in gaza.  It has become the tool of terrorists and tyrants.  (it might in theory give a player an incentive to do silly micromanagement of unit list orders, to control which get disbanded. ).  ""the palestinian move at unesco, as with similar such steps with other un bodies, is tantamount to a rejection of the international community's efforts to advance the peace process.  Also, maintenance of the field and of the old equipment costs as much as new equipment.  - option 4 - outright zero nominal growth, implying as it does an ""absorption"" or reduction of the budget by us$ 58. 5 million - would have a catastrophic impact.  ""palestinian membership as a state in unesco triggers longstanding legislative restrictions which will compel the united states to refrain from making contributions to unesco. "".  Up to 100 km�� of farmland are ruined by the spill.  Second supporting paragraph the second reason why gallaudet should not disband the football team is that gallaudet will lose publicity.  [ 1 ] the trees dried out the peat, changing the habitat and destroying its value for birds and other wildlife.  The uncertainty of finding a suitable replacement and internal problems have plagued the team resulting in its disbandment.  If gallaudet disbands the football team, the players will lose their enthusiasm.  Third supporting paragraph the last reason why gallaudet should disband the football team is that football players will have fewer injuries.  Others who see a severe contraction in unesco's current and future programs will be alarmed at the prospects of what lies ahead.  And players could still take the hit for disbanding faraway units if they absolutely need to for maintenance cost reasons.  He disagreed that sealing up the place would send wrong signals to other stakeholders.  Of course, even this disgraceful accommodation of the fascists could not save the club.  One can only hope it will not pay as dearly for having ignored or underestimated for so long the arab war against israel and the jews.  And i don't see there being anything gamey or objectionable about disbanding multiple units close to home in a single turn.  We therefore have not the slightest intention of allowing the re-creation of the conditions of vulnerability in which we found ourselves, abandoned and alone, in the summer of 1967.  Marzouk, who is currently a senior researcher at the institute for counter-terrorism at the inter-disciplinary center in herzliya, claimed that disbanding the palestinian authority would carry significant international ramifications.  Organizer carolyn chase testified, ""there were signs early on that this process was troubled. .  ""i never saw them put money into actually doing anything, except paying themselves. "".  A permanent disband means the planes don't go into your replacement pools.  The government's professed concerns for the poor and those from rural areas notwithstanding, reversing the current policy would adversely and disproportionately impact them.  The fallout from that ""victory"" was that the u. s.  and canada, inter alia, are now withholding funds from unesco.  It is not useful to kill israeli non-combattants'.  If gallaudet disbands the football team, then we will lose all that free advertising.  But the internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal-and, often, anonymous-minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse).  It's widely considered to be one of the worst decisions of the occupation, and a direct cause of the orgy of looting.  That means that strings are being pulled in different directions at the same time, which makes the whole process very inefficient.  Unesco was rightly concerned with the rapid disappearance of languages spoken by small minority groups. ","[2, 1, 3, 3, 2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2]",15,"[13581319, 20225558, 45567220, 45677971, 19838540, 45405037, 45567227, 45569485, 44044795, 45355658, 45411178, 15448937, 45190823, 28813722, 30777913]"
dbbb7972-7a6d-440b-b5a3-0ef668c2bf11,3581,We should end cheerleading,Arg-Search,"Bean became depressed and ash and his friends couldn't cheer it up.  ""they are not allowed to perform organized cheers.  Messer: being at the forefront of everything like games, appearances, and events to show students and athletes exactly what we do.  Cheering competitions, he said, penalize for suggestive movements or any vulgarity.  In april 2014, five members of the cheerleading squad sued the team over pay issues.  Cheerleading is risking your well being, health, and future; all to not get recognized as a real sport.  Professional cheerleading is symbolic of the abuse of workers everywhere by the powerful, greedy people who control the purse strings. "".  A cheerleader with a weak core is vulnerable to injuries in their lower back and spine.  Since they have an outdoor stadium, this would make for very uncomfortable conditions for a cheerleading squad.  Suicide works a lot in the same way, it's just that instead of getting out of school, we're getting out of life.  Raji and tight end andrew quarless said a more sleek approach to cheerleading would only enhance the experience for fans.  Taking it further, he repeatedly complains that ultra-thin fashion models are terrible standards of beauty and holds up athletic cheerleaders as a better one.  As a lawyer for krystal c.  told the los angeles times, ""it's like you end up virtually paying them for the privilege of being a cheerleader. "".  Then again, most of the guys who date cheerleaders are also shown to be dumber than dirt and characters the audience is intended to like are shown to scorn them.  If cheerleaders stare at the floor they will most likely begin leaning forward and lose their balance.  That's closer to the truth: for some women, being a cheerleader means public exposure they could never buy.  ""the freedom from religion foundation was wrong in trying to bully kountze isd into prohibiting the cheerleaders from displaying banners with religious messages,"" abbott said.  And yet, cheerleading wages remained scandalously low.  In a statement to the oklahoman martin said the cheerleader will see ""consequences for his poor judgment and actions. "".  Martin said the cheerleader will see ""consequences for his poor judgment and actions. "".  Failing the test could result in suspension, penalties or dismissal.  Women on the squad suing the team and the nfl, saying they get paid less than minimum page and are targets of sexual harassment.  According to a lawsuit filed by five jills, the cheerleaders have to undergo a weekly ""jiggle test. "".  Big, bulky muscles trained on weight machines are not useful in this sport.  Cheerleading puts a strain on the body mentally and physically.  Resent studies on cheerleading and cheerleaders have shown that cheerleading is a risky activity.  Teaching, on the other hand, can be kind of unpredictable.  Commonly carries unfortunate implications , stereotyping men as brainless and shallow and cheerleaders as slutty.  On top of that, they have to pay $650 for their uniforms and are not reimbursed for travel or other expenses, the cheerleaders said.  Nonetheless, parents claim their daughters still haven't received basic equipment essential such as shoes, socks, rain jackets and practices shorts.  It is worth noting that reality is unrealistic in terms of the girls' outfits.  Jason witten tackles dallas chearleadercheerleading can be a dangerous job, especially on the sidelines of an nfl game.  Further, the construction of such skirts may make such moves as splits and kicks restricted or impossible to include in the routine.  Nfl cheerleading is such an obviously raw deal, some might assume that women must be stupid to agree to it.  The perception that cheerleading is not a sport is made out of ignorance.  The competitions are very extreme and dangerous.  Cheerleading is a very difficult, strenuous, and dangerous activity. ","[2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 2, 1, 1, 1]",15,"[45483811, 43877630, 29155723, 31948170, 45361788, 27770607, 45191885, 45336993, 20312760, 38202325, 45185946, 34609243, 34854490, 45169947, 34110399]"
c40011fd-07cb-49a4-9fdd-a8e2e600c4ed,3197,We should end progressive taxation,Arg-Search,"This will create jobs and get the economy moving.  They can heal the sick and raise the dead because man himself made both death and taxes, and can abolish both.  Therefore, the upward pressure on pay will reduce and excessive remuneration will become less common.  This reduces demand, which means that some products will not be sold, causing problems for business.  It also reduces the disparity in net pay and so lessens the economic divisions between different members of society.  This allows a more even spread of wealth, with the richer individuals contributing more to the welfare of the country than the poorer individuals.  A state with power over a progressive taxation system can put the wealthy in effective thrall, and use them to benefit its own ends.  The november 2000 report notes that changes in corporate taxation have been introduced making tax services more efficient and reducing the tax burden on businesses.  [2] progressive taxation serves to help the poor and worst off while not leaving the wealthier worse off, since they still have more money.  With a return to progressive taxation, universal benefits could reduce inequality, without the problems brought by means-testing.  This increases the income to the government without placing undue burden on lower income groups.  If the latter effect prevails on the former, then progressive taxation can indeed have a positive effect on entrepreneurship (and growth).  [2] the more equal society created by these taxes is thus more equitable, since it affords people greater opportunities.  This removes money from the country, and eliminates the benefits of higher taxation.  The beneficial effects of integrating the corporate and personal income taxes include improved incentives to invest in america.  Land value taxation will solve many of the 21st century's most serious social, economic and environmental problems, and promote justice, fairness and sustainability.  With progressive taxation, wealth is effectively reallocated to poorer people, who gain more utility than the wealthy lose in the process.  High wartime taxes were only modestly lowered after those conflicts, which, combined with reduced defense spending, allowed for expanded social programs without incurring large political costs.  Moreover, growth in real income not only has benefits for current consumption, but can be used to generate future income and support future consumption as well.  The carbon tax will see effective marginal tax rates increase for many low and middle-income earners.  The new system would benefit especially people who earn less than 12,000 kroons a month.  One major benefit of a flat-rate tax is that it would make the cost of government expansion visible to all taxpayers, especially if combined with a balanced-budget amendment.  Flat and regressive consumption taxes, on the other hand, offer an easier mechanism of taxation that is easier to understand, less time consuming to deal with, and harder to manipulate.  It turns out that redistribution of income by moving from a linear to a progressive tax schedule can be pareto improving under a large variety of circumstances.  One advantage of a progressive tax is that it allows higher taxation on individuals who are more able to afford it.  Progressive taxes attempt to reduce the tax incidence of people with a lower ability-to-pay, as they shift the incidence disproportionately to those with a higher ability-to-pay.  A well-implemented progressive taxation scheme serve to promote economic growthpointprogressive taxation can serve very effectively to increase the economic welfare and development of societies.  Progressive taxes, depending on income self-declaration, create incentives for forgery, perjury, bribery and corruption of public officials.  It is the case that paying taxes gives citizens a sense of ownership of the democracy and society in which they live.  Progressive taxation, unlike regressive taxation, brings economic growth to benefit both business and labor. ","[1, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 3, 1, 2, 1, 1, 4, 1, 3, 3]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 6432269, 45538225, 6340330, 20312760, 28813722, 44690955, 13581319, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 45189900, 45191882]"
a71df18c-774e-4cad-937e-12188feae97a,3263,We should end the use of economic sanctions,Arg-Search,"But it is also pragmatic, since it is easier to generate and sustain domestic and international support for sanctions that allow the importation of food and medicine.  U. s.  officials have dubbed their proposal ""smart sanctions,"" arguing that the new plan would reduce civiliansuffering in iraq and increase government revenue while preventing iraq from importing weapons.  Under the right circumstances, sanctions can achieve, or help achieve, various foreign policy goals ranging from the modest to the fairly significant.  Sanctions provide a visible and less expensive alternative to military intervention at the same time they provide an alternative to doing nothing or limiting the u. s.  reaction to rhetoric.  They would cause less collateral damage to innocents, and make it easier to garner multinational support.  Once sanctions are lifted, customers are unlikely to abandon well-established, satisfactory relationships with these suppliers just because american companies have reentered the market.  And yet, sanctions techniques have become increasingly effective.  Finally, sanctions appear cheap--at least compared to expensive military interventions.  In the end, trade becomes an important social adhesive that deters conflict and eventually leads to wealth and prosperity.  Yet over time, history shows that cheating on sanctions increases dramatically as it becomes profitable for companies and countries to get top dollar for evading the restrictions on commerce.  In autocratic states the ruling elite can often avoid or even profit from shortages, and can more easily ignore the suffering of the general population.  Developing better mechanisms for compensation of affected third- parties would likely improve their enforcement of and compliance with sanctions.  The cost would be more than offset by the benefits of multilateral cooperation.  Lundahl argues that if industrial markets were allowed to flourish, the expansion of its labor market would naturally prompt a quicker end to the apartheid regime.  Its principal advantage is that it might have a more desirable impact at less cost to americans and american foreign policy.  4. the sender avoids high economic or political costs to itself.  These provide states and international organizations with greater versatility of coercive economic measures while limiting the unanticipated humanitarian damage that sanctions can bring.  At the same time, economic sanctions are fast becoming the policy tool of choice for the united states in the post��cold war world.  When the united states imposes a unilateral export embargo, foreign suppliers can replace the american companies with minimal damage to the target country's economy.  As the national conference of catholic bishops points out, ""sanctions can offer a nonmilitary alternative to the terrible options of war or indifference when confronted with aggression or injustice. "".  Sanctions can provide a satisfying theatrical display, yet avoid the high costs of war.  Less ambitious goals may be achieved with more modest sanctions; this also lessens the importance of multilateral cooperation, which is often difficult to obtain.  But those sanctions were effective because they fundamentally destabilized the south african economic and political environment, thereby making further destabilization (by eliminating apartheid) less of a risk.  Again, such sanctions are far more likely to be effective if applied multilaterally.  The increase of sanctions enforcement makes prevention an even higher priority than it may have been in the past.  More than just the absence of armed hostilities, tranquility of order means peace with (at least a tolerable amount of) social justice.  The sanctions boom economic sanctions are popular because they offer what appears to be a proportional response to challenges in which the interests at stake are less than vital.  International compliance with sanctions regimes can be increased by providing assistance to third parties to offset the economic cost of implementing sanctions.  There has been much discussion recently about the need to discipline economic sanctions because, it is argued, they have simultaneously proliferated and become less effective and more costly. ","[3, 2, 4, 1, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 2, 1, 4, 1, 5]",15,"[20225558, 13581319, 19838540, 29155723, 45355658, 44044795, 45677971, 45567220, 45190823, 28810858, 20512953, 45405037, 28813722, 45411178, 15448937]"
2a6d7737-be17-4e97-8985-4f9387b0081e,3205,We should end water fluoridation,Arg-Search,"Public health officials, however, say fluoridated water ends up saving money in the long run because it acts as preventative health care.  Research has shown that ingesting fluoride in liquids is minimally effective.  Fluoride helps fight tooth decay by strengthening tooth enamel and allowing damaged teeth to re-mineralize themselves.  Fluoride helps remineralize the tooth surface and prevent cavities, according to the federal centers for disease control and prevention.  The american dental association says fluoridation is scientifically proven to be beneficial, particularly for children without access to regular dental care.  Furthermore, recent peer-reviewed research demonstrates that exposure to fluoridated water may significantly lower iq in children, even in low concentrations (choi, sun, zhang & grandjean, 2012; ding et al. , 2011).  The federal centers for disease control calls fluoridated water one of the top 10 public health achievements of the 20 th century.  ""it's effective and cost efficient.  Our nation has over 65 years of experience in safely and effectively reducing tooth decay through community water fluoridation.  The fluoridation program proved to be a great success for these aforementioned industries.  By adding fluoride to the water we can avoid unnecessary expenses for parents and help the children,"" vota said.  ""fluoridated water has never been shown to be harmful to anyone, but it has been proven time and again to dramatically improve the health of our children's teeth,"" he said.  One study found that fluoride administration induced oxidative stress, but when lycopene, an antioxidant, was also given, it helped to minimize the toxic effects of fluoride.  Studies show that fluoridation of public water safely prevents cavities and saves money.  David pellegrini, a dentist who has practiced in duxbury for 25 years, said fluoridation remains a safe, effective, and, above all, inexpensive way to prevent tooth decay.  Politicians are enthusiastic about using fluoride in this way because they have been convinced that the end result will be a reduction in health costs.  Also, research has found that as people age and saliva production declines, fluoridated water also is protective.  Organizations such as the american dental association and the centers for disease control refuted the claims, saying that under acceptable levels, fluoride is safe.  No longer pouring sodium fluoride into the water would not only restore free choice but also save duxbury more than $20,000 a year, he said.  But also it will help us stop fluoridation throughout the province of alberta.  And so, water fluoridation enables us to eat junk food and not get rotten teeth, if we believe the dental experts that is.  Everyday wichitans are exposed to the pro-fluoridation message: fighting tooth decay through water fluoridation is ""beyond dispute"" as an effective way to help protect our children's teeth.  And by doing so, the town will now save thousands of dollars a year in material, labor, and maintenance costs associated with dripping the toxic chemical into the water supply.  ""fluoride is safe, efficient and cost-effective,"" said dentist christopher beach of the pinellas county health department.  Dr.  gordon rick, an oral pathologist, said he ""fully and unreservedly"" supports water fluoridation ""to maximize the health of teeth and bones. "".  In proper dosages, it fights bacteria and reduces the chance of dental illnesses and cavities, the florida department of health says.  It seems that santa barbara county is temporarily safe from water fluoridation.  Wendy vota, a yuba city pediatric dentist, said adding fluoride would be beneficial to children and their parents.  ""from a water-treatment perspective, it's relatively easy to reduce the amount of fluoride in the water .  .  .  Historically, dentists have asserted that water fluoridation is safe.  Fluoridation is the most practical way to prevent tooth decay.  Fluoride's benefits result from topical contact with the teeth, and swallowing or ingesting it brings minimal benefit. ","[2, 5, 1, 1, 1, 1, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2]",15,"[45538225, 44690955, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 43984981, 45191882, 45206691, 45189900, 34854490, 45190571, 45401087, 45181383, 44094031]"
ab33c877-47b5-49aa-875f-2c611f700dfe,2122,We should further exploit green technology,Arg-Search,"Including more clean sources in the mix is a way of improving energy security.  The main advantage is that they produce affordable and clean electricity.  Alternative fuels are used to power vehicles and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  A huge programme of public spending on the environment could introduce green technology rapidly and create millions of jobs in the process worldwide, because the technology will be relatively labour-intensive.  And icts have the potential to reduce the environmental impacts of individual life-styles, including consumption, living and working habits.  Essentially, harmful bacteria would be removed, odour eliminated, leaving coated surfaces, like residential and commercial buildings, cleaner and fresher, with minimal human intervention.  This ""green"" technology exploits the forces of nature and is more versatile, making it more widely applicable than traditional methods.  Renewable sources secure steady energy supply.  Automation means that solar panels can be installed regardless of weather conditions.  The investments in innovative technologies result in the reduction of the energy need for the firing of tiles to a minimum.  Technology foresight forum 2010context""smart"" information and communication technologies (icts) can improve environmental performance and address climate change across the economy.  This, in turn, will enable designs to be optimised, to reduce the weight and cost of wind turbines, and ultimately to allow exploitation of lower speed winds.  The investments made in avant-garde machinery abating the release of polluting substances and gases reduce the environmental impact of the production process.  What is more, the developed countries build new technologies that are offered overseas and further contribute to economic growth.  Technologytechnology and innovation is the basis of all space activities, and is also the source for industrial competitiveness that push economic growth and jobs.  It proposes a ""great green technological revolution"" to make technologies ""more efficient in the use of energy and other resources and minimize the generation of harmful pollutants"".  Biomass is also a source of renewable energy that helps reduce the volume of carbon dioxide emissions.  Unlike mining, green energy options are safe to exploit.  Independence increases self-reliance and reduces dependence on foreign countries.  Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally.  This reduces the consumption of raw materials.  This will optimize the production process and reduce the price of solar cells.  Moreover, thanks to an avant-garde co-generation plant, caesar has been able to reduce the consumption of methane gas and energy in compliance with the highest standards of efficiency.  Future generations will be able to use solar and wind power while the reserves of fossil fuels will eventually dwindle.  Cutting edge technology offers new possibilities for development all the time and we need to be able to take advantage of this.  This allows heavy and off-road vehicles to exploit all the available energy in their surroundings, increasing ev range, fuel efficiency, and decreasing emissions.  Independence is also important because it improves energy security.  ""it will also provide a stimulus for the exploitation of science within the wider uk economy, strengthening the links between civil and defence technology.  Coupled with innovation, going green can be a long-term driver for economic growth, through, for example, investing in renewable energy and��improved efficiency in the use of energy and materials.  Energy is important for national economies as it provides jobs.  This is green technology and is renewable.  Nuclear fusion is also a source of sustainable, green energy that uses hydrogen isotopes and hydrogen.  Green energy is a source of affordable electricity.  Exploit technologies enhances the research output of a*star scientists by translating their inventions into marketable products or processes.  Solar photovoltaic (pv) panels are green power technology systems that exploit into renewable solar energy facilitating towards a sustainable energy mix. ","[4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 5, 3, 4, 4, 2, 3, 2]",15,"[45483811, 43877630, 29155723, 45361788, 44094031, 31948170, 26649250, 27770607, 38202325, 45397152, 45191885, 45185946, 45169947, 28513847, 34609243]"
722cc016-1a37-4927-8e26-e9686e0f8327,2401,We should increase fuel tax,Arg-Search,"This will create additional jobs.  (because higher excise taxes would raise businesses' costs, they would reduce the tax base for income and payroll taxes.  As long as revenues are returned to consumers or spent on economically beneficial public investments such as improvements to transportation or education, high fuel taxes benefit the economy overall.  Energy conservation and emission reductions are also justified to minimize climate change emissions.  Fuel can be sold at a lower price since the tax was not paid, which allows the seller to gain more customers and earn increased profits through criminal activity.  Better fuel mileage, hybrids and electric cars are contributing to a decline in fuel tax revenue.  Increased fuel efficiency for both cars and trucks means more miles traveled on highways while paying less to the governments to travel those miles.  Research by the european environment agency indicates that it has reduced emissions compared with what would have otherwise occurred (eea, 2000).  Revenues can be used to reduce taxes, provide rebates, or finance new public services, including energy conservation programs.  Short-term fuel savings consist of reduced driving and a shift toward more fuel-efficient vehicles owned in multi-vehicle households.  Fuel tax increases, such as carbon taxes, tend to reduce traffic casualties.  In addition, fuel taxation can be used to spur improvements in fuel efficiency, encourage the use of alternative and cleaner fuels, and promote less polluting forms of transport.  Artificially low fuel prices also reduce the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies.  One reason the fund is going broke: president obama's push for fuel efficient cars has resulted in better mileage, and fewer stops at the pump.  For oil consuming nations, reduced fuel consumption reduces the economic costs of importing petroleum.  Fuel-intensive industries are often able to obtain concessions and exemptions that reduce the effects of such taxes.  Birks are great for walking (saves gas, improves health) and they can be resoled which makes them more cost effective in the long run.  It could eliminate more than a million jobs in the first few years. "".  The tax will increase gradually and predictably so consumers and businesses can take higher future energy costs into account when making long-term decisions, such as vehicle purchases and building locations.  Higher fuel prices encourage more efficient transportation and fuel conservation.  Such tax shifts can provide overall economic, environmental and social benefits (norland and ninassi, 1998; litman, 2009).  Raising current fuel taxes encourages consumers to develop energy efficient travel patterns, which reduces their exposure to economic risks from future fuel price increases.  Over the long-term, higher fuel prices encourage consumers to purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles.  High fossil-fuel prices also improve the economics of other alternatives that can reduce ghg emissions and improve energy security, such as energy efficiency and unconventional energy sources.  Although often regarded as a cost increase, revenue-neutral carbon taxes actually offer households a new opportunity to save money by conserving energy.  Since the 2007-09 recession increased motor vehicle efficiencies and reduced 'vehicle miles traveled' (vmt) have reduced total petroleum motor fuels consumption and associated excise taxes by over 10%.  The gas tax creates the incentive to drive less! and drive more efficiently.  Indeed, fuel taxes can be designed to help promote positive side effects.  Benefits and costsincreasing fuel taxes is an effective energy conservation and emission reduction strategy, results in modest vehicle travel reductions, and provides revenue.  The tax increase can be expected to reduce sales of motor fuel below the pre-tax level.  Fuel tax revenue can be used to cross-subsidize local public transport.  Carbon taxes are effective at supporting virtually all forms of energy conservation, and provide many additional benefits.  Carbon taxes provide an incentive to reduce fossil fuel consumption and increase fuel efficiency. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 4, 1, 2, 3, 5]",15,"[45538225, 45183231, 45181152, 45272708, 45191873, 45191882, 45206691, 45189900, 20225558, 45190823, 45483811, 43877630, 34110399, 34854490, 32850083]"
b87b0d14-049f-4535-95a5-fc1fffd532ed,3196,We should increase immigration to the United States,Arg-Search,"The value of a growing minority and immigrant population minority and immigrant populations will enhance urban living and repopulate rural area.  In addition, skilled immigrants would earn more, pay higher taxes, and require fewer social services than less-skilled immigrants.  Furthermore, the new jobs created tend to be better ones that require the stronger communication skills possessed by native-born americans, moving low-skilled u. s. -born laborers into better-paying jobs.  In addition, as immigrants fill some jobs, this expands opportunities in that sector, resulting in more jobs overall.  They consider that immigrants bring creativeness, promotes entrepreneurship, and increases productivity.  Immigrants have different skills, which allow higher-skilled native workers to increase productivity and thus increase their incomes.  This produces efficiency gains and boosts income per worker.  Because of the lifestyles of those countries, their people tend to consume less and produce less waste; that is, they have a smaller ecological footprint.  On one hand, immigrants enable u. s.  to compete in international competition and are one way to help alleviate labor shortages in certain demographic trends (liebig, 2011).  Fact: immigration has a positive effect on the american economy as a whole and on the income of native-born workers.  Immigration being restricted in the united states will help the domestic benefit of the american people.  The findings in table 6 suggest that reducing immigration would be very helpful to a number of states struggling to deal with rapidly increasing populations.  Immigration has become the determinate factor in population growth.  Immigration provides very constant growth in the labor force, which is helping the canadian labor market.  Immigration is a significant role in building our economy, providing growth in the labor force, making a strong economy, and becoming a multicultural nation.  They will also be able to request permission to travel abroad and return to the united states.  Legalization of unauthorized immigrants would support new jobs and raise tax revenues.  Lehman argues that immigration turns the american labor market more competitive, thus increasing its efficiency.  Thus, immigration is clearly increasing the supply of more educated workers at the same time as unemployment and withdrawal from the labor market remain high among such workers.  The study concludes:data show that, on net, immigrants expand the u. s.  economy's productive capacity, stimulate investment, and promote specialization that in the long run boosts productivity.  And it calls for ""the creation of legal avenues for workers and their families who wish to migrate to the united states. "".  On the other hand, there may be benefits to less diversity among immigrants.  Peri concludes that immigration boosted states' output, income and employment because the economies ""[absorbed] immigrants by expanding job opportunities rather than by displacing workers born in the united states. "".  Cutting down on the amount of immigrants into the country can help to increase benefits for american citizens.  In the short-run, it is often suggested that immigration is very helpful to society because it adds young workers who pay social security taxes.  Moreover, the level of resources devoted to reducing illegal immigration can also be reduced or increased.  The presence of an increasing number of non-immigrant temporary residents in the korean community, along with great technological advances, has helped korean residents maintain strong transnational ties to their homeland.  Statistical analysis of state-level data shows that immigrants expand the economy's productive capacity by stimulating investment and promoting specialization.  Equal access to opportunities allows immigrants to achieve the american dream.  Immigration reformprosperous nations such as the united states, canada, australia and the united kingdom will always attract immigrants that are in search for a better life.  . . . chapter 6.  intergenerational mobilityimmigration has long been a major source of economic and demographic growth in the united states. ","[4, 3, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 2, 2, 5, 5, 4, 2, 4]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 6432269, 45677971, 45567220, 45411178, 15448937, 45405037, 20512953, 45355658, 30777913, 44044795, 19838540, 33708599, 6340330]"
29a3d2d2-957e-486a-b5f0-218e6a8584b8,3198,We should limit the right of self-defense,Arg-Search,"And even these exclusions may leave enough providers to supply the medical self-defense needs of all americans whose organs are failing.  Banning self-defense would definitely lead to death.  It would, of course, be an unreasonable expectation to morally require that people train for hours each day in self-defense.  But laws exist that ban firearms that are not effective for self-defense, such as certain disguised firearms.  The destructive capability of modern weapons, and reduced reaction times, pose a tremendous threat to the nonaggressor nation.  Furthermore, they will be perceived as lacking justification based on norms that the community of states -- not just part of it -- has accepted.  The medical self-defense procedures may cause some harm.  It would impact nearly every handgun weapon platform and it would have a clear and negative impact on self defense.  Ellen's use of experimental drugs might jeopardize what little time she has, and cost her money that may prove wasted.  The failure to exhaust practicable remedies may result in sanctions for aggressive conduct.  Limiting their magazine capacity only helps the criminal.  This means that the government can limit access to certain weapons as means of discharging its responsibility to keep the peace.  It is unimaginable to them that the people may one day be required to defend themselves against a tyrannical state.  If there is a realistic, meaningful alternative to military action, self-defense is not available.  That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided.  The failure to report such actions quickly may create the impression that the defending state lacks conviction that its actions were lawful.  A tiny minority in a position of power can do a lot of damage to a society, especially if they sit on the bench.  And this burden may be improper if we conclude that preventing inequality isn't reason enough to interfere with medical self-defense.  Some in japan argue that relaxation of the policy makes japan vulnerable to entering conflicts that extend beyond their interests.  The victim must have the means necessary to effectively save his or her life; otherwise the right to self-defense is worthless.  You may kill attackers who are insane and thus not morally culpable.  Moreover, having the end of defending the lives of citizens is not sufficient to make military action that is proportionate and necessary an instance of national defense.  Moreover, the legality of lethal self-defense endangers even those who aren't attacking anyone.  Controlled environments cannot easily mimic the stress and adrenaline dump which occurs during an attack.  It is an immoral, tyrannical government that would tell you what weapons you may use, and how much ammunition you may have for your defense.  To defend an ally, the attack must pose a clear existential danger to japan or undermine japanese citizens' constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Weapons of mass destruction and modern delivery systems make waiting for an actual armed attack exceedingly dangerous.  One point made by the report is that failure to act to change the constitutional interpretation places japan at greater risk in today's security environment.  33these controversial issues indicate that the rules of self-defense fall far short of a code of conduct that would provide precise ""hard law"" for many cases likely to arise.  First, it limits our potential and therefore detracts strength from deterrent capability.  ( . . .  ) cases of unknowing defence raise issues that are highly significant to the nature of justification and liability.  If implemented , they would fundamentally alter nearly all semi-automatic weapons and would do so to a degree w hich excessively infringed upon established constitutional rights of self-defense. ","[3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 3, 3, 2, 1, 1, 3, 4, 4, 2, 1]",15,"[45181384, 45181383, 45401087, 45190571, 45191882, 45189900, 45206691, 45483811, 29155723, 43877630, 45361788, 45336993, 45336988, 44094031, 32850083]"
1ed94c02-20ba-46c8-9625-568d6e9c3e9c,3237,We should prohibit unisex bathrooms,Arg-Search,"And that it wastes californa's taxpayers money.  What will be lost is a feeling of seclusion because the redesign of such spaces would have to eliminate their appeal as places for predators to victimize people.  And these types of toilets are all over the place in japan and hong kong (where i've seen them), so the cost can't be prohibitive.  Yet mixing genders causes some people discomfort: concerns about sufficient privacy can cause some visitors to feel anxious or embarrassed.  It says that certain people feel threatened using facilities that do not adhere to their gender identity, and this can become an issue when students are harassed by their peers.  But modifying existing spaces could be prohibitively expensive, especially for small firms.  Uh, they don't do it as much, but women pee on the seats too--those 'hoverers' who are afraid to get their *own* butts contaminated, so they just contaminate everyone else's!.  Too often changing facilities are not available in men's rooms, and sometimes you need more space when you have kids with you.  Opening the bathrooms up to the opposite sex will only ""lead to more victims and more perpetrators,"" while also fostering more confusion in young children, she said.  I'm not being sexist saying all guys attack girls, but if there is a guy and a girl in the same restroom it could cause problems,"" she said.  That's the thing; i would be uncomfortable walking into a bathroom with men standing up to pee, that i had to see them.  Urine retention in public can be a nightmare.  When the bathroom is single-occupancy rather than a shared restroom with multiple stalls, it also creates the potential problem of simply not having enough facilities to meet demand.  My only concern would be that unisex toilets would be used as a tool to reduce toilet floorspace in a building at the expense of ""profit making space"".  What will be lost is the illusion of sanctuary that many people associate with entering a public or private multi-person bathroom restricted to their own sex.  I developed a really irritating rash on my butt after sitting on a toilet.  They are filthy and never cleaned properly.  According to the u. s.  occupational safety and hazards administration (osha), delaying going to the bathroom when you need to go is unhealthy, and so, workplace policy may not encourage it.  The eighth-grade english teacher fears the new law will allow anyone to walk into a bathroom of the opposite sex-and lead to widespread abuse.  Humans are messy and someone has to change the diapers.  I still find it ridiculous that unisex bathrooms would be 'discrimination' or even 'persecution' of christians.  It's evident these facilities are void of gender identity and have accommodations that are especially sensitive to the needs of a greater range of people.  Some people are not comfortable using male or female-designated washrooms. "".  Lgbt students reported feeling unsafe in certain school spaces, with almost 39 percent of those students citing bathrooms specifically, the study said.  On the other hand, unisex bathrooms make it easier for parents with a child of the opposite gender to take their child with them to the restroom.  It's already a problem (esp in older/retrofitted buildings) where women (most commonly) seem to be underserved by toilet facilities.  As things stand today, most public bathrooms do not afford much privacy.  A simple and widespread issue surrounding unisex toilets is the complaint that they aren't as clean as single-sex restrooms.  The way i see it, the crux of the problem is the single-serve lockable public restroom.  Product features: eye-catching hue livens up your bathroom decor. ","[5, 5, 3, 2, 1, 3, 2, 4, 5, 4, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2]",15,"[45567227, 45569485, 45458968, 28813722, 34110399, 45411178, 20512953, 15448937, 30777913, 44044795, 45355658, 21785776, 34609243, 34854490, 33708599]"
41b58ffa-b42b-4c30-a27f-83d5eb19f0d5,802,We should protect Antarctica,Arg-Search,"Steven chown of monash university, another collaborator in the study, said the ice-free areas contain very simple ecosystems due to antarctica's low species diversity.  ""so far, the antarctic treaty is a triumph of environmental protection and there is an unprecedented genuine shared goal to protect the environment,"" dr collis said.  The untrammeled nature of the region also provides unique opportunities for research that is crucial to the understanding and monitoring of global climate change, ozone depletion, and atmospheric pollution.  With visitor numbers surging, antarctica's ice-free land needs better protection from human activities, leading environmental scientists say.  ""the waters of antarctica have become attractive for industrial scale fishing because fish close to where people live really don't exist in large numbers anymore,"" said dr.  sylvia earle.  This is one of the most pristine marine environments on the planet and its protection will provide a true legacy for future generations.  Testing the suits in harsh environments on earth can help future explorers, who will need protection when investigating mars and other places in the solar system.  The ecosystem offers scientists one of the last opportunities to understand how a healthy marine ecosystem functions.  ""this combined effect provides even more incentive for a better system of area protection in antarctica. "".  Although reserves do not mitigate the impacts of climate change, they help species such as penguins build resilience, abundance and diversity, and provide refuge from increased fishing pressures.  It will support the protection of the antarctic environment by bringing science knowledge to the fingertips of policy makers.  The main reason that antarctica needs to be protected is that it is a unique ecosystem that is home to a great deal of life.  It bars nuclear explosions, radioactive waste disposal and military deployment, and sets environmental safeguards.  Problematic differences over territorial claims have been effectively set aside and as a disarmament regime it has been outstandingly successful.  It will also allow scientists to get on with their work by giving them freedom of scientific research.  In addition, bioprospecting could result in increased funding for basic antarctic research.  The improved technology and knowledge of the last 100 years allowed greater access to the continent, encouraging detailed surveying and research, and the gradual occupation of antarctica by scientific stations.  Most importantly, it has ensured that when they make decisions about their activities, national programs put protection of the antarctic environment at the top of their priority list.  All scientific and other activities are carefully managed to minimise impacts and allow antarctica to continue to be used for peaceful and scientific purposes, now and by future generations.  These changes will mean that we are better able to ensure operators respond to environmental emergencies and to regulate the number of tourists landing in antarctica.  It will provide this government with the ability to grant safety approval and environmental approvals for people operating in the antarctic.  It also sets in place a comprehensive and effective range of environmental protections for the frozen continent.  Antarctica's unique environment offers major opportunities for this scientific research.  At the most fundamental level, the preservation of an entire unspoiled continent as a natural reserve free of conflict and devoted to peace and science is an incredible achievement.  With such a network in place, key antarctic ocean habitats and wildlife would be protected from human interference.  It guarantees freedom of scientific research all over australia's claim, which is a very large part of antarctica.  Extensive marine reserves would not only protect the southern ocean's ecological treasures and nutrient conveyors, but they also would make a meaningful contribution to ocean protection worldwide.  Protected areas are generally effective in reducing threats to biodiversity and regarded as the cornerstone of conservation [21] . ","[2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 2, 4, 2, 5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 4]",15,"[45538225, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 45191882, 45206691, 45189900, 20225558, 45483811, 45190823, 27934334, 34854490, 45401087, 45181384]"
0a33eef8-f46d-4fbd-8e06-53e4790257e2,2689,We should subsidize Wikipedia,Arg-Search,"Open source will stay and continue to grow, especially with the massive popularity of netbooks.  If one defines success simply as page views, wikipedia reaps the effects of google's algorithms, no doubt, as does everyone else.  All amazon says is that while browsing books using its new x-ray feature, you'll have access to ""more detailed descriptions from wikipedia and shelfari, amazon's community-powered encyclopedia for book lovers. "".  It is a far superior browser to ie.  The entries from wikipedia sure are comprehensive, or at least verbose.  Wikipedia offers their entire database on dvds; deviantart users can sell prints of their artwork, with da taking a small percentage of the proceeds).  Hosting, hardware, new features/services, etc. ) and perhaps offer recognition to those who donate.  After you get your driver licence, and buy a car with a gps, you can go wherever you want, even you have never been there.  Our new kindle touch 3g enables you to connect to the kindle store, download books and periodicals, and access wikipedia - all over 3g or wi-fi.  Beginning in 2014, cover oregon will enable oregonians and small businesses to purchase health insurance at federally-subsidized rates.  So here's a rule of thumb: when elementary and secondary students are researching history, wikipedia is a decent place to start.  They support families & individuals with down syndrome by providing them different useful information.  Or, with an saas model, you can use business memberships to subsidize the free memberships offered to private users.  The coal power plant is still more efficient than your tiny internal-combustion engine.  This partnership with orange will enable millions of people to read wikipedia, who previously couldn't. "".  So search engines may increase traffic minimums and try to close the tracking loop, a good example of which is google checkout.  Some kind of ""fund-raising target"" meter like wikipedia and many telethons have might also be advantageous.  Anything can be made free. . .  just find a way to subsidize it.  And, to our admittedly untrained eyes, the information from wikipedia appeared just as reliable.  They can then offer other commercial services which subsidize the development of their free products.  Adding bitcoin, therefore, seems like a natural progression, particularly as the sort of tech-savvy users of the currency are likely to also be regular visitors to wikipedia.  This is superb practice: do not ""dumb down"" content to appeal to the masses, simply make it easier for the to understand.  If by success one means a civil community or higher quality articles, it's possible that wikipedia would've faired better without the prominence provided by google.  They provide opportunities for people with special need for socializing in different activities.  Google can then use that data to dump bad publishers out of their network and to calculate smart pricing.  I think there will always be a place for ppc with advertisers who can calculate their own roi, as long as they can make money.  This combination closes the tracking loop and improves their ability to catch click fraud, value low quality traffic, and calculate smart pricing.  These would benefit all the children.  Thus high-school level content is likely to be less error-prone than arcane subjects studied in graduate school.  Some kind of fund-raising meter can also encourage donations and provide a sense of transparency/openness.  The altitude greatly reduces atmospheric interference due to the reduced volume of air, and the even more reduced volume of water vapour , through which telescopes must peer.  Wind power is cheaper than nuclear power.  For high school and college students researching their papers, wikipedia is indisputably source number one.  Wikipedia does a good job among its global contributors in defining and describing it. ","[3, 2, 4, 2, 3, 1, 4, 3, 2, 3, 2, 1, 4, 1, 4]",15,"[21017840, 6432269, 45953041, 45538225, 6340330, 20312760, 44690955, 45183231, 45191873, 45272708, 45181152, 43984981, 45206691, 44094031, 45191882]"
0ced48b8-dea1-48de-bfe9-4de0e01939b7,3201,We should subsidize embryonic stem cell research,Arg-Search,"This means fewer opportunities for incompatibility in transplant.  And stem cells are showing further promise in treating a host of diseases like parkinson?s, diabetes and heart disease.  --provides an opportunity to readily culture and modify a patient's embryonic stem cells sourced from his or her skin cells.  Research has shown that adult stem cells have been highly effective in curing or improving the outcome of many disease processes.  Adult stem cells have been used to regenerate areas of damaged organs, restore eyesight, repair heart damage and treat rare blood disorders.  Adult stem cell therapies have found significant success for multiple diseases.  Use of adult stem cells has been proven effective.  . . .  for 30 million americans with some form of diabetes, stem cell research offers a possibility to develop new treatments. "".  My father's own research resulted in thousands of babies worldwide being saved from a life of certain significant cognitive and physical disabilities brought on by pku.  These cells have the added advantage that they can be obtained from the patient himself, obviating the immune rejection that occurs with human embryonic stem cells.  Adult stem cell and cord blood research are now showing great promise to treat ailments and disabling conditions without harming human life.  Rather than destroying human embryos, alternative methods of stem cell research are available and have been shown to be beneficial and effective.  Because of their ability to develop into other cells and tissues, stem cells provide hope for producing cures for a variety of diseases.  ""assertions that leftover embryos are better off dead so that their stem cells can be derived is dehumanizing and cheapens human life.  ""according to many scientists,"" smith explained, ""the removal of potentially cancer-causing viruses means this breakthrough increases the likelihood that ips cells will be safe for clinical use in human patients.  Moreover, parthenogenetic lines may offer distinct clinical benefits that other human-derived stem-cell lines cannot.  By contrast, adult stem cell research has proven to be effective in treating disease.  This will allow researchers access to an important resource that at present is going to waste.  This ability to transform offers the potential to yield a cure for spinal-cord injuries and diseases including parkinson's, diabetes and alzheimer's.  Using embryonic stem cells for research and possible curing diseases is not necessary, as adult stem cells have been used very successfully to help many disease conditions.  Adult stem cells have already been proven to provide positive improvements for various health issues and they are readily available without destroying human life.  Stem cells can provide a possibility of a cure for conditions like mine, rather than just a way to live with a chronic condition.  It has already produced measureable/effective/positive results and it does not destroy a human life.  Adult stem cells, obtained without harming the donor, are benefiting more and more real patients, reversing the symptoms of multiple sclerosis and parkinson's disease in the latest published trials.  If so, it may help scientists more efficiently ""customize"" embryonic stem cells that could be used to treat diseases such as diabetes or parkinson's.  Science has proven that adult stem cells are more effective in curing diseases.  Adult stem cells, as well as placental and cord blood stem cells, are already yielding treatments for various diseases.  44020 05/25/2009 at 12:46:42 am self adult stem cell research has proven to be effective in finding cures for many diseases.  Adult stem cell research, on the other hand, has proven to be successful in curing over 70 diseases.  The research project allows the treatment for back pain to be subsidized, with patients receiving the treatment at a significantly lower cost than available at other clinics.  Adult stem cell research has already proven its effectiveness in treating or curing over 70 diseases. ","[3, 4, 5, 2, 4, 1, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 2, 4, 5, 2]",15,"[21017840, 6432269, 45953041, 45538225, 6340330, 20312760, 44690955, 45183231, 45272708, 45191873, 45181152, 43984981, 45189900, 45191882, 44094031]"
f6a20fda-00c1-4d5c-8841-ba585fddc71b,2767,We should subsidize investigative journalism,Arg-Search,"Outlets that return to their former purpose, who speak truth to power and dig for answers rather than spouting spin, will thrive.  I also believe they are more likely to build better journalistic products, services, and platforms if they are accountable to the marketplace.  (. . . )we continue to live in perilous times, making investigative journalism as essential to our democracy as the watergate stories were.  Furthermore, because of the internet, content can now be accessed for free and ad revenues are no longer sufficient to subsidize substantial news gathering.  Its work fosters an informed citizenry and strengthens democracy.  And objective reporting can be measured and created by standards - the standards of logic and verifiability have long existed.  While most of the content comes from syndication and the wire services, they do engage in solid reporting about the military and topics of interest to military personnel.  According to bob boehm, director of energy research at unlv, subsidized energy projects have an easier time obtaining land development rights, since 90 percent of nevada's land is federally owned.  Led by two part-time workers, the network will help crowdsource stories.  ""we hope it will engage audiences and expand public appetite for visual story telling. "".  Subsidizing newspapers thus helps keep dinosaurs alive and retards the creative destruction that might give us a healthier journalism.  This helped pay for the more complicated and in-depth coverage of science reporting and other investigative work important to democracy.  At a modest cost, investigative journalists add enormous value to the health of our political system, and media firms capture only a small fraction of that value.  Investigative journalism is equally essential to the well-being of society, and we shouldn't expect for-profit private corporations to find the truth about news either.  No doubt profits bring independence as well as the capacity to fund muckraking reporting.  You'll get easier access to your articles, collections, media, and all your other content, even if you close your browser or shut down your computer.  After all, the monopoly profits that newspapers made allowed them to invest in watchdog reporting.  Many news organizations are already adapting successfully to the changing delivery media.  It is more efficient and effective to use third parties, both in the form of agencies and freelancers.  ""we believe that this channel can increase the impact of accountability journalism in a way that both engages and informs. "".  There are many advances in investigation techniques which have proved helpful.  Importantly, all published manuscripts are freely available to a global audience in full text format to facilitate sharing of investigative insights, laboratory methods, and surgical techniques.  The best way for the government to promote a free press is not to meddle in it through subsidies or other means.  ��� type���a parent already has a steady stream of income, allowing that revenue to subsidize paying writers to do news and investigative assignments.  It fosters and spotlights the creativity, ingenuity and entrepreneurial abilities of women in media.  In northern europe, investigative reporting has taken root not in the commercial press but in public broadcasting, with its strong public-interest ethos.  A well-funded, independent press is a public good, akin to police protection, courts, transit, national defense, childhood immunization, clean air, and banking regulations.  In theory, for ��� profit, privately owned media can support production of expos��s because of their resources and their autonomy from government.  The primary advantage of open access journals is that the entire content is available to users everywhere regardless of affiliation with a subscribing library.  Open access publishing incorporates internet technology which frees the investigator from the limitations of a particular institution's journal holdings as well as the delay of the interlibrary loan. ","[3, 2, 4, 3, 4, 4, 2, 1, 4, 4, 4, 1, 1, 3, 5]",15,"[13581319, 20225558, 45677971, 45567220, 19838540, 44044795, 21785776, 45405037, 45569485, 45567227, 45355658, 15448937, 45190823, 28813722, 30777913]"
f25f5614-a4ba-4edd-a8b2-58e132fa19f8,2588,Assisted suicide should be a criminal offence,Arg-Search,"Restrictions on the availability of firearms, barriers on bridges and other ""attractive hazards"" and reductions in the toxicity of gas have reduced suicide rates in some locations.  Close relatives of victims, such as spouses, partners, parents, children, brothers and sisters, can also benefit from the assistance.  It would be exceptionally easy for the powerful partner to quietly kill the ""offensive partner"" and just claim he or she ""was so depressed and pleaded for assistance in dying. "".  The swiss government believes that such restrictions will prevent the abuse of the practice and lessen ""suicide tourism"" in the country.  By discouraging investigations in suspicious situations, this provision immunizes anyone from responsibility regardless of the drug-taker's health conditions or prognosis, or the circumstances surrounding the shielded person's presence.  This act allows terminally ill adults seeking to end their life to request lethal doses of medication from medical and osteopathic physicians.  The new guidelines will seek to prevent assisted suicide becoming a profit-driven business and to ensure that it is only available to the terminally ill.  Programs aimed at preventing suicide range from those that attempt to identify potential suicides to those that provide effective first-aid and follow-up for suicide attempters.  In oregon and washington state, physician-aided suicide is available to patients who have been judged terminally ill by at least two physicians.  Legalization would also allow the state government to encourage citizens to kill themselves.  All three right-to-die organizations in switzerland help terminally ill people to die by providing counselling and lethal drugs.  Antidepressants do not cure life problems, but they bring significant relief and save significant lives in millions of humans.  Reversal of the law means that a physician and three others who were charged with helping a man take his own life in 2009 are free from prosecution.  Legal assisted suicide and euthanasia, regardless, allows other people to encourage you to kill yourself, or to directly kill you, without their getting into trouble.  It protects life and discourages suicide without regard to the victim's condition.  Avoiding 'harm' means not only minimising damage to health but also not forcing treatment upon competent people nor coercing them to stop fasting.  Assistance over a longer period of time may also be free depending on the victim's financial circumstances.  Conservative mp james lunney said:""contrary to her intentions, this bill will allow doctors to provide a patient with a lethal injection, making many canadians vulnerable to premature death. "".  Final exit says it does not aid or assist in suicides, but offers information, education and emotional support to those who they say are dealing with intolerable suffering.  The judge also said that while she recognized that risks do exist in allowing doctor-assisted suicide, they can be avoided through vigorously monitored safeguards.  Since in many cases people would not carry out the deed if not incited or helped to do it, this would help to prevent suicides.  ""six right-to-die organizations assist in approximately 600 cases of suicide per year; some 150-200 of which are suicide tourists. "".  The thought of suicide is a great consolation: by means of it one gets successfully through many a bad night. (1).  The person seeking assistance in suicide might be simply depressed and might be helped with counseling, pain medication, and/or antidepressants.  Also, the bill would allow anyone to help others to die as long as they are "" assisted by a medical practitioner . "".  Assisted suicide, especially physician-assisted suicide, strikes many as less alarming than active voluntary euthanasia, and it is less widely condemned.  It would allow any person, even one who is not medically trained, to decide that an individual is lucid, and then help them to die.  897) allows terminally ill oregon residents to obtain and use prescriptions from their physicians for self-administered, lethal medications. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 2, 2, 4, 2, 4, 2, 3, 1]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 45191873, 45183231, 45181152, 45272708, 7756990, 45336991, 45282792, 44044795, 45483811, 43984981, 34854490, 34609243, 20170210]"
0166b9d6-667e-4def-869d-0699f5d3093c,2449,Organ donation should be mandatory,Arg-Search,"In the end, organ donation saves lives, which is an important and wonderful thing.  I like to think that sharing my experience has helped to save even more lives.  The incentive is knowing you could save several lives and live on through someone else!!.  We don't need to donate our entire body after death, donating a single organ can still further scientific research.  This new bill will change organ donation in this country and make it easier to donate and save lives.  Donating tissuewith the tremendous advances in medical science, it is now possible to donate organs and tissue upon death to the living who require transplants.  Organ donation doesn't have to be for science only, it can also be to save lives.  In addition ,food will be available for an affordable price for families who want to spend the day at the event.  Donating your organs will greatly increase scientific research because each person is different.  This will undoubtedly save more lives in the future as cures could possibly be found from conducting tests on these diseased organs.  Presumed consent, even allowing for over-rule by relatives, should ultimately cut costs, add life, and save bereaved families from anxious, as well as generous, deliberation in extremis. "".  Once the machines are disconnected, if the patient's heart stops beating within 60 minutes, the organs can be harvested for transplant.  It will also make the organ allocation system fairer.  Furthermore, just donating 1 organ can save 8 lives. [1].  The increased risk of car crashes increases the chance that the drivers will donate their organs to those on wait lists.  It's never pressing people to do that, it's just offering them the opportunity to participate if they want. "".  I have shown how this would save lives (which is the ethically correct thing to do), it would benefit science, and it would curb illegal activity.  This also has secondary benefits as it allows organs to be better regulated so people don't end up with livers from drug alcoholics and so forth.  Education, logistics and marketing strategies can lower recycling costs.  Moreover, the burial site itself becomes a place of comfort for the survivors, a place that would not exist if the body is cremated.  Once they are dead there is no purpose of the organs to them, and they can help the people that they are upset over other people not helping.  By donating organs after we die we can literally bring someone back from the brink.  It also saves tons of people.  This reduces our administrative costs and allows us to pass along more money to community organizations. "".  Eight people potentially can be saved through a single organ donor, and that donor can improve the lives of more than 50 people through tissue donation.  It cannot be denied though that organ donation saves lives.  Even if it was only 50%, we would save 9 lives a day.  I know that people donating organs saves lives.  Organs can survive for a very long time after death, allowing for time for the organ to be transported and the person receiving the organ to be contacted.  [en] non-heart-beating (nhb) organ donation has become an alternative source to increase organ supply for transplantation.  It is a noble act and should be recognized by offering job security, health insurance, and free education for the donor's children.  Let's start with an obvious pro: with more available organs, more sick patients can get the transplant they need.  2. scientific research donating organs (or whole body donations) furthers scientific research as more test subjects are available for testing.  Organ donation saves lives and has been associated with advanced research and knowledge in the field of medicine. ","[4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 3, 3, 3, 5, 4, 4, 5, 3]",15,"[45185975, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 45355658, 15448937, 45458968, 20512953, 21017840, 28813722, 19838540, 45405037, 6340330, 30777913, 30398579]"
7deb0592-1fa7-4088-8520-d008e7ab08b2,2108,Surrogacy should be banned,Arg-Search,"When alana s.  newman attended a conference on family formation, she was shocked to find that surrogacy has become a ""booming"" market among gay couples.  Surrogacy affords many people an alternative way to bring a child into the world.  It felt that such a legislation dealing with surrogacy would help reduce the chances of various kinds of child abuse in cases of adoption.  By and large, thanks to surrogacy homosexuals have the ability to inform a child about their lifestyle, values and views on gender roles and relations.  The services benefit these foreigners who, for example, may pay an indian agency $12,000 versus the $70,000 they would need to pay a u. s.  surrogacy agency.  Nsw residents have been able for many years to access commercial surrogacy clinics overseas, and many have done so.  What is known as ""commercial surrogacy"" has been a thriving part of india's economy.  Moreover, it can allow discrimination to become acceptable as tradition and helps to explain how discrimination can exist for such a long time.  India is the biggest location for surrogacy and thailand could become a hub of commercial surrogacy in the future.  Making paid surrogacy legal also would make it more affordable.  Which is why, in the last decade or so, surrogacy has swiftly ballooned into a multi-billion dollar industry in the country.  This would facilitate the surrogate mother to return to her family after handing over the child to the intended parents.  Excluding any group from civil marriage-african-americans, illegitimates, aliens, even red-haired individuals-would conserve state resources in an equally ""rational"" way.  And instead allow surrogacy to continue in a way that insures surrogates are paid appropriately and that they are cared for during their pregnancy and through their post-pregnancy recovery.  India has also emerged as a major center for low-cost surrogacy thanks to its skilled doctors, medical infrastructure, and vast population of poor women willing to act as surrogates.  If they do not feel comfortable doing so, surrogacy agencies can match up prospective parents with a surrogate.  The key to this type of surrogacy is that the gestational surrogate is not genetically related to the child and acts only as a gestational carrier for the pregnancy.  Surrogacy brings children into existence designed to meet adults' need to be parents.  Surrogacy arrangements have had an extremely low failure rate (less than 1%) as compared to adoption (15% failure rate), foster care (25% failure rate) and marriage (50% failure rate).  This code clearly allows for gestational surrogacy, in which the surrogate carries a biologically unrelated child.  For example, a surrogacy law in louisiana stipulates that a surrogacy contract can be enforceable as long as no financial payments are made.  Commercial surrogacy provides a service to intending parents and in so doing it places their needs above the needs of the child.  Legalizing nonprofit surrogacy would mean that siblings, friends, etc could work as surrogates much more safely, and that would help many couples.  Today, most couples and surrogates opt for new-and-improved ""gestational surrogacy,"" where the sperm, egg and uterus come from three separate people.  Gay clients are considered single under current imrc ivf/surrogacy guidelines, and will also be able to access surrogacy as single men under new laws.  ""the purpose of this law is to give maximum benefits to the surrogate babies. "".  For example, estimates suggest that india's surrogacy agencies have built a $445-million-a-year enterprise .  However, importantly, the bill creates several safeguards aimed at protecting the wellbeing and interests of the child and the parties to the surrogacy arrangement.  Laws there are straightforward and pointedly designed to prevent exploitation of women, destruction of female fetuses and blackmail of clients. ","[4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 4, 2, 4, 1]",15,"[45567227, 45567220, 45185975, 45191882, 45191885, 45185946, 45411178, 13581319, 20312760, 45190823, 29155723, 6340330, 20512953, 30777913, 27770607]"
39a534f8-93ed-47e8-9aae-829088a400b4,3759,Tattoos should be banned,Arg-Search,"Pointless moralistic policies like this just cause economic damage.  The temple tattoo ban disables the community from reaping the shared benefits of this successful industry.  An unlicensed tattoo giver isn't keeping you safe, he is endangering you by shoving non-sterile needles into your body.  Despite an undeniable presence of the healthy, happy, responsible, law abiding tattooed population, there are still ridiculous stereotypes that overshadow individuals and businesses alike.  The ban also puts the general public at a greater health risk by denying safe, government regulated practice.  This poses a risk for infection. "".  The city's declarations establish that tattooing can result in the transmission of such diseases as hepatitis, syphilis, tuberculosis, leprosy, and hiv.  At least one other court has ruled that completely banning an criminalizing the art of tattooing violates and individual��s constitutional right of free expression under the first amendment.  The company would have to determine whether allowing the tattoo to be visible would cause potential loss of revenue or extraordinary expense -- an undue hardship.  Tattoo studios make a drastic and immediate impact on economic development.  In anycase, tattoos are far more difficult to remove and can't be hidden as quickly as say earrings can.  Tattoo order irks marinesthe marines are banning any new, extra-large tattoos below the elbow or the knee, saying such body art is harmful to the corps' spit-and-polish image.  Tattooing carries the risk of infection and transmission of disease ""if unsanitary conditions are present or unsterile equipment is used. "".  The problem is that in japan tattoos are used mainly by a criminal organization that could kill you if they wanted.  Massachusetts outlawed tattooing in 1962 after a hepatitis scare, and officials still point to problems with tainted needles and infections from dyes.  ""these animals cannot give consent and end up suffering from the pain of recovery and possible infection,"" ms.  malliotakis said.  ""the current ban on tattooing has promoted an underground tattoo industry with no controls which, in turn, has increased health risks,"" she added.  Some of those problems, the police unions said, could be exacerbated by the tattoo ban.  Thailand has threatened to crack down on tourists having religious images tattooed on their bodies while on holiday, saying the trend is culturally inappropriate and erodes respect for religion.  While that ink may be exempt from the new regulations, soldiers looking to get new tattoos may run into issues when the rules are updated.  In short, the art of tattooing no longer only appeals to rebellious ""social deviants. "".  According to the council, there are potentially dangerous issues associated with tattooing.  ""the medium on which the drawn image appears should not be relevant when determining whether something is 'speech'; the tattoo itself is symbolic speech deserving of first amendment protection.  They complained that the ordinance is outdated and hurts their business.  This could trigger an allegation of gender discrimination if the company has hired men with visible tattoos in the past.  The city of hermosa beach had argued that tattoo parlors threaten public health and attract a crime-prone clientele.  The body art, which is forbidden in islam, ""triggered public criticism that could jeopardize national security and cause a negative impact to the government's image"".  Ms.  malliotakis said the tattooing and piercing procedures, including the application of general anesthesia, put the animals at tremendous risk.  However, without some sort of state regulation, the health and safety of tattoo enthusiasts was at risk.  Prohibiting the art of tattooing is also unconstitutional because it closes all suitable alternative channels of expression.  The problem i have with such a ban is that tattoos aren't always for aesthetic reasons.  Tattoos have also caused problems in malaysia .  The tattoos also cannot be deemed offensive. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 2, 4, 1, 2, 2, 3, 5, 4, 2, 2]",15,"[45185975, 45191882, 45185946, 45191885, 45953041, 13581319, 20312760, 45411178, 28813722, 29155723, 34609243, 45405037, 30777913, 33708599, 34110399]"
04c22d02-9552-42f8-89f4-e097ba7957c3,3222,We should abolish bitcoins,Arg-Search,"And economists warn that a finite currency like auroracoin, will be prone to�� deflationary tendencies ��that encourage hoarding.  And ����insson claims that government attempts to abolish auroracoin would be futile.  The governments of such countries are not eager to permit a form of currency that would make money laundering laws unenforceable.  A finite money supply means a finite economy, one that can't grow, and can't handle anything significant happening.  Bitcoin will continue to be misunderstood, smeared, attacked, and denounced.  Bitcoin does not require the permission or assent of its adversaries and at the same time may be difficult for them to control or prevent.  More importantly, bitcoin transactions are anonymous, and denominated outside of state fiat currency, so the state's power to tax this economic activity is limited.  In the attacks - known as distributed denial of service attacks - hackers overwhelmed bitcoin exchanges by sending thousands of phantom transactions.  A downside to bitcoins is that you need connectivity.  And, perhaps most importantly, the supply of bitcoins is limited, unlike the amount of canadian fiat dollars and other national currencies.  This is the fundamental truth of bitcoin that will completely disrupt the business of money transfer and benefit billions of people world-wide.  Bitcoin is going to disrupt every power structure there is in society today.  This can only end in disaster.  When police and judge abolish mtgox, ordinary user can bankrupt if he has all his savings in the form of bitcoins.  Solar events, problems in the power grid, and natural disasters like hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, and more could also devastate the system, rendering commerce close to impossible.  Arguing that you need connectivity is essentially saying that if armageddon strikes and the internet is destroyed, your money will be worthless.  It also discourages real savings, which are necessary for real investments.  Plus, the use of cryptography to guarantee the integrity of transactions makes it almost impossible for outsiders to access the identity details behind transactions.  Dowd says that this is wrong and that any transactions in a private money should not be put at a tax disadvantage relative to official currencies.  They don't provide a way to follow up on fraudulent sales; you just lose the money.  Therefore, until the bitcoin can reach the same worldwide level of legitimacy and approval that gold has, it will never be able to replace gold as a valuable commodity.  It concludes that bitcoin is not a viable replacement for the dollar.  They'll tell you that it's wrong for you to steal, unless it's called taxation.  They could even abolish cash and require that you use your card for everything.  What keynes and fisher were wrong about is that stabilising credit markets and prices (resulting in the abolition of deflation) is completely the wrong kind of intervention .  Further, since all ponzi schemes are by definition insolvent, the entire system could collapse the moment that payouts exceed pay-ins.  Despite its recent peaks in market value, the bitcoin continues to experience significant price fluctuation that often results in substantial losses.  There is also the potential someone could hack into your computer and transfer them out if you haven't stored them securely enough.  Bitcoin takes massive power and influence away from bloated governments and big banks and returns it to the people in the form of frictionless payments to one another.  The disadvantage of that mechanism, in contrast to bitcoin, is that it require an issuer, a bank that users of the money are willing to trust to redeem it.  ' -negative interest rates would mean savers pay interest to the bank and borrowers get paid interest. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 5]",15,"[45185975, 45191882, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 13581319, 28813722, 29155723, 6340330, 20312760, 20512953, 45169947, 34609243, 19838540, 30777913]"
9ed24690-4aaf-4d32-8b07-adc930ca8957,2694,We should abolish intelligence tests,Arg-Search,"We saturate their minds with materialism, sex, and violence and then insult their intelligence with adult hypocrisy on these matters.  And, more than anything, they must get rid of the most ridiculous practices and laws we have.  It has failed approximately 70% of undercover efficacy tests, and for all its excesses, has been unable to catch even a single terrorist since its creation.  The culture of secrecy also makes those at the top of intelligence agencies highly susceptible to political pressure from above.  Conclusion: the one-time iq tests are useless for measuring intelligence.  John kerry: abolishing state income tax would be calamitous.  Hence the related idea that it is impossible and undesirable to abolish war betrays a very imperfect conception of the laws of biology and of social advancement.  Singularity hypotheses: the biointelligence explosiongenetic change in biological humans is slow.  If a student does not take a test, a teacher is unable to assess whether or not a student is prepared to move forward.  Iq tests lack ecological validity because they ignore social cognition - the ""mind-reading"" prowess that enabled one species of social primate to become the most cognitively successful on the planet.  There are fundamental problems with a system that is willing to spare the mentally retarded and execute the not-quite-retarded.  The increase in the educational level and the greater intellectual demands of modern society apparently cause persistent training effect that leads to the increase in intellectual capacity.  Allowing the military to dominate this important field creates major risks.  The cia consistently overestimated soviet military and economic strength.  * texting undermines vocabulary and the mental effort that intelligent writing necessitates.  Senator rand paul slammed the ludicrous response sunday, saying that the nsa's massive surveillance program is ""fundamentally unconstitutional"" and that it cannot be saved by more oversight.  This equating of intelligence with verbal fluency can have awful consequences in school, in the workplace, and in the public sphere.  Perhaps, he argues, osha simply counteracts workers' tendency to take fewer precautions because government pays for much of the expense of their accidents.  No doubt, it would be expensive to test every potential juryman.  So over damn near a dozen years, the mis-allocation of crime lab dollars has left wisconsin law enforcement folks on the short end of the stick.  Ombudswoman considers school aptitude tests discriminatoryombudswoman jana dubovcov�� says that current school aptitude tests violate the rights of children.  Those subject to a more stringent control order - around five of those currently on orders - might find themselves more restricted.  And some of the cia's intelligence failures can also be laid at the white house door.  Singularitarians like ray kurzweil or siai's eliezer yudkowsky prophesy that human programmers will soon be redundant because ai run on digital computers will undergo accelerating cycles of self-improvement ( cf.  Psychologist o��ga bindasov��, an administrator of the survey, said that the cpppap do not use the most up-to-date diagnostic methods, which can unintentionally lead to discrimination.  The problem is, any power created for clandestine use can be abused.  Conversely, a background lacking in education, an environment without challenges, lack of or poor school education can negatively affect measurable intellectual activity.  Some students think that taking an exam is not fair or useful.  More generally, a problem with being a classical utilitarian is that one is (apparently) obliged to seek the extinction of all existing species, including humans.  Ombudswoman jana dubovcov�� says that current school aptitude tests violate the rights of children.  The diagnostics, for example, do not take into consideration the practical intelligence of children.  Abolishing the power to issue conclusive certificates does not mean information that should be protected against disclosure will be released. ","[1, 5, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 15448937, 45190571, 45401087, 45181383, 45181384, 28813722, 6340330, 19838540, 45191873, 45181152, 45183231, 45272708, 7756990]"
1e841ab2-d7c4-4e46-a2f0-b0de9c8e0414,3166,We should abolish the American Jobs Act,Arg-Search,"This failed law is crippling entrepreneurial startups.  Economically, america has descended into poverty.  Asset forfeiture and american jobs as government agencies increasingly use civil asset forfeiture as a tool for regulatory enforcement, american business and jobs suffer.  This hurt the economy, closed businesses and cost jobs.  They were subjected to intimidation and threatened with the loss of jobs, bodily harm and death.  ""it's a tactic that has far ranging effects, disrupting financial markets, lowering our credit rating, damaging the peoples' trust in government and delaying consideration of must-pass legislation.  The misleadingly-named federal employee rights act would end your ability to deduct dues from your paycheck, like you do for charity and health insurance.  High u. s.  federal and state corporate tax rates make it difficult for businesses to compete internationally.  Exhaustion through these processes would so unreasonably delay the protection of union members' rights so as to create a serious risk of irreparable injury.  It will make it almost impossible for you to petition congress for better pay, benefits, and working conditions.  This tax created administrative costs and squeezed small businesses, making it harder for those businesses to operate, create jobs and grow in a slow economy.  Worst still, our tax system has proven to be a hindrance to economic growth and job creation in many instances.  Those subsidies are just a waste of resources, and they create high energy prices which put our industries at a disadvantage.  It unfairly hits many americans harder than others and creates loopholes which exempt certain groups.  Forced unionism will kill jobs in america at a time when we can't afford to lose them.  All americans should be disgusted to support such a sham government that regularly wastes your money and cannot even account for where a large portion is going.  ""a year-end tax spike would be a disaster for the vitality of american families and the u. s.  economy,"" lugar said.  There is literally thousands of ways they waste your tax money every single day, including funding the death of foreigners who the media tries to dehumanize on a regular basis.  Representatives of the polluters have testified to congress that they just can't comply with the clean air act, and besides it will cost too much and also cost jobs.  This tax penalizes american workers in international markets, results in double-taxation of shareholders, discourages corporations from making new investments, and causes corporations to move their headquarters abroad.  It is about "" individual accountability "" and serious crimes being committed against american service members, which also negatively impact their families.  The readily observable result is that neo-environmentalism is destroying more of our rights, lands, and resources than any weapons of mass destruction an external enemy could deliver.  The impracticality of the corporate income tax is especially salient at the present time when government is supposedly doing all it can to reduce unemployment.  For-profit health insurance is extremely unethical, and morally repugnant.  Abolishing subsidies ends distortions in the domestic economy, allowing capital to flow to its most productive and therefore profitable uses.  Besides being discriminatory, the so-called diversity visa lottery is rife with fraud.  During the initial phase of the recession, abolishing unemployment insurance would perhaps have been cruel - at least, it should not have been a priority.  The corporate income tax is also unfair because it double-taxes money earned by the business.  Its unconstitutional grant of ��sovereign immunity�� is directly contributed to unspeakable atrocities of american service members and their families, rarely heard of in the american public.  Our current tax code is too complicated, too riddled with exceptions and loopholes, and doesn't provide the right incentives to work, save, and invest.  Abolishing the labor boards will mean ""exploiting the people and ruining their children's future. "". ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 5, 4]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 31948170, 45185975, 45185946, 45191885, 45191882, 45411178, 45336988, 45336993, 45189900, 45206691, 29155723, 15448937, 45405037]"
e9d8c98e-77b8-4b64-8a3f-2f8239853cda,2458,We should abolish the needle exchange programs,Arg-Search,"Others such as jourdain say the program just puts needles into the hands of illegal-drug users and brands the city a haven for drug abusers.  But critics say too many of those needles aren't being properly disposed of and end up littering vacant houses, alleys, parks and even orville wright elementary school.  ""the problem is they're not making it back to be destroyed . . .  they end up discarded at the whim of the user, sometimes at the detriment to the community. "".  ""drug addiction, drug use and needle exchange programs go hand in hand with criminal conduct and behavior. "".  But funding has been a major obstacle, as many programs face federal and sometimes state or local bans, limiting not only the needles but a method of outreach.  A halt ""would unnecessarily result in a significant disruption to the orderly operation of the program and thereby harm the public interest underlying the program itself,"" carey said.  The federal centers for disease control reported that needle-sharing programs do not encourage drug use and that they decrease the spread of hiv and encourage users to seek treatment.  By banning funding for needle exchange funding, they are not only failing to save money, but they're also failing at sending a true addiction-fighting message.  People who live in areas subjected to needle exchange programs have long complained that these programs result in increased open drug use.  Edle exchanges generally degrade community cleanliness.  nee.  They cited canadian studies that suggested the programs failed to stop the spread of hiv and may have contributed to a rise in drug overdoses.  ""needle exchange programs are both reckless and destructive. "".  Critics say needle exchange programs encourage risky behavior and work against efforts to fight drug abuse.  Republican supervisor mike antonovich, who with colleague don knabe opposed the declaration, said needle exchange programs send the wrong message to children and addicts.  Edle exchanges generally degrade community safety.  dru.  That cut would make it difficult to operate the new haven program and could lead to some of the other programs being eliminated, officials said.  Ringing more drug-addicts into a community area, needle exchanges can jeopardize the safety of a community.  soc.  Closing down the santa cruz distribution also could lead to more discarded dirty needles.  Others argue that needle exchange programs produce more drug use and increase drug-related deaths.  Foes have said allowing needle exchange risks making the city a haven for drug addicts who know they can get needles to shoot up heroin.  However, critics say needle-exchange programs promote risky behavior and undermine efforts to fight drug abuse.  Sausman says needle exchange projects do not promote public health and turn communities into havens for drug addicts.  The failure to insist on an equal exchange is one reason dirty needles have become commonplace in certain areas of the city, including beaches and parks.  Le exchanges bring in drug-addicts, who are generally less clean than other individuals.  as.  Officials said that the reduction in funding would make it difficult to operate the new haven program and could result in the closure of some of the other programs.  ""needle exchange programs attract the high-risk, hard-to-reach addicts.  .  .  .  Sarah wunsch, landry's attorney, said the state's needle-exchange programs would be useless if participants are not allowed to take their needles to other communities.  One ridiculous excuse for the absence of needle exchanges in prisons is the fear that syringes could be used as a weapon against guards.  Unsafe disposal of used needles, from medical as well as illegal drug users, is a significant problem.  The most obvious concern is that needle exchanges would increase the amount of drug use.  A common failing of pro-needle-exchange studies is that they fail to control for the many variables involved. ","[5, 4, 5, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 2, 5]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 45167145, 15448937, 19838540, 30777913, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 6340330, 45181384, 28813722, 34110399, 45355658, 44044795]"
a43eb671-6e0f-40ff-8bb7-c441aa768705,2613,We should abolish the two-party system,Arg-Search,"It shows this generation of leaders is able to make decisions,"" said dali yang, a china expert at the university of chicago.  Eliminating the positions also saves money.  It guarantees that our political system will have enough of the ""ministerial caliber"" politicians being voted or retained in the political system to provide a stability to the national leadership.  With no party primary system to verify candidate identification, the system would be open to sham candidates hand picked and financed by special interests out to fool the voters.  China says it will ease 1-child policy, abolish labor campsin this photo taken tuesday, nov.  12, 2013, a child rest in a stroller on the streets of beijing, china.  Plus the usual power to create or expand existing national government agencies and bureaucracies, the power to grant or disallow, franchises to certain private businesses, and so on.  Three , the party-list system expands the already bloated bureaucracy in the legislature that necessarily needs to be sustained by more taxes and fees from private citizens.  China will also ease its family planning policies, allowing couples to have two children if one of the parents is an only child.  ""if the new rule works, it could contribute in the development of regional politics as well as (the country's) political system.  Minister guzenina-richardson defended the new two-level model, saying it would help to reduce the ""terrible"" bureaucracy of the three-level model.  They could still have offices set up in their constituencies to attend to matters concerning their constituents, other than municipal issues.  Political parties should fix the problems with a sense of responsibility.  In recent years, however, the payment of dowry has become commercialised and exploitative.  The party report also promised to improve the judicial system and help farmers become city residents.  This threshold contributed to the political stability in germany so important for the country's post-war development.  He says it's aimed at restoring public confidence in politics by eliminating corruption and having politicians lay down their vested interests.  Beijing says the policy, which was introduced in 1980 and is widely disliked, has helped china by slowing population growth and easing the strain on water and other limited resources.  It will also provide the opportunity for proportionate diversity in the representation of minority voices in parliament.  If announced, the new rule could partly help the party to rebuild its key agenda of ""new politics. "".  Such a system will enhance professionalism in the legislative functions in parliament and provide a stability to national leadership.  Second, this district-dependent system would promote even further gerrymandering than already exists to win districts for a certain candidate's party.  In short, democracy is a modern means for achieving government truly ""of the people, by the people, and for the people. "".  They also promise ""improved supervision"" to ensure all are treated equally before the law and a crack down on internet crime.  The government credits the one-child policy introduced in 1980 with preventing hundreds of millions of births and helping lift countless families out of poverty.  ""(abolishing the system) will make elections favorable to those who have a localized power base, and set a high entry barrier for women and newcomers,"" said rep.  As part of the reform, china said it will reduce the number of crimes subject to the death penalty.  Rather, by abolishing the electoral college, the process would eliminate the electoral college problem and eventually the two-party system would reform itself.  Such a system will address quite a number of problems.  The constitution provides that peaceful assembly, demonstration, protest, and freedom of expression are fundamental rights of a citizen.  We should make freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and academic freedom universal, thereby guaranteeing that citizens can be informed and can exercise their right of political supervision. ","[2, 3, 2, 1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 1, 1, 4, 3, 1, 1]",15,"[45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 45458968, 45355658, 20512953, 15448937, 28813722, 21017840, 34110399, 19838540, 30777913, 6340330, 45405037, 33708599]"
a331e533-7ed9-4c0c-b42e-ab5d429eeabb,3212,We should adopt the teacher tenure reform,Arg-Search,"Under gov.  christie's reform model, a teacher can now benefit financially, since salary increases and bonuses will be tied to performance metrics.  Financial incentives can help make high-poverty schools more competitive in the labor market for effective teachers.  Districts could make the tenure process more meaningful by improving the quality and rigor of their evaluation systems and linking them to tenure decisions.  Digital learningtechnology can revolutionize education and help ensure no student is bored or left behind.  Adopting high standards is easy.  Some commonsense compensation reforms would dramatically improve the way teachers are recruited, trained, motivated and assigned to public schools:* performance pay.  Adopted in concert, they have the potential to transform teaching and learning in our schools.  Allowing states to take the lead on education reform will foster creativity and encourage state governments to find solutions that fit their unique needs.  That is, instead of focusing solely on teachers, education interventions would be much more effective if they addressed all areas and risk factors that lead to poor learning outcomes.  It lengthens the time to acquire tenure from three years to four years, and uses that extra time to provide better mentoring and evaluation to new teachers.  This means we'll never have to pay a teacher more than $31k or $32k a year.  These ""reforms"" will simply drive out the best teachers, and leave new teachers who just teach to the test, in constant fear of being fired.  By investing in neighborhoods, communities and societal systems at large, our efforts to reform education will be more effective and enduring.  So a fifth-year teacher can be just as effective as a 20th-year teacher.  Under the new reform measures, a teacher will continue to have an incentive to teach well - even after earning tenure.  It also provides a better process to dismiss a tenured teacher if he or she becomes ineffective and underperforms.  He said the new evaluation system builds in assistance for struggling teachers to come up to par.  The decision, which will make it easier to fire bad teachers, who are disproportionately found in high-poverty schools, is being hailed as a great triumph for civil rights.  This gives principals every incentive to attract and retain the best teachers.  What it has done is lower the costs for running schools to the detriment of many of the students.  As a result the time appears ripe for a more sustained and efficacious effort to improve the process by which new teachers are granted continuing contract status.  Additionally, it will give teachers an opportunity for increased mobility between districts, as teachers will be able to more easily transfer their tenure status from one district to the next.  These measures will help a teacher become even more proficient at his or her craft.  He said a good teacher can increase the lifetime earnings of a class of students by $250,000, and said a good teacher can help students escape poverty.  Tenure is good for taxpayers and students, and it's an inexpensive way to keep good teachers in the profession.  It also supports allowing the number of good charter schools to expand, while closing those that don't work.  It decreases the cost of tenure cases, and ensures that those cases are heard quickly.  It reforms the current system, in which tenure is nearly immutable.  This new evaluation system, which is also part of the new tenure reform laws, was designed to help improve teacher quality and student outcomes.  These interventions have been implemented with the vision and hope that ineffective teachers will be weeded out and correspondingly, student performance will improve.  Tenure reform will allow financially stretched districts to free up the necessary resources to hire, pay and retain the best teachers. ","[5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 2, 3]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 20225558, 13581319, 6432269, 45538225, 28810858, 45189900, 45336993, 45206691, 45361788, 45336988, 45405037, 29155723, 21785776]"
3c691d8a-ea76-4e40-af87-182060a6a50d,2143,We should ban abortions,Arg-Search,"And for women facing unintended pregnancies, prompt access to safe, legal abortion is imperative.  It has also energized the grass-roots pro-life movement and motivated a new generation of americans to fight for unborn children.  The child would be spared the prolonged and excruciating pain associated with undergoing the partial-birth abortion procedure.  Partial-birth abortion has been deemed ""safer for the mother's health"" just as death by injection is safer for society's health.  Taking a pill that expels it is not only more discreet, it also doesn't require having the sort of facilities that illegal abortionists used to provide.  In theory, women will be able to travel to other states to get safe abortions, which will be enough to convince most doctors that it's not worth the risk.  When the pills fail, a surgical abortion can be necessary to save the woman's life from infection caused by retained fetal tissue.  These bans push safe and affordable abortion care out of reach for those struggling to make ends meet.  ""there can be no doubt that halting the misuse of abortion drugs will save the lives of women and their babies.  The partial-birth abortion issue also deserves credit for heightening public awareness about the cruelty of all abortion methods.  Labor mp bob mcmullen says it will help lower maternal death rates and help with the millennium goals.  Yet, despite its flaws, the ban has posted strong successes for the pro-life movement by molding public opinion and raising awareness about the evils of abortion.  State abortion bans fourteen states have trotted out measures to ban abortion prior to ""viability"" - the point at which a fetus could survive outside the uterus.  Rather than banning abortions, states seeking to reduce the need for abortion should focus on improving women's access to contraceptive services, which can prevent unintended pregnancies in the first place.  A woman would not be covered, and face prohibitive costs, if she needed an abortion to start��chemotherapy, to avoid exacerbating a heart condition, or to protect her mental health.  It's simple enough for moderates to convince themselves that women who have abortions later in their pregnancies do so because they're fickle, foolish, or lazy.  The abortion ban also does not restrict or limit medical care, treatment for possible sexually transmitted diseases, and care to help victims with mental health issues following such incidents.  Abortion: safe, legal and rare!.  Advocating such a fetal heartbeat law cultivates awareness that the unborn are members of the human family who have a right to be accepted and protected without discrimination. "".  This exception would allow doctors to perform partial-birth abortions when it was safer for the mother's health.  We can also save a lot of children by enacting reasonable restrictions, like no second or third trimester abortions.  As the partial-birth abortion issue has demonstrated, when the american public is informed about the evils of abortion, it will respond appropriately and demand action.  The law also prevents women from getting abortions for fetal genetic abnormalities.  Thus, the ban can spare innocent children the prolonged and severe pain associated with the procedure.  The result is positive change and increased protections for women that will result in fewer abortions. "".  At the time, saline amniocentesis was the most common abortion method used after the first trimester, and it was safer than alternative methods of abortion as well as childbirth.  Most of the abortions were done by skilled practitioners-physicians, chiropractors, homeopaths, and others-who knew what they were doing, and the procedures were successful.  Banning partial birth abortion has been a priority for the catholic community in this country.  ""h. r.  809 is a commonsense alternative that would curb late-term abortions with exceptions for the life and serious and adverse consequences to the health of the mother. ","[3, 2, 2, 2, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 1, 4, 4, 4, 1]",15,"[6432269, 45567227, 45567220, 13581319, 45538225, 45953041, 20225558, 31948170, 45458968, 45405037, 29155723, 45206691, 45336988, 45189900, 20512953]"
724480b9-7987-4e7c-8215-f1a01e99f78b,2616,We should ban alternative medicine,Arg-Search,"They believe cupping can cure almost all kinds of diseases.  Bans have the potential to drive cost-savings, improve efficiency, and increase sales of prescription drugs.  E-cigarettes are a far safer alternative to regular cigarettes since they contain only nicotine and not smoke.  Eversmoke e-cigarettes revolutionary smoking alternative allows for an enjoyable smoking experience without the smoke, ash, tar, tobacco, carbon monoxide, or horrible and offensive smell found in traditional cigarettes.  Diseases and disorders result from imbalances in qi, and treatments such as massage, exercise, acupuncture, nutritional and herbal therapy are designed to restore balance and harmony to the body.  Ephedra-containing supplements are easily available over the internet, and it is estimated that several million americans continue to use them.  ""nosefrida gives the parents a chance to help babies blow their nose and clear their airway so they can sleep and eat.  The ability to calibrate dosage, gather improved data, and ensure total compliance will help pharmaceutical companies improve their chances of getting drugs through the trial process and to market.  These are products that have helped countless people stop smoking more harmful cigarettes and yet some meps wanted to make them harder to manufacture than ordinary tobacco. "".  Banning tiger trade over the last decade has helped reduce poaching pressure on wild tiger populations.  Furthermore, some scientists still firmly believe animal testing can be useful for humans in areas such as genetics, stem cell research, and the development of antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals.  While pharmaceuticals lead to more deaths than traffic fatalities in the u. s. , natural and inexpensive supplements like vitamin d slash your risk of cancer, obesity,�� and the flu .  Importantly, the vaccine was generally well tolerated, and there were no serious adverse events in the young children immunized. "".  Unlicensed but availablethe medical establishment believes that mmr is safe and effective.  Ash chief executive deborah arnott said: ""e-cigarettes offer a potentially safer option for smokers wishing to reduce their risk of ill-health from tobacco use.  It helps keep kids off antibiotics. "".  It's user friendly and safe,"" says dr.  cheryll e.  perkins, md, a pediatrician in statesboro, georgia.  In other words, it can treat male impotence quite effectively, as well as increase the sex drive (libido) in men and in women.  The department of health said reducing rates of smoking remained a priority and with the support of the nhs, smokers greatly increased their chances of stopping smoking for good.  Chiropractic reduces idiopathic lower back pain, acupuncture can reduce the perception of pain and nausea, and there's nothing wrong with selling or using these cam methods for these purposes.  A ban-based vital signs monitoring solution could be a cost-effective alternative to the last few nights of a patient's hospital stay.  While profit-driven drug companies push their products to 'treat' diseases like cancer, cancer rates are higher than ever, with the�� drugs making cancer worse and killing patients more quickly .  Bans, enabled by vast networks of non-invasive and unobtrusive wearable sensors and peripheral devices, are emerging to a marketplace finally mature enough to stimulate a vibrant consumer base.  * improved test outcomes: another potential area where bans could prove particularly valuable is in the monitoring of clinical drug trials.  Since it is very hard to quit smoking (nicotine is one of the most addictive substances used by man), e-cigarettes are a widely-acknowledged viable alternative.  Alternative medicine is well advertised and education is widespread and well established.  The finding on vitamin c does support the alternative medicine proposition that iv injections can be useful against cancers.  In a general sense, illnesses can be prevented with the information and people will save ample amounts of money.  Dietary measures can be enacted that will reduce pcb half-lives in humans by increasing excretion. ","[1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 1]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 6432269, 13581319, 31948170, 45206691, 28810858, 45336988, 20225558, 45336993, 45189900, 45190571, 45401087, 45361788, 20512953]"
7fc048b3-a700-4c6f-b6d6-c4970506e000,2483,We should ban anonymous posts,Arg-Search,"Banning resources isn't a strategy for improving behavior; its an attempt to rid the library of pesky teenagers.  <> tech blog tecca also pointed out that revealing ip addresses would not verify a person's identity and revealing home addresses could potentially lead to stalkers.  Banning anonymous comments would only make it easier to see who made which comments.  The behavior typically occurs via, e-mail, instant messaging, and chat rooms, and can result in traumatic experience for the recipient.  In emergencies--such as cases where someone has threatened to harm themselves, or if we are contacted by law enforcement--we cannot guarantee user privacy.  That said, i fear that many people take advantage of the ability to be anonymous to berate, belittle, and be obnoxious.  Even some of the posts started by our ""head honcho"" have been infected.  Republican assemblyman jim conte said the bill would decrease ""mean-spirited and baseless political attacks"" and ""turns the spotlight on cyberbullies by forcing them to reveal their identity,"" according to wired.  ""research shows that during the times of public disruption, ban of communication services will only make things worse.  Annoying political figure: anonymous has 40 members and can do jack-shit.  Anonymous has gained much exposure in the last year with hacker attacks on paypal, visa, amazon, bank of america, and various world governments.  The use of anonymous sources is like lighting a fire: essential for some tasks but dangerous when not done with care.  If there is a bug, that anonymous monk could quickly cause a lot of trouble, such as moderating on lots of nodes.  Shooting down the weird mentality that people seem to have where they see this subreddit as a place that needs to be protected or hidden from authorities.  There could even be problems with level powers other than moderation and voting, and very likely banning these from anyone was also never tested.  It could well have a chilling effect on commenters who worry that someone might ensnarl them in legal action that could be costly and time consuming.  However, if internet anonymity is eventually quashed by legal means, it could have broad repercussions on the future of free speech online.  Attempting to unmask all internet commenters is more than just a waste of time; it is an affront to the civil liberties of all new yorkers.  We harbor no illusions that this stuff isn't available, but bringing it into a thread can cause trouble for the site and creates an atmosphere that we'd rather avoid.  Rants and malicious comments have no place in journalism of a serious and/or light-hearted nature.  But internet experts said a ban of communication services do not result in peace, instead it curtails the basic right of citizens to exchange messages.  Put somewhat less charitably, a fair number of anonymous posters may well lose their nerve for throwing verbal brickbats if they have to first pop up from behind a wall.  The problem with services like these is that when given anonymity, users often abuse the system .  What might wind up happening is, people will be scared to post anything, and the subreddit will become pretty useless.  I've found that in my own experience that banning a particular service or resource doesn't solve discipline problems.  Message app yik yak illustrates the problem with anonymous commenting: the potential for rumor-mongering that can turn into bullying.  This is obviously untrue since online identities can be jettisoned at will and virtually nothing a user could post on 4chan would carry any real world consequences.  Allowing anonymous monk to have xp could really cause technical difficulties.  Sysop will delete poorly written topics/posts, any posts containing memes, any repeated content, off-topic replies, etc.  Software piracy is theft and impact the entire global economy. ","[4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 3, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 2]",15,"[45185975, 45191882, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 13581319, 20312760, 28813722, 29155723, 45411178, 45355658, 20512953, 34609243, 19838540, 45405037]"
a1c72b3b-cb75-4954-984e-d8f82cdc0cf2,1161,We should ban cosmetic surgery,Arg-Search,"Third, cosmetic surgery is socially destructive because it creates unrealistic expectations of beauty and promotes consumerism about matters that are mostly frivolous.  Still, patients seeking a silicone-based buttock injection can find illegal businesses to perform the procedure with an average cost of $8, according to local media reports.  I find the whole thing unethical on the part of the doctors. "".  It added that such practices were seen as ""unethical, placing undue pressure on the patient and emphasising price rather than quality"".  ""it is clear that some providers take advantage of the vulnerability of people who seek surgical treatments for psychological reasons.  But british health officials stated there was a ""lack of evidence"" linking pip implants to cancer.  Second, cosmetic surgery can lead to terrible health consequences in a minority of cases.  I know that surgery comes with potential risks and that no result is guaranteed.  Offering plastic surgery on discount websites is forcing people to impulsively buy procedures, surgeons have warned.  Others believe there should be age restrictions for cosmetic surgery, that allowing teens unlimited access opens them up to exploitation and fosters unhealthy values.  Sally taber, the director of independent healthcare advisory services (ihas), which represents many major cosmetic treatment providers, said aggressive sales techniques for cosmetic surgery ""are not appropriate"".  Lack of legal safeguards and medical accountability, and the probability that only badly qualified doctors will offer illegal operations will deter almost everyone from risking black market surgery.  Such procedures, supporters say, hurt the animals to satisfy their owners' tastes.  The advertisements also trivialize the physical dangers of cosmetic surgery like blood clots, infections, and even death.  Reconstructive surgeries such as breast implants following a mastectomy also concern aesthetics.  Cosmetic surgeries are dangerous and unnecessary.  Yet the bans will have only a limited impact on the total number of animals saved from use in labs.  The advertisements also trivialize the real and severe dangers of cosmetic surgery, like infection, blood clots, and even death.  There are frequently disastrous health effects to cosmetic procedures.  In such cases the operation would be considered by the halacha an unnecessary wound-and therefore unlawful.  These convince an individual that something is terribly wrong with his physical appearance and that it needs to be mended.  There are also studies that show negative psychological effects on patients after their surgery has been completed.  While medical advances can result in safer cosmetic procedures, they can also contribute to their normalization.  [1] �� there is also the risk that the person having the surgery will be dissatisfied with the results.  The growth in cosmetic surgery enhances people's perception that there is something wrong with their body if they don't conform to the ideal beautiful form.  Therefore, it would be wrong to say that cosmetic surgery can be psychologically damaging as a rule.  The problem is that because cosmetic surgery is seen as connected with shopping and shoes, it is therefore always frivolous and unnecessary.  Enforcing the ban may be difficult given how widespread cosmetic surgery is in iran, particularly among young women.  For example, leaking silicone breast implants have been a widespread problem and can lead to death.  It is a scandal that treatments such as cosmetic laser treatment, botox or dermal filler injections are unregulated. "".  The cosmetic surgery advertisements normalize hatred of one's body.  Cosmetic surgery 'needs regulation'several newspapers have reported the dangers associated with cosmetic surgery, including a lack of regulation in some areas of the industry.  1 cosmetic surgery,(accessed 8/6/2011)cosmetic surgery can be psychologically damagingpointthe compulsion to change one's body is often a symptom of a deeper mental instability.  It's well known that breast implants of many types can cause burning pain, loss of sensation, hardening of breast tissue and serious infection. ","[4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 2, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 5]",15,"[6432269, 45567220, 45567227, 45953041, 13581319, 45538225, 45361788, 31948170, 45411178, 45336993, 45189900, 45336988, 45206691, 15448937, 45405037]"
4c2d5a0c-0fee-4a8f-b815-4b4f3f712d9e,2225,We should ban factory farming,Arg-Search,"And the replacement of independently owned, small family farms by large factory operations often drains the economic health from rural communities.  * fur farms in ireland have created only approximately 60 jobs but cause hundreds of thousands of animals immense suffering every single day of their lives.  British farmers cannot compete; 50% of the uk pig herd has been lost in the past 12 years, farmers have lost their livelihoods and communities have been destroyed.  The animals experience both physical and psychological disorders, and their confinement is so cruel that it is being phased out across europe.  Mink and fox are simply not suited to intensive breeding and fur factory farming is inhumane.  This environmental disaster makes it clear that there are costs associated with our dependency on fossil fuel.  Its side effect is that its use the rearing of animals destined for human consumption makes human antibiotics increasingly ineffective, as noted by the european food safety authority.  Filthy, overcrowded factory farm operations are a breeding ground for disease and contribute to the development of virulent pathogens and emerging health threats.  Cow factory farms are also very bad for climate change.  Contamination raising thousands of animals together in crowded conditions generates lots of manure and urine.  Slaughtering downed animals also poses risks to consumers.  These people would not be able to afford an increase in price for any goods much less things they need to survive such as food.  More than 500,000 young dairy calves were mercilessly killed as a result of greed and profit.  These places are diseased, overcrowded and terrifying for animals.  Because these crates are so restrictive, the pigs are virtually locked in place, unable to turn around or even comfortably lie down for months at a time.  The barren, restrictive environments found in factory farms can lead to rabbits developing abnormal stereotypical behaviours, such as excessive grooming and repetitive gnawing at the cage.  Such huge pools of animals waste are a health hazard and a damn good reason to impose stricter regulations on the meat industries.  By allowing for the slaughter of these downers, the government disregards important animal welfare and human health concerns.  These farms are contributing to disease in both animals and humans, and the excrement is polluting lakes, rivers and soils.  The gross accumulation of matted faeces in and around the cages is indicative of a poor level of hygiene, with increased risk of ill health as a consequence . "".  These places breach many animal rights laws, leaving animals in agonizing pain until they are slaughtered.  The animals are kept in terrible conditions and the killing process is often drawn out, causing much suffering for the animals.  Additionally, these animal factories cause massive air and water pollution, and cause unimaginable suffering for both the animals inside and the people outside in the community.  The monitoring of safety in these farms has not resulted in safe conditions either for the animals or for the food that then is on the tables of the nation.  Fur farming is an animal rights violation, it is cruel and the majority of people want it to stop. "".  Unfortunately, poultry litter, the waste found on the floors of poultry barns, may contain cattle protein because regulations allow for feeding cattle tissue to poultry.  Debeaking - banned hens kept in factory farmed conditions often suffer from severe stress, which can lead to cannibalism.  Instead, the practice causes cows pain and distress and results in increased fly attacks.  It is unconscionable that animals are treated like mere units of production on factory farms.  Factory farming contributes to pollution, deforestation & climate change. ","[4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 31948170, 45191882, 45336993, 45361788, 45189900, 45206691, 45190823, 45185946, 45185975, 20512953, 45355658, 19838540, 45411178]"
a72738b3-26f9-4ec0-967e-d3ed33eb1af0,2539,We should ban genetically modified crops,Arg-Search,"These can harm local crops and wildlife,"" said ignacio arroyo, a biologist and member of bloque verde, a costa rican environmental group.  This has hurt the productivity and economic viability of those growers who have used gmo seeds.  But green groups in europe say the crops could potentially create ""super-weeds"" through cross-pollination that are impervious to herbicides.  The massive use of pesticides on fields of soy, the country's top export, is creating a ""health catastrophe"" in the rural sector, environmentalists warn.  In addition, the farmers weren't warned that the crops would require twice as much water as conventional cotton, leading to many crops drying up and dying.  Some european union officials as well as those in france remain cautious about using products that could endanger insects and fish and upset delicate ecosystems.  It could lead to the development of resistant weeds and pests.  The dangers of gmo crops, biopesticides, and the threat of mutationbesides the weed-killers, gmo crops themselves are also endangering your health even without pesticides.  Chemicals, preservatives, genetic modification and low-cost substitutions and fillers have wrecked meals that were once healthy for us.  There is a chance that the crops could develop into extremely resistant super weeds, hurt water quality and kill off other species.  Like smith, some say the crops pose a risk to the environment, the organic food industry and people's health.  Health and conservation groups from africa, asia and latin america say that the fast-growing weeds smother other crops planted in fields near where gm crops have been grown.  Once on the market, the profitable years for a genetically modified crop can be eaten away by legal challenges.  Some show that modifications lead to higher crop yields and a drop in pesticide use.  All of the animals showed signs of neglect including missing ears and eyes, broken limbs and malnourishment.  Secondly, when crops are meant for export and end up contaminated with gmo, it can have disastrous effects.  The truth is that we don't know what risk is posed by these unnatural organisms.  The environmental protection agency (epa) has recently found that monsanto's genetically modified corn, which was created to kill insects, may be losing its effectiveness against rootworms.  If you use non-genetically modified crops, you'll have to use more pesticides, and you might pick up residues of pesticides that make them harmful to people. "".  This means that if beekeepers keep beehives in areas where genetically engineered crops are cultivated, they will have no hope of selling their products.  Agencies and countries condemning or banning gmosthe german government has banned the cultivation of genetically modified corn, calling it, ""a danger to the environment. "".  In the journal of toxicology in vitro, researchers found that monsanto's popular ""weed killer,"" known as roundup, is capable of interfering with and/or harming the male reproductive system.  Smith argues that genetically modified crops often contain toxins that can harm people, animals and the soil.  According to a european study , a gmo diet caused kidney and liver problems which indicate the onset of chronic diseases.  Using bt pesticide on monsanto's gmo crops has created 'mutant' rootworm insects that are resistant to the biopesticide.  Scientific evidence has proven that feeding gmo crops to animals causes accelerated aging, auto-immune disorders, and other terrible diseases.  Unfortunately, reaping genetically modified foods sown from monsanto's genetically modified corn seed can be deadly.  Genetically modified ingredients are so widespread among nations that it will be extremely difficult for hungary and other countries to eliminate products containing gmos.  Gmo corns have been the cause of increase in food allergies, infertility, and tumors.  Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase u. s.  crop yields. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 3, 3, 4, 5]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 45336993, 45206691, 45361788, 45189900, 45336988, 45538225, 31948170, 45405037, 20225558, 45190823, 28810858, 30777913]"
e0c371e0-3520-432b-aeb2-2c80b080b465,2615,We should ban homeopathy,Arg-Search,"Yet another part of me knows that the trouble with this hubris is that any advertising for homeopathy would result in increased sales.  Members of the british medical association said homeopathic remedies should be relegated to shelves ""labelled placebos"" and that nhs money should not be spent on treatments that are scientifically implausible.  Unfortunatly, pharmacies are a big part of problem when it comes to homeopathy.  ;)btw: the health care insurance cannot be saved by forbidding homeopathy funding.  ""it can do harm by diverting patients from conventional medical treatments. "".  It appeared that it had substances of plants that are not used in regular medicines anymore because of possible dangerous side effects.  But the fact, they do sell medicines that claim to deal with meningitis means homoeopathy is dangerous.  Homeopathy moves in a more diffuse world of results, so it isn't as easy to judge and punish as an electronic device without any electronics at all in its inside.  Such activities will cause many unnecessary deaths.  Thus they fail to cure diseases and declare many diseases as incurable diseases.  Another complaint is that homeopathy is used when patients need conventional drugs.  The problem arises in the rare cases when people are so blind to the inefficacy of these so-called treatments that they needlessly put health and lives at risk.  Selling 'non-scientific' treatments is a betrayal of the trust the public, rightly or wrongly, puts in pharmacists.  These will be more expensive and have real side effects, some of them potentially harmful.  Just giving medicines without having the knowledge of anything is not a sensible approach.  Likewise junk food leads to an obesity crisis.  The stuff passing itself off as homeopathic that isn't, can be dangerous.  There is also the danger that when doctors prescribe placebos, they risk damaging the trust that exists between them and their patients.  What they are worried about is people relying on homeopathic remedies rather than evidence based medicine for certain conditions, and that is a genuine reason for concern.  And has made it very difficult to get homeopathic treatment in the states.  This tragedy, along with the hundreds of others, illustrates the real harms of perpetuating the belief in the magical thinking that is homeopathy.  It is dangerous when people believe in homeopathy to the extent that they shun evidence based medicine.  This is not desirable when clinicians are already accused of playing fast and loose with prescription drugs and of medicalising problems that do not need treating.  The problem with homeopathy is that it doesn't work .  However, mainstream medicine's general unwillingness to consider any therapy that is not manufactured by phrma tends to blind it to potentially new and/or unexplored treatments.  If you state that a report shows the efficacy of homeopathy to be nil, it means its not effective (ie, it doesn't work).  Prescribing placebo treatments, critics say, damages the trust that exists between doctors and their patients.  I summised by it's lack of fleas and clean fur that he had probably been indoors in somebody's shed or garage and that their pet cat was his mother.  It is absurd to offer patients the choice of an intervention which is not known to effectively treat their condition.  The use of such methods at the same time as food challenge testing can result in confusion and a diagnosis that is not evidence based.  The irrational and disproportionate attack on nhs homeopathy in the name of science does no credit either to science or to the nhs.  Singh said that the court has held that electro-homeopathy is not a recognised system of medicine and cannot be practised for curing diseases. ","[4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 3, 5, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 45567220, 45567227, 45538225, 20225558, 45405037, 20512953, 21785776, 29155723, 45411178, 45336993, 45189900, 45336988]"
4549dc4b-16d4-4021-8136-781e5b36e245,2125,We should ban organic food,Arg-Search,"These gmo's are killing and contaminating the cows (and poisioning our milk), chickens, pigs, etc; contributing leaky bowels, allergies and other dis-eases to anyone/anything eating them.  The chemicals in roundup are killing our pollinators.  Eventually we will not have enough land to cultivate anything to eat if we as a country do not learn to preserve and find better ways of sustaining ourselves.  For those in many rural areas, it is simply not available, and for others cost is a problem.  They are also complaint-driven, and rapidly deteriorate into a situation of extreme cruelty, with no net benefit to the community.  Some potential economic and political upheavals are in the offing if gmos are found to endanger human health.  Feeding bans ignore the real problem -the lack of affordable spay/neuter services in the community.  Round up is useless without crop plants genetically modified to survive it's application.  Feeding bans are punitive and tend to direct resources towards administrative tasks like enforcement and away from incentive-based programs that encourage spay/neuter.  Nanotechnology: new threat to organic foodsnanotechnology, the process of manipulating matter at the atomic and molecular level, has no place in organic food.  Feeding ban laws, ordinances, and policies are misguided policy and are wholly ineffective.  Banned in norway and austria, these substances are known to cause behavioral problems in kids and are associated with cancer, birth defects, and other health problems.  * organic bans the use of chemical pesticides, keeping them not just out of your food, but also your community's water, air, and soil.  Bacteria and other decease from organic fertilizers, and poisons from fungus and that the plants themselves produce when stressed or harmed.  It fears that arbitrary national bans could distort competition on the eu's single market and jeopardise the union's food production sectors which are heavily dependent on imports of gm feed.  Genetically engineered foods could have long-term health effects on humans and are also bad for the environment.  Feeding bans discourage the practice of trap-neuter-return , the only effective course of action for stabilizing the feral cat population.  Feeding bans encourage cats to roam further to find food, making them more visible, which can actually increase calls to animal control.  Many of the world's poorest people spend more than half their income on food, making them vulnerable when food prices rise.  There is enough evidence (if the profit motive is overlooked for a moment) to indicate that animals lose reproductive capability with gmo.  Organic is not environmentally friendly and poison free.  Unfortunately indirectly consuming these drugs can cause antibiotic-resistant infections in humans.  Organics can and will be contaminated.  Droughts and other adverse farming conditions across the country have made fruits and vegetables more expensive and making meals more difficult.  Like the failure that gmo foods is proving to be, nanotechnology has inherent risks that have not shown themselves.  Co-existence is impossibleas long as gmos continue to be planted and utilized, the whole food chain is endangered.  Ineffective ordinances, like feeding bans, are a waste of taxpayer dollars.  Excessive consumption of bvos has been linked to memory loss, tremors, fatigue, and loss of muscle coordination, and the additive has been banned in europe, india, and japan.  They are not as effective as raw wholefood supplements or foods with dried vegetables or fruit to provide nutrients, when added.  The data obtained from the fda shows that levels of contaminants in food are often at, or near, the levels found by the federal government to cause public health concern.  Monoculture is dying yields from ge are not competitive with sustainable organic.  These bans are inherently cruel and do not come close to achieving their intended goals.  Pesticides are toxic by design. ","[4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 2, 3, 1, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 45190571, 45181383, 45401087, 15448937, 6340330, 7756990, 45282792, 45336991, 45183231, 45181152, 45272708, 19838540, 34609243]"
6130fef7-501c-4111-aa51-9cdb809eb585,2480,We should ban racial profiling,Arg-Search,"This hurts public safety and undermines communities.  Racial and ethnic profiling is a genuine and important national security concern.  It is also indisputable evidence that national security loopholes are being used to undermine the laws and guidelines designed to protect civil rights.  Software gets outdated, and without the software profiling taking place, a licensor or licensee couldn't meet the needs of mutually benefitting both parties in the equation.  Bloomberg argued that the anti-profiling law would make it more difficult for officers to do their jobs.  ""but, equally important, it continues to degrade and dehumanize millions, particularly people of color, based on who they are and what they look like.  Without a comprehensive federal law that includes a strong enforcement and oversight mechanism, racial profiling will continue to plague our communities and our citizens.  ""multiple studies have proven that racial profiling results in the misallocation of law enforcement resources and therefore a failure to identify actual crimes.  This failure in federal protection against racial profiling has led to numerous cases of violations of basic constitutional and human rights throughout all american minority groups.  ""our communities cannot afford to let the nypd continue to waste time, energy and resources on discriminatory tactics that don't work.  ""the overuse and abuse of stop-and-frisk has unfairly targeted new yorkers of color and caused community distrust of the police,"" said mr.  de blasio.  Amnesty international says that the practice of racial profiling makes americans less safe, reduces the effectiveness of law enforcement efforts and undermines national unity.  ""racial profiling has been proven to be an ineffective law enforcement practice,"" said huang.  It's time to face the truth - racial profiling is unlawful, it is an ineffective law enforcement practice and it violates the human rights of the people targeted.  Such racial profiling is a distraction to law enforcement and therefore, undermines national security efforts, the report said.  There can be no doubt that these offensive stereotypes hurt women of color, eroding trust between patient and doctor in communities that already face too many health disparities.  ""we live in communities where racial profiling is rampant and has contributed to the deterioration of trust between residents and the police.  The impacts of these stereotypes and stigma cause real harm to our communities.  ""racial profiling allows law enforcement to use stereotypes when making critical decisions about people's freedoms.  ""racial profiling undermines the rule of law and strikes at the core of our nation's commitment to equal protection for all,"" durbin said.  The report argues that both forms of profiling are not only contrary to core american values, they are also ineffective as law enforcement tactics.  The ""end racial profiling act"" racial profiling is an ineffective law enforcement tool, harms community security and is profoundly unjust.  Racial profiling has been proven to be an ineffective law enforcement tool.  The letter cited ""recent events across the nation"" showing ""racial profiling is a pervasive and harmful practice that negatively impacts individuals and communities. "".  Three years after the��2009��ban��went into��effect,��the��study finds��that the large majority of local law enforcement agencies in new mexico are not in basic compliance.  Racial profiling is a harmful and ineffective policing practice because it creates fear and resentment in communities, eroding the trust that police need to solve crimes.  While the proposed law's main selling point of ending purported discrimination by federal state and local police is noble, some of its provisions are outrageous and will cost taxpayers dearly.  Over the years such practices resulted in a disproportionate number of black and brown motorists being subjected to prolonged detentions and intrusive and humiliating searches. ","[4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 3, 3]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 45191873, 45183231, 45272708, 45181152, 7756990, 45282792, 45336991, 44044795, 20312760, 45483811, 43984981, 34854490, 34609243]"
0c112da9-5095-477b-9476-063056aecd59,2747,We should ban telemarketing,Arg-Search,"These techniques force consumers to tolerate not only telephone solicitations, but also hang-up calls, computerized ""filters,"" and other inconveniences - all for the sake of boosting telemarketers' profits.  Telemarketers who made the pitch encouraged consumers to pay for help applying for multiple grants.  It promoted privacy by allowing people to screen out unwanted telemarketing calls.  The federal trade commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them.  The ftc has proposed changing the rule to end the use of certain payment methods that fraudulent telemarketers prefer and as a result, increase protection for consumers.  If the algorithm is correct, you'll answer the phone just at the moment that an operator becomes available to talk to you.  These include new technology, a full-time compliance officer, increased monitoring of third-party telemarketers and improved training.  The ftc also has substantially reduced the number of disclosures a telemarketer would be required to make.  Current laws allow telemarketers licensed outside of the state can to new yorkers, pay a negligible fine and continue to do business in the state.  ""pre-calling"" is anther intrusive technique designed to increase efficiency.  Delaware has several corporations, including major credit card companies, that rely on telemarketing as a means of increasing their customer base.  This allows ban karo to grow in a quasi-organic fashion from multiple nuclei.  If you aren't on the do not call list, telemarketers could continue to dial you up, just not with robocalls.  It was this that drove us to the insight that telemarketing is a social problem, and hence, is best tackled socially.  It is allowing more individual consumer preference on how they want to be contacted, and that's all good. "".  Likewise, many congressional candidates have made telemarketing the cornerstone of their campaign strategies.  This change makes mobile telephone bills more clear and improves use of mobile phones as a payment method.  Second, the supreme court found that there were other alternatives available to combat the problem of signal bleed that were less intrusive than a 16-hour-a-day ban.  Telemarketers, like many merchants today, may also coordinate with a third party sender that has an existing relationship with an odfi.  These instruments can make it easy for unscrupulous telemarketers to debit bank accounts without permission, according to the ftc.  The rcc has been around for many many years and provides space for a great deal of information which is the primary driver for the use of this payment mechanism.  The new federal trade commission rule designed to give consumers important information regarding telemarketing offers, and giving them an easy-to-use tool for stopping unwanted calls, goes into effect on sunday.  The ftc works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them.  In fact, telemarketing now employs more than 400,000 people, yielding $435 billion a year in sales.  We believe social networks represent a powerful tool in tackling various problems across domains, be they telemarketing, consumer information aggregation, finance, or even education.  ""it allows individuals to be in control of who they want to contact them.  It ensures that mobile phone users have enough information to know whether an incoming call is a telemarketing one or not.  -- a new agreement among state leaders could translate into fewer annoying calls from telemarketers.  More than 50 million phone numbers have been registered, making it clear that many americans don't want to be bothered any longer by telemarketers.  Telemarketers for ideal concepts made unsolicited telephone calls to consumers nationwide, many of whom were senior citizens. ","[4, 4, 4, 3, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 2]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 6432269, 45336993, 45206691, 45361788, 45189900, 45336988, 20225558, 45190571, 45181383, 45401087, 45181384, 44044795, 29155723]"
74f7d6fc-41f1-48da-b179-434d82383b0c,3232,We should cancel pride parades,Arg-Search,"Members of all the haredi sects believe that this parade is a catastrophe for jerusalem.  The demonstrators blocked the main roads of the city, threw bricks at cars, and injured dozens of policemen, journalists, and innocent civilians.  These ill-advised decisions are likely to result in hundreds of thousands of people milling aimlessly around the west end.  Foreign ministry official yossi levy called the cancellation of the invitation:an ugly scandal that turns the pride parade into a shame parade.  Yet many religious leaders believe the israeli government's decision to allow a world homosexual parade in jerusalem is having real-life consequences.  In a city holy to judaism, islam, and christianity - three religions in which most factions view homosexuality as a dangerous sin - a ""pride parade"" arouses frightening tensions.  All the previous mistakes have been repeated: bad pr, late planning, rushing, bad organisation, quarrels. . .  it almost looked like a kid's play, not handling of a serious event.  All the floats that are such a key part of the pride parade may not be allowed to go through central london. "".  Critics charge the parades with an undue emphasis on sex and fetish-related interests which they see as counter-productive to lgbt interests.  At least 110 people, most of them police, were injured and nearly 200 were arrested at serbia's gay pride march in belgrade on sunday.  ""london police and municipal authorities accuse the world pride organisers of unpaid debts and failing to advance the necessary funds to cover this year's events.  The scheduled orderly parade could well descend into mayhem, with the much of central london becoming gridlocked for hours with vast confused crowds.  ""banning floats in the parade is a big blow to the many lgbt charities that have spent thousands of pounds on hiring and decorating them.  ""the sudden, drastic curtailment of the world pride parade, rally and street party is a huge blow to london and its gay community.  A similar cancellation occurred last year after the belgrade parade of 2010 [ abc news report] amounted to violent attacks, vandalism, and wounded police officers and civilians.  The easily accessible sexual content of the parade exposes children to negative influences, and the public's interest is to defend the kids,"" the letter says.  What is not being addressed by the organizers is safety areas for seniors and young families, the high level of alcohol and drug abuse that takes place during the parade.  Rioters reportedly clashed with security at several locations, setting parked cars on fire, overturning garbage containers and destroying shop windows and street signs.  As police clashed with rioters trying to disrupt the parade, more than 100 people were injured.  Any scaling back of the event would be a pr disaster. "".  Just before the parade kicked off, police arrested a 32-year old man carrying a bomb which he said he'd planned to detonate near the parade to ""scare people away. "".  The annual pride parade has become a victim of its own success.  Weak cultural, political and social cooperation exists among these states, with an obvious lack of public encouragement for solidarity, which organizers hoped to initiate through that regional pride event.  This parade cannot be permitted, it can bring about disasters.  The primitive politicization and the blatant capitulation to the terror and violence of anti-israeli elements go against the pride parade's principle of preventing discrimination.  ""responding to violent attacks against a vulnerable community, such as lgbt, by banning them from peacefully gathering and expressing themselves further violates their fundamental human rights, and rewards their attackers. "".  The event was extremely tense as the police were not equipped to suppress riots or protect the pride marchers. ","[3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 2, 1, 4, 4, 4, 1, 4]",15,"[45567227, 45567220, 45185975, 45191882, 45191885, 13581319, 45185946, 45411178, 20512953, 29155723, 20312760, 19838540, 6340330, 45405037, 31948170]"
53847107-0bf3-4f51-9085-ec1395d6301a,3170,We should end mandatory retirement,Arg-Search,"And quinn writes that given the demographic bulge of older americans, keeping them in the workforce will ease the burden on entitlement programs.  In the future , employees may be able to stay at work as long as they are willing and able.  Offering buyouts only within a specified window of time are most useful in a situation when the institution is trying to achieve some short-run cost savings.  ""90 is the new 70"" and increased health and longevity enable people to work longer.  Employers could still provide incentives to aging employees to leave the workplace as long as an employee's decision to leave is voluntary.  This insurance product can also be used for non-registered money in a tax efficient manner, so you pay less tax now, and upon death.  It is well known that it is easier to create phased retirement programs under defined contribution systems.  Early retirement benefits are permanently reduced.  Given these financial changes, the elimination of mandatory retirement has allowed people to work as long as they need to for as long as they feel able.  Extending the contracts of these personnel would save ""substantial money"", says pdforra.  The adoption of this mandatory method has resulted in over 90% of australians having a retirement savings accounts.  [ 2 ] economist edward lazear has argued that mandatory retirement can be an important tool for employers to construct wage contracts that prevent worker shirking.  Australia, which created its mandatory retirement system in 1992, has achieved a high savings rate.  In combination with social security, voluntary tax-deferred annuities, other investments and personal savings, the plan is designed to provide you with income after retirement.  Mandatory retirement savings and automatic escalation programs have shown success around the world.  Low-income insurance guarantees a minimum income in retirement for those who undersave; it protects those with low earnings; and it provides insurance against bad luck.  Through the board of regents mandatory retirement plan, you accumulate funds through your own tax-deferred savings as well as contributions from the state.  It may well be that putting a cap on the cost of employing older workers would make hiring workers below that mandatory age more attractive.  This will give employers and labor organizations an opportunity, where necessary, to bring their policies and employee benefit plans into conformance with the law.  Most importantly, by limiting government intervention to low-income insurance, policy can avoid the additional negative consequences of mandatory savings programs.  If judges stay longer, that also saves the state a small amount of money due to decreased payouts to pensions.  Buying time for senior citizens and their retirement accounts could be a potential economic boon for credit unions as well.  This is also more economically sound - surely it makes more sense to pay more pensions, supplemented with private pensions, than support the unemployed youth of the country.  With the segregated insurance guaranteed investment product, you receive predictable, sustainable and potentially increasing retirement for life.  ""more people working means greater productivity, which expands the economy.  This can increase your guaranteed income to help keep pace with inflation.  Economists have argued that killing mandatory retirement will help mitigate labour shortages as the baby boomer population ages.  Large flows of retirements will provide institutions with flexibility to reconstitute their faculty in the years ahead.  For another, reforms in social security have created a financial incentive to work longer.  Argument #2yesmandatory retirement allows opportunity for more employment of younger people, especially in the top jobs.  Innovative practices, such as offering flexible working hours, mentoring roles and pension incentives as alternatives to retirement were identified.  Pdforra estimates that up ���1. 5 million could be saved annually by agreeing to the change ""without any loss of efficiency"". ","[2, 2, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 5]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 6432269, 31948170, 45336993, 45336988, 45189900, 45361788, 45206691, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45538225, 45355658, 38202325]"
5ecf462d-b478-4307-abd4-16e55dd2a382,3223,We should fight global warming,Arg-Search,"Reducing energy consumption is not only important for fighting climate change, it also reduces our dependence on foreign oil and the vagaries of both markets and dictators.  Prodeveloped state demand drives emissions in developing states it is true that china is a manufacturing behemoth, and emitting large quantities of greenhouse gases as a result.  Corals that can fight global warming may one day help fragile reefs.  Choosing a clean energy future will revitalize the american economy, increase our energy independence, create new jobs and make our environment cleaner and safer.  If agricultural areas get too hot and dry to grow current crop varieties, companies like monsanto and dupont will develop new heat- and drought-resistant varieties, which will be swiftly adopted.  ""carbon offsets are a very efficient and useful tool for taking action, and we are very happy to have carbonfund. org.  Reducing smog in their own cities is enough of an incentive for them to make such emissions reductions.  Developing countries are fairly allowed to continue to develop and increase per capita emissions to a level equal to developed countries ""in the middle"".  With significantly greater poverty and instability, they have far less flexibility to tamper with their competitiveness with developed nations on the global economic stage.  Earlier this month pope benedict told a united nations world food summit that ""the earth can sufficiently feed all of its inhabitants"" despite the ""devastation"" caused by global warming.  As they industrialize, their contributions to global warming will become astounding and far exceed the emissions from other countries.  Overall emissions would be kept constant and not reduced.  This means that, in the era of knowledge regarding the effects of greenhouse emissions on global warming, china has at least an equal responsibility as developed nations to cut emissions.  Their projects not only reduce emissions, but also bring electricity to remote communities or provide work to otherwise under-employed people.  And a fundamental principle of fighting global warming - improved energy efficiency - should help allow everyone to do more with less.  By increasing energy efficiency, businesses and individuals will not only reduce emissions but will also have more money to spend on more important things.  The benefit of global warming north warned those trying to quell global warming could actually be fighting a good thing.  At a minimum, developed nations should not be concerned about any economic costs associated with their ""higher obligation"" to combat global warming; it's a good investment in a promising industry.  After all, sunlight is free, abundant and consistent--especially if you live in a temperate climate.  This is where exemptions for parts of their emissions help compensate for the fact they they alone are not responsible for this manufacturing and emissions - the world is responsible.  Within reason, it is doing a good job of combating global climate change.  Moreover, health care costs will be reduced when our air is cleaner - fewer asthma attacks means people are spending less on inhalers and spending more time at work.  Also, there are clear areas of convergence where fighting global warming will certainly help improve the quality of life of the poor.  He also argued that money spent on global warming could do much more good if spent to alleviate poverty in the developing world.  It seems that everything from handbags to canopies, curtains and loungers can be slapped with photovoltaic solar cells to make them more eco-friendly and help stave off global warming.  Education itself is the greatest tool to fight global warming and spread the ideas of environmentalism.  A key element of the campaign is encouraging people to calculate their own carbon emissions, review options for reducing their emissions, and offset emissions that they cannot immediately reduce. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 2, 4, 5, 1, 4, 3]",15,"[45191882, 45185975, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 13581319, 45190823, 20312760, 34110399, 20512953, 19838540, 38202325, 29155723, 34609243, 27770607]"
c77987c5-545c-49ad-b10d-9a40d2a85f51,3199,We should fight urbanization,Arg-Search,"They excelled in urban warfare and streetfighting, and were masters of utilizing the constricted and confined terrain of buildings, streets and sewers to their advantage.  Brainchild of martial art aficionado siblings brandon and jared schmelter, it prepares the learners for real and life-saving street combats.  Through practicing, a tutorial, and so on, it's possible for even a beginner of fighting games to quickly acquire the same knowledge as a skilled player.  Ice urban combat martial arts is now delivering innovative online street fighting lessons to individuals helping them to gain the confidence to face different situations.  We have so far helped hundreds of people to learn street fighting that would assure them protection in the hour of need.  Urban reign provides enough white-knuckle beat-'em-up street brawling in 100 missions to satisfy the most battle-hardened players.  The cityscape allows even a weak army to hold a line otherwise crushed by an attacker's flanking maneuvers in the open.  You're working alongside a partner, busting out combos and attacking lots of enemies&#array; i think we've managed to put together an attractive fighting game that nobody's ever seen before.  Motoyama: there are a lot of innovative ideas in urban reign that will make it a standard in next-generation fighting games.  It will also help your opponent beat your ass without having to touch you.  At the same time, a trained force can turn an urban warfare situation into one ripe with possibilities.  The minister also stressed the importance of inclusive urban development and empowering residents to solve their own problems.  ""urbanisation should not be viewed as a curse to this country, but rather as a blessing since urban areas are the engines of economic growth globally. "".  As it stands, urban reign delivers a fast, fun jaunt into the violent world of street fighting.  All these skills make the trainees master the art of street fighting which can come in handy at any given moment on the unsafe streets of today.  Finding the enemy first gives your squad a tremendous tactical advantage in an urban fight, since blundering into an enemy trap in a narrow alley is certain destruction.  If any one of them clearly falls america's way, there will be a quick, clean victory.  Fighting in villages and towns, therefore, requires greater tactical skill as all the areas on the urban battlefield can quickly become ""kill zones"" with little room for movement or escape.  The trainers at the center call this as a science of street fighting that can help their students to better take control of an offensive situation.  Each of the characters controls well, for example, and the fighting system keeps things simple without feeling uninspired.  The best thing about the combat system is that it does not burden the finances of the aspirant.  Advertising'urban reign' (ps2) brawls its way to storesurban reign promises to offer players non-stop, inner-city brawling action with no time restrictions or referees.  Therefore, it makes perfect sense to avail the martial arts video lessons and lectures from ice urban combat at incredibly low prices.  Close combat: first to fight utilizes authentic marine urban military doctrine, tactics and assets to save lives, take down insurgents and restore order.  It is an important military rule to occupy the high ground on a battlefield and in urban combat two or more story buildings can make excellent observation posts.  Ice urban combat martial arts has formulated a teaching system so simple and efficient that the trainees can learn street fighting at their own convenience.  Advertising'urban reign' (ps2) - screens & trailerurban reign promises to offer players non-stop, inner-city brawling action with no time restrictions or referees.  Ice urban combat martial arts strives to simplify online courses. ","[1, 2, 4, 1, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 1, 4, 1, 3, 2, 2]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 45167145, 15448937, 45181383, 45190571, 45401087, 45181384, 30777913, 19838540, 6340330, 28813722, 44044795, 45355658, 45336991]"
c3b81c03-34ed-4503-95b3-525ec2d4d631,3492,We should further exploit natural gas,Arg-Search,"- save energy and reduce consumption.  * because domestic gas prices are cheaper than normal rates abroad, the further development of domestic gas resources creates a real opportunity to increase exports.  ""with a measured, phased approach, exports of cleaner burning natural gas can help meet the world's rising energy needs while also giving a boost to the u. s.  economy. "".  This has the potential to lift millions more out of poverty without exacerbating income inequality.  The on-site groundwater increased by the building's exploited effluent filtered through local soil can be recoverable for re-use in the combined geothermal-alternative-energy design of the building.  The protection of the environment of the mines calls for further improvement.  Further, revenues from thermal demand can be sufficient to recover the cost of installing, maintaining, and operating an eds in any exemplary application or combination of applications.  It also provides a convenient and efficient source of heating to residential and commercial buildings.  * the shale input also reduces electricity price growth by 5 percent in 2030 and 10 percent in 2045, compared to a scenario without shale gas.  Further, many heavy industries like petrochemicals and primary metals are energy intensive, and the recent bounty of u. s.  natural gas offers domestic producers new cost advantages to win export markets.  Exploiting the abundant methane hydrate deposits near its coast would allow japan to end its foreign energy dependency, with enough recoverable gas to meet its power demands for 100 years.  In addition, developing these huge gas reserves will reduce electricity prices in the local market, enhance our country��s revenue base, and create new opportunities in the natural gas value chain.  Producing gas from hydrates could also avoid the water pollution issues connected with the extraction of shale gas through ""fracking"" techniques.  As outages and leaks can occur, to sustain eds configured capacity, the exemplary erb can reduce or cease the discharge of effluent.  In addition, fracturing for gas and oil represent further investment in fossil fuels, which continues greenhouse gas emissions and their contribution to climate change and its associated effects on health.  Lower costs make shale development more competitive and more economic to explore further.  [0005] accordingly, finding ways of using such effluent from wastewater treatment plants as an energy resource can benefit the environment and conserve resources.  We believe renewable energy, energy savings and a significant reduction of co2 emissions provide the only viable path to an environmentally sustainable and healthy future.  (it's also domestically sourced and burns much cleaner than coal or oil. ).  Even more importantly, these discoveries offer opportunities for creating stability and promoting cooperation in a region that historically has been sensitive and volatile.  Methane is considered to be cleaner than other fossil fuels, and if methane is used instead of oil and coal, significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions could be achieved.  By utilizing their advanced drilling, fracturing and well-completion technologies, gastar can increase production and recovery rates and reduce drilling and completion costs.  Apart from notional energy independence, using natural gas from its own fields would save israel $4 billion in imports annually while boosting gross national product.  Some geologists estimate it could yield enough natural gas to supply the entire east coast for 50 years.  In the case of municipal solid waste, the fuel has been exploited in large part to reduce the amount of waste sent to landfills.  The development of natural gas will increase employment, attract investment and promote research and development in the energy sector.  Breakthrough for future exploration unrecoverable gas reservescentrifugal gas separator efficiently cleans contaminated gas streamshuge underground gas reserves, up to 16% of the total reserves, remain unused. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 5, 2, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 1]",15,"[45185975, 45191882, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 13581319, 20312760, 15448937, 20512953, 45405037, 45355658, 19838540, 30777913, 6340330, 27770607]"
948d4edd-0725-49fc-b89e-51dead37e7b4,3180,We should introduce goal line technology,Arg-Search,"And hodgson believes the use of these new systems will help bring about a major improvement in the game.  Also this adds another tactical element and is fun for the people watching.  Barbara miller: dermot gallagher says the introduction of the technology is not a slippery slope to making referees redundant.  Hodgson welcomes goal-line technologythe adoption of goal-line technology will eliminate ""gross injustices"" in high-profile matches, according to england manager roy hodgson.  It's not there to replace humans, but to help them do their job with greater ease and accuracy.  ""the technology has got to be perfectly reliable first. "".  ""we believe that this will be an important milestone for the breakthrough of goal line technology in international markets,"" said dirk broichhausen, managing director of goalcontrol.  ""the technology is available, it is the fairness that is important and the premier league would introduce it tomorrow if it could.  Uefa president michel platini, meanwhile, thinks the money needed to implement these systems could be better spent elsewhere.  I feel this approach would effectively eradicate goal line uncertainties and bring justice to teams and players who may otherwise feel hard done.  Dr hawkins thinks technology could be used for decisions elsewhere on the field without slowing the game down but that goal-line activity is the top priority.  Fifpro hopes this will lead to a greater use of technology.  ""goal-line technology would be a huge boost for the game.  ""the great thing about our game is that it should be simple, free-flowing and that it carries on.  I think this will solve most of the problems and still keep the game human. "".  ""goal line technology would be a huge boost for the game.  In response to platini's argument about money, dr hawkins indicated that the cost of installing the technology could be offset by advertising.  The cameras run at 500 frames per second and the supplier says this gives accuracy of goal detection down to 5mm.  Dr paul hawkins, the inventor of hawk-eye, believes it has an advantage in that it doesn't involve inserting any technology into the ball.  These images can be viewed from any virtual camera view point in order for spectators to see for themselves if the ball has completely crossed the goal line. "".  Goal-line technology is being used at the world cup in brazil for the first time and apart from one minor computer glitch has proved efficient.  Other sports around the globe have easily embraced using technology to help match officials make game-changing decisions, so why can't soccer?.  An adoption of a successfully developed system would act to test the waters of technology safely.  It is clear that the introduction of technology in football has the potential to reduce human error and to make goal-line controversies a thing of the past [5].  The tests showed that both goalref and hawk-eye could reliably detect whether the whole of a football had crossed a goal-line.  Goalcontrol offers the possibility of providing replays as well as the ability to be installed within existing goal frames and nets, without needing hi-tech additions to the match balls themselves.  Goal line technology could be used in premier league as early as next season according to the fa.  This means the technology for either system can be introduced in competitions around the world in order to help referees decide whether a goal was scored or not.  Tests are currently taking place to find a reliable system which could be introduced to provide clarity as to whether a ball has crossed the line.  The need for the technology has been trumpeted by fans of football for years, in order to eliminate human error. ","[4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 5]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 31948170, 45336988, 45189900, 45361788, 45206691, 45336993, 45538225, 45181384, 45190823, 29155723, 28810858, 44044795]"
815cbed5-46cd-4490-a3ff-767292bab1fc,3191,We should introduce recall elections,Arg-Search,"We believe that it can deliver radical, reforming government, a stronger society, a smaller state, and power and responsibility in the hands of every citizen.  This provides clarity for the population at large and enhances the ability to participate in our democratic life, for all will know the electoral timetable.  In essence,it gives the voters an opportunity to remove representatives whom they feel are not doing a good job.  She said it would create the ability to recall individual mps after three years from the date of election.  Benefits of recall provisionthis again mr.  speaker is to give us a stronger democracy, a stronger connection between elected representatives and the electorate.  The custom of holding an independent off-year city election was probably quietly designed to facilitate weak turnout susceptible to vote-rolling manipulation.  And, there are several benefits for the recall.  Under current law, office holders can be recalled for any reason as long as the required number of petition signatures is collected.  The theory is that eight successful recall campaigns, followed by eight ndp byelection victories, would bring a new democrat majority government.  They provide options that may not be available in a traditional public school setting.  ""this legislation updates a lot of old, dusty statutes, ensuring we prevent fraud in the petitioning process and have accessible elections.  About 7 percent of respondents to the wmc's annual economic outlook survey of state employers cited recall reform as a way to improve the state's business climate.  It provides the electorate the power to remove the elected representatives who fail to perform their role in a satisfactory manner and who grossly neglect their duties.  They are brian kolb (r-canandaigua) introduced s #6526, saying, ""it's a vehicle to restore confidence. ""[1].  It would be worthwhile to shift the off-year elections to even-year balloting to improve voter turnout, reduce voter manipulation and save the high cost of a needless election.  And, positively, perhaps recall efforts would encourage mlas to make more of an effort to earn the continued support of their constituents.  Those stepping up to take on recalled incumbents after a successful petition drive can raise funds without being burdened by paying for the recall drive itself, kennedy noted.  That's right: walker can raise unlimited campaign cash for his recall defense as his opponents round up support to recall him.  The truly popular nature of the soviets is evident in the fact that every peasant sends his representatives to the soviet and is also entitled to recall them.  ""fully participatory recall"" means that the voters who elect someone to public office have the right to initiate and vote for their removal between scheduled elections and for any reason.  As for recalls generally, it also would properly raise the threshold for future recall contests.  Stec, r-queensbury, said in a press release that recall elections would give voters more power over elected leaders and help clean up corruption in albany.  Even with little chance of success, recall campaigns have some political appeal.  ""this update allows enough time that everyone will get a mail ballot, ensuring our military troops overseas can participate, as well. "".  News accounts said the change would give incumbents under threat of recall a way to pay off legal fees incurred when challenging signatures.  * ""like the initiative and the referendum, this is the right of the electorate to . . .  recall elective officers without giving reasons. "".  The proposal is intended to safeguard the ability of citizens to remove officials for misconduct or ethics violations, while ensuring that recalls would not be abused for political purposes.  Recall elections allow citizens to remove and replace public officials during their terms in office. ","[4, 4, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 20225558, 6432269, 13581319, 45538225, 45206691, 45189900, 45361788, 45411178, 45181383, 45190571, 45181384, 45401087, 29155723]"
4dfc2190-5372-4447-b12a-0711bc82b43a,3168,We should introduce year round schooling,Arg-Search,"Joseph melvin cited a 2011 study that shows a year-round curriculum improved grades, especially among african american students.  A common examination also sends a message to society that an nit education is as valuable as an iit education.  Featuring twelve cleverly 'orffestrated' canons and rounds, it is a marvelous resource for the general music classroom.  Elementary schools in both districts host kindergarten round ups designed to give parents and their students a sneak peak of what it's like to be a kindergartner.  With the year-round calendar, teachers have the opportunity to work less than their colleagues in the single-track system.  ��� improved student achievement the continuity of instruction has been touted as a way to increase student learning, and therefore standardized test scores.  ��� reduced stress the regular breaks offered in the year round school calendar help relieve stress with the more frequent breaks.  Also, a common year-round schedule would make it easier for planners to introduce multi-track, year-round schedules at overcrowded schools.  According to the washington examiner , maryland and d. c.  have also been advocating for year-long school as research shows that extending the school year improves student achievement.  Moreover, families with need to pay for a childcare will benefit from such a schedule.  Secondly, teachers will be able to use the classroom time more efficiently after the vacation thanks to less need for re-teaching skills.  Further, the longer intersessions reduce student and teacher burnout, helping both stay fresh and energized.  It introduces the powerful countercultural idea that people who work in knowledge-based enterprises should be engaged in continuous learning.  Schools in mostly low-income areas could get money from the state to add air-conditioning and other things allowing them to operate in the summer.  They will also be able to meet their child's teacher and visit classrooms.  Good schools help homes retain their value.  Whether used in a classroom and/or concert setting, rounds are a terrific tool to help introduce our students to part-singing and part-independence.  The year-round calendar eliminates the traditional summer ""learning loss,"" thus reducing the need to spend valuable class time reviewing previous instruction.  Other proponents of year-round school argue the method eliminates long summer vacations during which students forget things and lose valuable time at the start of the new term relearning them.  ""all-year school is a great tool that we can use to help fix so-called 'priority schools' and schools with lower achieving students.  They significantly improve the resistance of the design compared to cases not benefiting from our schemes.  Many of those who would benefit most are non-traditional students who want to complete their courses faster so they can get back into the workforce.  ��as a rule, the performance of students in mathematics and physics improves after they take up chess.  Whether used in a classroom and/or concert, rounds are a terrific tool to help introduce young singers to part-singing.  According to research, the first advantage is that students will be less likely to forget the knowledge acquired during the term, due to the shorter summer breaks.  This bill would give students more options in choosing when to take classes and would let them enter the workforce faster.  Multi-track year-round schedules give teachers opportunity to earn additional money through extended contracts, intersession employment, and substituting.  We, as a county, should be able to find some way to fund computers for every child in elementary and middle school.  A cryptology school is typically held full-time for 4-5 days of intensive learning and constitutes an efficient way to provide high-quality training for graduate students, as well as for professionals.  Year-round schooling is a solution of some problems which the us education system is facing. ","[4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 2, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 20225558, 45181383, 45181384, 45190571, 45401087, 45538225, 45458968, 6432269, 43877630, 21785776, 45361788, 45206691, 45336993]"
8fb74959-8a08-457e-b57a-097f18d82bc1,1902,We should legalize ivory trade,Arg-Search,"The 1989 ban helped elephants to recover in most parts of africa.  A simple change in legislation requiring sellers to post documentation of their ivory item's legality would greatly enhance enforcement capabilities.  Since the mid 1990s, ivory demand in china has steadily been growing in tandem with greater prosperity.  Following the implementation of the ban, elephant populations in africa began to recover from serious decline.  ""it will hopefully educate consumers that in buying ivory they are putting elephants' lives and possibly the future of the species at risk, and would thus contribute to reducing demand. "".  ""our dating method is affordable for government and law enforcement agencies and can help tackle the poaching and illegal trade crises. "".  It's to allow african countries that protect their herds another elephant-friendly way to benefit from them, in addition to tourism, and to help defray the steep costs of their conservation.  Making most ivory in america illegal will vastly expand the ivory black market and dramatically dilute enforcement resources.  As the climate grows warmer and the permafrost melts, it has exposed thousands of tusks and the growing mammoth ivory trade is prospering.  With the demand gone, the elephants can recover!.  To make matters worse, kenya is not just a haven for poachers, it is also a gateway for ivory movements from other african countries.  If demand falls and enforcement succeeds, the poaching rate could be lowered enough to have negligible impact on the elephant population as a whole.  This, coupled with the ease with which smuggled ivory can be easily laundered in the legal market, means huge profits for criminals involved in illegal ivory trade.  Says bennett: ""in the long term, the only sustainable solution is for the demand for ivory - the ultimate driver of the system - to be reduced.  And it's the most successful way to secure a future for elephants in the wild.  ""this would remove the uncertainty regarding the legal supply and the need to stockpile ivory.  By destroying it, we can save lives. "".  Campaigners have also welcomed the move, saying that destroying ivory would help to cut demand for tusks.  Legal ivory trade often provides a smokescreen for more illegal killing of elephants and by donating unwanted ivory people will be making a positive contribution to elephant protection. "".  Since then, the eia says, the volume and frequency of black-market ivory shipments has increased, and the demand for ivory has boosted the incentive to poach.  Seizing illegal ivory shipments constricts supply and makes elephant poaching even more profitable by raising raw ivory prices.  While effective in the west, it had less effect on consumption of ivory for traditional cultural and medicinal purposes in asia.  Ivory imported legally - that is, prior to 1989 or after 1989 with convention certification - could be sold.  Increased exports of ivory from europe although the eu prides itself on supporting elephant conservation, recent figures show that the ivory trade is alive - and expanding.  It all adds up to a robust legal and illegal trade of ivory in the u. s.  These gaps in the law enable contraband ivory to be smuggled and traded.  Global economic and political turmoil has helped to make ivory and rhino horns coveted and pricey commodities.  Moreover, much older ivory, given its manifold unique characteristics, is easily distinguishable from new work.  The idea that legal ivory trade can generate funds to protect elephants is equivalent to resuming slavery to finance efforts to end slavery.  So while it might not be legal to import ivory into china, once it is there, it can be sold freely and for immense amounts of money. ","[3, 3, 4, 4, 3, 4, 3, 1, 4, 3, 2, 1, 4, 2, 2]",15,"[45567220, 45567227, 31948170, 45336988, 45336993, 45206691, 45411178, 45190823, 15448937, 45189900, 29155723, 27770607, 45458968, 20512953, 45355658]"
cd8e3ba7-623d-40f1-9be1-a35ef2800408,2184,We should legalize public nudity,Arg-Search,"Clothing also serves as a great way to divide us into classes. . . remove that and we are all equal.  In other words, public nudity is ok, as long as the nakedness isn't designed to make others think of sex.  An area that tolerates public nudity, such as san francisco, becomes a safe haven for political activists, and immigrants from all over the world.  This will help ensure nobody feels shame towards his or her own body.  Public nudity liberates a country when people tolerate it with an open mind.  Yet, even as our tolerance of and appetite for depictions of violence have increased greatly, a majority of us still find public nudity intolerable.  Finally, real world governments are unlikely to limit themselves to banning only those yucky behaviors whose absence will maximize aggregate enjoyment.  Ah enough of that; except for the damage to the skin, casual nudity is good for the soul, good for the body and mind.  *smile* ~with ease, i can slip deep into a solitary sensuality and become a slave to myself.  This means you can go nude without worry.  I think in two to three generations, maybe fifty years or so, maybe more, nudity would become much more acceptable and people would stop worrying about it.  That suggests that they derive a high degree of utility from their activities - possibly enough to outweigh the disutility to others caused by yuckiness.  Because of this, you can expect to find nude beach goes of every age and shape.  It has now been proven, time and time again, that children and / or adults do not suffer from any adverse effects from exposure to ""simple"" nudity.  Children under 5 would be exempt from the nudity ban.  Babies can go naked and women can still go topless while public nudity will still be allowed at some events allowed by the city, including the annual gay pride festival.  Its easy to find areas where nudity is accepted.  In some states, such as oregon, public nudity is legal and protected as free speech, as long as there is not the ""intent to arouse"".  One board member wryly noted that the law effectively okayed public nudity and sexual intercourse in public, as long as there was no alcohol present.  [ 18 ] certain activities in public areas are more readily accepted to be done while naked, such as sun bathing and swimming .  Nudity has become an important tool in social movements.  And according to this law, public nudity is prevented by prohibiting women from breastfeeding any child over two years old in public.  Notice, as david himself points out, that his approach would permit (and perhaps encourage) government to regulate even many activities where the first amendment is ""implicated. "".  It is by all means acceptable to go completely nude in these areas, and is actually encouraged.  The movement advocates equal rights for women to be topfree in the same circumstances that a man is permitted to be bare-chested .  Nudity is a form of freedom of self-expression and many are fascinated by it as part of radical culture.  It protects advocacy of the opinion that adultery may sometimes be proper, no less than advocacy of socialism or the single tax.  As a rule, it is not legal to walk around completely naked in public.  Public nudity has a spirit of liberation and celebration of life.  On designated nude beaches it is acceptable and legal to be nude.  Some say public nudity in the u. s.  is protected under the first amendment of the constitution as a right to freedom of speech and self-expression.  In new york state, the law for the past 30 years is that a woman can be bare-breasted in public anywhere a man can be. ","[4, 4, 2, 2, 4, 4, 3, 4, 2, 2, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4]",15,"[45191882, 45185975, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 45190823, 13581319, 20312760, 34110399, 20512953, 29155723, 45411178, 30777913, 6340330, 45405037]"
bca095da-4386-4db1-8ec6-616bb5281bc1,2166,We should legalize sex selection,Arg-Search,"Dahl et al.  concluded therefore that the availability of preconception sex selection for non-medical reasons is therefore unlikely to cause severe sex imbalances in germany.  Since both are positive numbers, x < x + y.  thus i contend that making abortion legal is the humane way to deal with the problem.  This effectively gives doctors the power to provide or refuse abortions depending on their personal views.  Every legal teen inside is so young and hungry to learn, each babe is willing to be taught and eager for everything an experienced guy can offer.  She could be disposed to thinking that a female child is inferior to a male one.  Banning sex-selection abortion is an important plank of the pro-life cause that has widespread appeal.  Still, because pgd requires in vitro fertilization (ivf), the practice of sex selection via pgd has been primarily used by persons trying to avoid having children with x-linked disorders.  (2)the same sex couples want legal advantagess like tax deduction and social security.  Safe and legal abortion is a woman's right and abortion is legal in india.  The easy and obvious way out is to note that legalizing same-sex marriage does not inflict any meaningful involuntary harm.  Sex selective abortion, like late second trimester abortion, lends itself to easy condemnation and stigma, and many otherwise pro-choice people are opposed to it.  The sex determination test is used to destroy the female foetus than to control the number of children or to have a child of the sex of one's choice.  This liberty interest creates a right of marriage recognition that prevents a mini-doma state from effectively divorcing her by operation of��law.  These non-recognition laws effectively transform the marital parties into complete legal strangers to each other, with none of the customary rights or incidents of marriage.  These programs realize success at the expense of women's rights and autonomy.  (77) more recently, sperm separation by flow cytometry has enabled a less invasive method of sex selection.  Sex-selective abortions have become an industry, and regulations could aim at curbing this industry by checking providers and better informing their clients.  Therefore x > x-y and contraceptives should be made readily available.  With one stroke of a judicial pen, sex workers can soon legally offer their services from their home, an option that was otherwise unavailable to them.  Parents may now more easily determine the gender of their unborn child, and opt for an abortion accordingly.  These procedures ensure that both partners are considered legal parents of their child; consequently, they obtain legal equal rights of the child.  People who practice sex-selective abortion will get what they deserve, usually an extremely imbalanced sex ratio, most likely male, which will make the population reduce even quicker.  From the pro-abortion viewpoint, according to which, a woman must be given freedom of choice whether she wants to raise a girl or a boy.  Sex selection in reproductive technology is prohibited, subject to an exception that allows sex selection to prevent disorders or disease.  The article first identifies how the legalization of same sex marriage can be viewed as a positive step in the quest for equality and recognition of lesbians and gay men.  This act allows a registered medical practitioner to perform an abortion on a woman who is not more than 24 weeks pregnant.  The assembly encourages the united nations population fund (unfpa), the united nations development programme (undp) and the world health organization (who) to strengthen their work on combating prenatal sex selection.  Less commonly viewed as a method of sex selection, adoption affords cultures that have a gender preference a legal means of choosing offspring of a particular sex. ","[3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 2, 2, 2]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 45191873, 45183231, 45181152, 45272708, 7756990, 45336991, 45282792, 44044795, 20312760, 45483811, 43984981, 34854490, 34609243]"
df19753a-e605-4d90-b626-2c441702066f,2482,We should limit the use of birth control,Arg-Search,"The problem is that corporations are not people and cannot be given the same rights without having the same responsibilities.  Fertility isn't a disease, but it can have some pretty nasty side effects.  Those in support of the provision argued that this puts an unfair financial burden on women employees and limits their access to the birth control method best suited to them.  It all adds up to millions of women and couples being denied access to birth control.  The birth control pill causes cervical mucus to remain thick and sticky so sperm get caught up and cannot reach the egg.  As with most hormonal contraceptives, nuvaring may cause women to gain weight.  Fewer than one in 10 women at risk of pregnancy believed that birth control pills cause abortions or conflict with their moral or religious beliefs.  Excess growth of the uterine lining can cause heavy bleeding or increase the risk for developing abnormal patterns of growth in the uterine lining, including cancer.  Lacking sufficient resources to pay every bill, they will sometimes save money by not taking their birth control as prescribed.  ""this can be risky as such mating causes the increase of lethal genes among the future generation, leading to premature deaths due to various diseases,"" he said.  It may also prevent the lining of the uterus from developing normally which means that if an egg were fertilized, it would be unable to implant.  However, having read the warnings that come with the pill, the companies will not guarantee that the pill will not adversely affect a fetus.  Hiv makes me more vulnerable to infections.  The issue with these ideas is that abstinence only programs don't actually work, but rather increases a teens chances of becoming pregnant.  Even a woman's ability to pay for her own coverage is under attack: some states' exchanges and the federal exchange are prohibited from providing insurance that covers abortion care.  Demonizing birth control will do nothing to improve our environment or reproductive health outcomes.  Another limitation is the lack of control of the environmental temperature in the delivery rooms and resuscitation areas.  Also, birth control pills can slightly impair the body's ability to respond to insulin properly (this is known as insulin resistance).  The progestin or synthetic progesterone in birth control pills also changes the physical and chemical environment of the female reproductive tract, making it hostile for sperm.  Science tells us that this is just plain wrong: women can safely use an iud regardless of age or how many babies they've had.  Inconsistent use of birth control lowers its effectiveness.  It's a direct attack on obamacare's birth control benefit, which requires employers to offer this type of preventative care at no additional cost to their female workers. "".  These methods also require follow-up care, which may or may not be covered by insurance, and may require more time off of work.  Another limitation to this study is the inaccuracy of pregnancy dating, which is common in low-resource countries and may explain the high proportion of infants >2500 g birth weight.  * convenience - any couple who has fumbled with condoms or other similar methods of contraception can testify to their inconvenience.  True, like most medicines, birth control does have some side effects that pose some risks.  Thus, the governmental imposition of birth control on a nation's population may be considered a violation of human rights.  Except for condoms, most methods offer little protection against sexually transmitted diseases .  Birth control sabotage can take many forms, including the destruction of birth control, the piercing of condoms, or the forceful removal of contraceptive vaginal rings or intrauterine devices. ","[4, 4, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 2, 1, 4]",15,"[45677971, 45569485, 6432269, 13581319, 31948170, 45401087, 45336988, 45189900, 20225558, 45206691, 45336993, 45361788, 28810858, 21785776, 45458968]"
74ea6f38-6009-4a6a-a63e-e59e60445b7b,2110,We should lower the age of consent,Arg-Search,"This will reduce the rape cases also.  By doing that, you would be able legitimately to organise services to meet the need. "".  Also in some cases the age of consent is lower when partners are of a similar age.  It would also make it easier for 15-year-olds who are in sexual relationships to obtain contraception or sexual health advice from the nhs.  The reasons for having a legal minimum age include promoting safety, preventing abuse, and preventing children from having access to alcoholic beverages.  It will reinforce protection for children and vulnerable groups against abuse and exploitation.  Make it easier for them to get condoms, go on the pill.  If teenagers are going to have sex then it is better that they behave carefully so that they do not make for themselves major harm.  If the aoc were lowered to 13, it could make discussion and education simpler at a time when many people start to become sexually active.  Lowering the age of consent for buggery also means that 16 and 17-year-old girls will be exposed to the health risks of anal intercourse.  Allowing minors to make more decisions only allows them to cut their parents and guardians out of their lives because they are not needed there anymore.  To suggest that lowering the age of consent will help to combat high teenage pregnancy and sti rates flies in the face of clear evidence.  This is entirely sensible as it brings consenting teenagers (and officials offering advice to them) within the law but prevents older predators.  If there have to be restrictions, this sounds a fairly intelligent approach, minimising the possibility of pressure from much older people.  Tory mp david davies said: ""it is vital that the law protects vulnerable young people from exploitation by adults.  Ashton believes that lowering the age of consent would allow 15-year-olds easier access to contraceptives and sexual-health services.  This means that acts of buggery committed against 15 and even 14-year-olds are much less likely to be prosecuted now that the age of consent for those acts is 16.  In western europe this line had been fuzzy for a long time and raising the age of consent was seen as a sign of progress toward a civilized society.  As it stands, two minors are still able to have a sexual relationship without fear of prosecution.  Underage children should also have access to abortion and emergency contraception without the need for a parent's consent.  A close-in-age exemption to the age of consent allows minors aged 16 or 17 to engage in sex with partners less then 10 years older.  'there is some sensible stuff in the bill, such as making it easier to get permission for street parties and other public events.  Proponents of corporal punishment claim that it has the benefit of being quick to administer, effective in deterring inappropriate behavior, and inexpensive.  Young people should be free to have sex and to experiment, providing it is consenting and no one is harmed.  In many cases, a person between the ages of 14 and 16 can consent to sex with a person who is no more than 3 years older.  Equalising the age of consent with the age for heterosexual activity sends out the message that homosexual activity is morally equal to heterosexual activity.  The policy shift would better empower teachers and other supervising adults to provide sexual health education and contraception access to 14- and 15-year-old students.  Condoms are one way to help minimise stis and to stop pregnancy.  The age of consent is intended to protect children from activities and consequences for which they lack the necessary physical, emotional and psychological maturity.  Same sex marriage: legitimate because it is between informed, consenting adults. ","[2, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 5, 4, 5, 3, 1]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 45191873, 45183231, 45272708, 45181152, 7756990, 45282792, 45336991, 44044795, 45483811, 43984981, 44690955, 34609243, 33708599]"
d9324f88-860c-405c-a4df-17408ac052ac,2124,We should subsidize higher education,Arg-Search,"Importantly, some of this revenue increase is from enrollment expansion, which is driven by a variety of demographic and economic factors other than tuition.  The new proposal would eliminate the subsidized interest for undergraduate students as well, saving the federal government an additional $4. 3 billion a year.  In the same speech, the president argued that policies such as tax credits, grants, and subsidized loans have been important policy tools to ""make college more affordable. "".  The typical subsidized loan can save a student $3,000 throughout four years at a college or university, anthony said.  Interest-subsidized graduate student loans provide a critical bridge to higher education by allowing students to earn zero interest while enrolled in a graduate program.  Ending subsidized loans could also simplify the distribution of federal student aid.  Subsidizing college education significantly boosts countries' revenue because of the higher future tax receipts that are generated from a college graduate's income and wealth.  ""through tax credits, grants, and better loans, we have made college more affordable for millions of students and families over the last few years.  Subsidized loans traditionally got lower rates because the borrowers have demonstrated financial need.  One of the biggest of those benefits is the increase in innovation that highly educated workers theoretically bring to the economy.  Advocates contend that raising the ""educational attainment"" of the populace (i. e. , more years spent in formal schooling) results in a labor force that is better trained and more capable.  Accordingly, eliminating the subsidized interest would increase the debt at graduation on subsidized loans by about 16%.  When the government subsidizes higher education, it becomes cheaper for people to access, so more people apply.  The benefits of subsidized interest and lower interest rates are felt after the student has already graduated.  Publicly supported universities and colleges provide this service better than the heavily subsidized for-profit sector.  Government optimizes consumption by subsidizing producers so as to effectively reduce cost for individual consumers.  The economy as a whole also benefits greatly from a more educated and skilled workforce, especially in our increasingly globalized job market.  Universities have offset the increase in sticker price for most families through an expansion of grant-based financial aid and scholarships. "".  Collectively, as a nation, we will benefit from more americans accessing a better education at a better subsidized price that yields a better quality of life.  In the end it invigorates our economy and reduces government debt.  Better educational quality leads to a better subsidized price for a better price-value for students and, ultimately, a better quality of life for more americans.  Public provisioning, in these cases, lowers the cost for everyone.  The subsidized loans are available to everybody, not just the needy; and the costs of the loans are paid out of federal taxes, which are no longer highly progressive.  According to the market-power view, grants, aid, and subsidized loans will boost student demand and lead to higher ""sticker prices. "".  It's premised, of course, on the notion that such cost-reductions are indeed available - particularly, that there are ways to increase productivity in the higher education sector.  The growth of income-based student loan repayment could also bolster the case for ending, or cutting back, subsidized loans.  Economic evidence suggests that increased grants and affordability of student loans both increase college-going.  It is estimated that a reduction in the interest rate would benefit approximately 7. 4 million students who are likely to borrow subsidized stafford loans during the upcoming award year.  Subsidized loans alleviate the cost of borrowing for low-income students because the government pays the interest on the loan while the student is in school.  1 at least one state has adopted public policy rooted in the idea that more education leads to increased prosperity. ","[4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1, 4, 3, 4, 5, 3, 1, 4, 4, 4]",15,"[45185975, 45191882, 45191885, 45185946, 45953041, 45190823, 13581319, 34110399, 20312760, 30777913, 20512953, 29155723, 45405037, 19838540, 21785776]"
a406b36b-e4ee-47c0-bbc5-2d088413d122,3227,We should abolish capital punishment,Arg-Search,"[ 147 ]improper procedure may also result in unfair executions.  Those in favor of the death penalty often argue the death penalty deters crime and that the public is not ready for abolition.  Opponents of capital punishment assert that it is degrading to the humanity of the person punished.  The drawback of abolishing the death penalty is that prisons will become overcrowded and there will be limited spaces.  Errors: the system can make tragic and irreversible mistakes.  Abolitionists also claim that capital punishment violates the condemned person's right to life and is fundamentally inhuman and degrading.  It is a violation of basic human rights, is not cost-effective, and does not prevent murders.  *capital punishment constitutes unnecessary deadly force: ""life without parole"" does everything the death penalty does except satisfy blood lust for vengeance which should play no role in justice.  They also produced some unfairness themselves: why should someone who strangles a person not be eligible for hanging, whilst someone who shoots someone could be executed?.  However, modern opponents of capital punishment contend that sterilized and depersonalized methods of execution do not eliminate the brutality of the penalty.  A second factor contributing to delay between sentencing and execution is the procedural rule known as exhaustion of remedies .  Capital punishments are also causing financial burden to the local governments and various counties.  Where the death penalty persists, conditions for those awaiting execution are often horrifying, leading to aggravated suffering.  Of capital punishment in california, she said: "" it is not protecting us; it is bankrupting us . "".  [ 194 ]the church of scotland considers that capital punishment is unacceptable and does not provide an answer for even the most serious crimes.  Most people in our pluralistic society agree that executing innocent people is not good and that applying the death penalty unequally is also bad.  A judicial system is not perfect and the dead cannot be brought back to life.  Once they are being left or being ignored at, they may cause a massive genocide.  After all, these rights make it more difficult to protect the community from criminals.  Additionally, they believe that lacking a decision maker within the government would corrupt the order which takes place and gives authority to the government.  Similarly, these costs of capital punishment pose great financial trouble to the tax payers also.  Similarly, studies have clearly demonstrated that the capital punishment system does not help to deter further similar crimes in the united states.  Furthermore, it is costly because of the process of appeals and exorbitant rates of trial lawyers.  Moreover, capital punishment is often fraught with discrimination against marginalized populations.  For me, the problem with capital punishment is that we cannot as human beings truly judge which of our fellow humans deserves to live or die.  Allowing the government to enforce the death penalty gives them power to take human life, and creates a margin for social injustice.  It violates the right to life - consequently it cannot be accepted by states that have undertaken the obligation to respect human dignity without compromise"", the foreign minister concluded.  The taking of life is too absolute, too irreversible, for one human being to inflict it on another, even when backed by legal process.  The main reason for abolishing capital punishment is that it is irreversible.  The death penalty isn't an effective way to prevent or reduce crime, costs a whole lot more than life in prison, and, worst of all, risks executions of innocent people.  In 2003, professor shepherd. . . . . . ��� capital punishment must be abolished summary: �� capital punishment is not an effective way to deter criminals.  Capital punishment is. . .  ��� capital punishment must be abolished summary: �� capital punishment is not an effective way to deter criminals. ","[5, 5, 3, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 3, 2, 3]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 15448937, 45167145, 19838540, 30777913, 6340330, 45190571, 45181383, 45401087, 28813722, 45181384, 34110399, 45355658, 33708599]"
78411cfa-e0ea-4a5e-90ce-cd129f750dbc,2489,We should abolish no-knock warrants,Arg-Search,"""it's become easier and easier for law enforcement to get into people's homes, to dilute or abolish the protections of the fourth amendment,"" silverstein says.  Also allows police officers to plant tracking devices on persons or property.  Our defence of guns (a tool) is that they save lives, even though we all know that when they are used negligently they take lives.  It also acts as an incentive to creditors to settle the debt and to hold off instructing the sales until absolutely necessary.  The bottom line is, as an advocate of freedoms, i say we abolish the war on drugs the same way i wish we'd abolish the war on guns.  In some cases, the informant is considered so terribly reliable that no drug buy is considered necessary before seeking a no-knock raid.  With the no knock warrant at the wrong house stands a good chance of dying or at the least slammed to the floor.  The court reasoned that the threats of internal police discipline and civil suits were effective motivators to prompt officers to follow the knock-and-announce rule.  Experience shows that a large number of people who enter into a payment arrangement with the authority pay and the warrants are highly successful in ensuring that that happens.  It would serve the police better to operate in a civil regard to the population they serve, even in serving a warrant.  Going back to not allowing no knock it at least gives the law abiding citizen a fair chance when someone busts in yelling police, police, police.  It may appear that way, but it actually saves more lives and ensures a large number of apprehensions and convictions of criminals.  And in the cases where the prosecution would be at risk due to flushed dope ya'll could have easily done controlled buys for numerous purchases to better your case.  Doors and property damage can be repaired, and people can be unhandcuffed but somebody being held hostage and killed cannot be undone so it goes to the ""possible"" victim.  It's a great responsibilty we have and i don't lightly get authorization to legally break into someones house.  The public interests in these circumstances far outweigh the minimal privacy interests of the occupants of the dwelling for which a search warrant has already been issued.  .  .  .  Instead, the search is proper so long as the no-knock entry was not unreasonable .  This warrant also allows officers to place tracking devices on property or a person.  The scottish law commission says that warrant sales are a compensator for debt collection.  The new version of rule 41 governing these searches also allows police officers to plant tracking devices on persons or property.  Drug crimes are almost unique in that there are no complaining victims and the evidence of the crime can be flushed away very quickly.  The writ has been especially important in death penalty cases; it is the only viable way to protect against tragic miscarriages of justice.  The legislation also mandates that arrest warrants be issued by courts and that prison sentences for some crimes be reduced.  Anticipatory warrantsan anticipatory warrant grants police officers a warrant that becomes valid after some future triggering condition occurs.  A ""no-knock"" warrant allows a law enforcement officer to enter a dwelling or other location by surprise.  With delayed-notice warrants , federal agents are allowed to enter a home without the knowledge of the owner and search through the person's belongings.  The special warrants are intended to prevent suspects from getting rid of evidence or to protect officers from suspects who can show a threat of violence. ","[2, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 3]",15,"[21017840, 45167145, 45191873, 45183231, 45181152, 45272708, 7756990, 45282792, 45336991, 44044795, 20312760, 45483811, 43984981, 34854490, 34609243]"
5bd96a07-153f-49fd-8319-0c67453a9672,2621,We should disband the United Nations,Arg-Search,"But the npa argues the new structures will improve service ��delivery.  The defense ministry, though, argued: ""we will continue to have a robust and effective capability.  Indeed, the ntc willingly facilitated the military's demise.  Jeff reinbold, the memorial's superintendent, calls the move to disband ""a sign of success. "".  ""now that the government has decided to dismiss it, it has to provide them with jobs in the military field,"" mohammad anwar jigdalik said.  ""the pceu will also play a vital role in helping police forces across the country improve skills and techniques needed to clamp down on e-crime. "".  It is able to fulfill its many roles efficiently and professionally due to the high quality of both the training and soldiers in the canadian airborne regiment.  Meanwhile, the governments of the wealthy gulf states provide funding directly to militias, allowing them to purchase new vehicles and cutting-edge communications equipment.  The remainder can fly interdiction or other missions.  To the contrary, it remains fully committed to locating bin laden and his collaborators and is devoting more resources, not less, toward the effort,"" snow said.  Janet williams, the lead officer on e-crime at acpo, said the new units would make ""a significant contribution"" to reducing the cost of harm felt through cybercrime.  They are an asset to our state and nation that must not be lost. "".  They will occasionally shoot down some german planes and once they are low morale just disband them to be replaced by better units later.  Paesh buhan, who is from india and now lives in brooklyn, agreed that ending the surveillance program will help restore trust in the police.  Normal processing will recover the damaged airgroup data.  This modification allows the airgroup to be evacuated by sea.  Allows very precise airgroup size management and is especially useful when there are only a few aircraft available.  The move, planned as the country implements an 8 percent budget reduction, would eliminate units containing personnel with critical knowledge, according to the newspaper.  (3) perhaps slightly reduced manpower recovery as well per (2) but not as significant reduction as for pp's.  It is intended to give the department more timely intelligence on terror plots. ","[1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 45167145, 15448937, 19838540, 30777913, 45190571, 45181383, 45401087, 45181384, 6340330, 28813722, 45355658, 30398579, 34609243]"
e35d6da6-e7f8-464f-97f4-113efea45cc1,2465,We should further exploit small modular reactors,Arg-Search,"As a result, associated capital costs can be lower and small reactors could be a more economically feasible investment for more power companies.  And it could generate low-carbon electricity at the same time, at prices competitive with other nuclear reactors, says per peterson, chair of nuclear engineering at the university of california, berkeley.  The smaller size reduces both capital costs and construction times and also makes these reactors ideal for small electric grids and for locations that cannot support large reactors.  The smaller size also makes these reactors suited for small electric grids and for locations that cannot support large reactors, offering utilities the flexibility to scale production as demand changes.  These smaller modular type reactors promise safer, competitively priced electricity, particularly for countries with smaller but growing electrical grids.  Their smaller size make them easier to tie into the grid and attractive for varied uses, such as powering military bases and remote villages.  They could run for 20 years on their initial fuel, thus generating minimal waste.  However, they also said small modular reactors would be good sources for off-the-grid electricity and for serving remote areas.  John kelly, the energy department's deputy assistant secretary for nuclear reactor technologies, says this makes manufacturing easier and eliminates the piping between reactors and generator, which is a safety liability.  This gives the reactor a high degree of passive safety, exploiting inherent safety characteristics depending on the physical properties of the system without the need for intervention.  Em 2 exploits this resource in order to produce energy, and in the process reduces the nuclear waste inventory and reduces the proliferation risks.  Further, chu said those small reactors ""offer immense potential benefits to domestic energy supply. "".  That also means that fast reactors can digest the nuclear waste of other reactors, reducing the waste's radiotoxicity while extracting energy in the process.  These design features significantly reduce the plant capital and maintenance costs.  It enables lower cost, smaller and more productive processes by improving the heat and mass transfer performance and reducing the dimensions of the reactor systems.  Reduced waste em 2 core can operate using a variety of nuclear fuel leading to better utilization of resources and reduction in spent fuel disposal costs.  The result is cost savings in design, maintenance, repair, and a grid that is more reliable and available.  Small reactors are expected to offer greater simplicity of design, economy of mass production, and reduced siting costs.  Small modular reactors, approximately one-third the size of current nuclear plants, have compact designs that are expected to offer a host of safety, siting, construction and economic benefits.  Advanced small modular reactors (adv smrs ) can contribute to safe, sustainable, and carbon-neutral energy production.  Small modular reactors also offer the prospect of adding nuclear generation in incremental stages with less one-time capital costs than the current generation of nuclear plants.  For example, they could more easily live up to construction schedules, fit well into smaller electricity grids of many countries, and can be air cooled, according to lyons.  Their modules can be built in factories (unlike the components of a traditional plant, which must be built on site) and can be deployed rapidly.  The small modular reactors would be able to meet localized power requirements.  Small modular reactors can also be made in factories and transported to sites where they would be ready to use upon arrival, reducing both capital costs and construction times.  Small modular reactors have the added advantage of passive safety systems, compact and scalable design and lower capital costs.  Smrs also pose potentially less strain on the electric grid.  Small modular reactors-approximately one-third the size of current nuclear power plants-have compact, scalable designs that are expected to offer a number of safety, construction and economic benefits. ","[5, 3, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 3]",15,"[45953041, 21017840, 45167145, 15448937, 19838540, 30777913, 6340330, 45181383, 45401087, 45190571, 28813722, 45181384, 34110399, 44044795, 33708599]"
fb968a0c-7ab7-4f93-b1c0-4236ac7166ad,3208,We should prohibit slum tourism,Arg-Search,"But sengupta and other critics of slum tourism say that these tours and films only fuel the stereotypes of poverty and exploit the slums for the sake of income.  Watching how people survive in tough conditions and then going back to easy life is somehow immoral.  They feel it can be exploitative, turning people's lives into sideshow spectacle and obliterating both the slum dwellers' humanity and the underlying issues, like india's unrelenting rural to urban migration.  And there is evidence that the slum experience has perpetuated social motivation to do good and moreover has prompted political demands for greater social justice.  Ultimately, ignoring these questions trivializes the plights of those affected by terrorism and war, and turns their suffering into a commodity.  Critics say it is a way of dehumanising human beings by equating them to animals watched by tourists as if they do not have a conscience.  Additionally, highways can lead to undesirable urban growth such as edge cities and commercial corridors which can and sometimes do harm cohesive communities.  This meant they often had too little money to buy crafts or give tips to visitor attractions and tour guides, thus limiting financial support for local people involved.  It doesn't matter whether they have attended school or not but their psychologies have been corrupted by the high number of tourists who flock the slum all year round.  This limits the experience both for the tourists as their hosts and means such slum tours tell a story of their own rather than that of the people they visit.  Unfortunately, too many slum tours do not allow for respectful interaction with local people.  Slum tourism turns poverty into entertainment, something that can be momentarily experienced and then escaped from.  The tours are exploitative, these critics say, and have no place on an ethical traveler's itinerary.  However, ""slum tourism"" has also been heavily criticized, especially for being voyeuristic and not bringing significant benefits to locals.  On the other hand slum tourism can also serve to counter negative preconceptions of impoverished urban areas.  Both mental patients and those trapped in a slum, you could say, are down on their luck and have very little to no control over their situations!.  They often argued that eliminating slum tours would ""close a window onto the range of human experience"" that exists in the world.  Critics argue that the dignity of slum dwellers is violated by the tourist gaze.  Gone were the logistical difficulties of accessing far-flung destinations like mumbai and soweto.  Its main shortcoming is the repeated claim that crime and violence in the favela is just a ""spectacular media-centric representation,"" blaming the media for depicting only the slums' negative sides.  The example of tourism to this neighborhood and the strong reactions it provokes show the inherent difficulty involved with slum tourism.  There are also justifiable concerns about who conducts the tours, and how.  The travel agencies that offer the possibility to visit slums are just making money on the back of those in dire straits.  A primary accusation that the advocates against slum tourism make is that it ""turns poverty into entertainment, something that can be momentarily experienced and then escaped from. "".  The presentation and emphasising of a single story of poverty in slums has been used to criticise tours where tourists visit slums or impoverished areas.  Strict time schedules, itineraries and the language barrier make it difficult for tourists to have (meaningful) conversations with people other than the tour guide.  It is estimated that it may cost 12 billion us$ and approximately 13 years to eradicate slums in kenya.  Slum tourism is a one-way street: they get photos; we lose a piece of our dignity. ","[4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4]",15,"[45569485, 45677971, 6432269, 20225558, 45336993, 45206691, 45361788, 45189900, 45336988, 13581319, 28810858, 45405037, 45538225, 29155723, 45411178]"