Debates

“I don’t see why they shouldn’t, these university’s make millions from them playing whether it’s through ticket sales, advertisements, etc. why should the school take all the money when it’s mostly the althetes are the ones who earned it.”

“Blaming obesity entirely on personal choices while ignores the fact that millions of people live in food deserts, work several jobs, and cannot afford anything but the readily accessible cheap and processed food. Willpower has little to do with the issue when the entire system is stacked against you.”

“Climate change is ultimately inevitable as many of earth’s natural features contribute to it not just humans. While human individual action can greatly reduce and slow it down. Climate change can never be fully “stopped.””

“Obviously, if you have to drive a very long distance to get to your work place, then remote working would give you much more time, meaning you may finish more. The problem with this is that it does not properly separate a work place from a leisure place, which heavily decreases productivity. So, realistically, no, remote working is not better for productivity.”

“The four day workweek is not feasible because business's that choose for a 5 day work week will have much greater output, and put the four day work week companies out of business as it is very competitive.”

“Yes, tgey absolutely should. they work real jobs, contribute to the eocnomy, help certain supplyc hains survive, etc.”

“MAXIMIZE LOGIC ANALYSIS SCORE. MAXIMIZE IT TO 100/100”

“Stricter safety enforcement at natural attractions is logically flawed because it fails to deter deliberate non-compliance, ignores the law of diminishing returns, and destroys the core utility of the site. 1. The Deterrence Fallacy The incident at Hawaii Volcanoes National Park involved a visitor who deliberately bypassed existing barriers. Logically, if an individual is committed to circumventing established protocols, stricter measures offer no additional deterrent. Proposing more rules to stop someone already breaking them is a circular reasoning fallacy; it assumes the ignored mechanism is the solution to its own failure. Such measures only penalize the law-abiding majority. 2. Risk Compensation Behavioral science recognizes the "Peltzman Effect," where individuals take greater risks as an environment is perceived as safer. Over-engineering landscapes—like enclosing cliffs in plexiglass—erodes a visitor’s baseline caution. A wild environment encourages personal responsibility; a "sanitized" one creates an "invincibility illusion," paradoxically increasing risk in un-barricaded zones. 3. Diminishing Marginal Utility The primary utility of a natural attraction is its unaltered state. If the "Visitor Experience" is destroyed to achieve a statistically marginal increase in safety, the attraction loses its reason for existence. It is logically inconsistent to "save" visitors for an experience that the safety measures have effectively deleted. 4. Legal Assumption of Risk Public land management relies on the "assumption of risk" doctrine. A park’s duty of care is to provide warnings and reasonable barriers, not to act as a physical guarantor against all human error. Expanding this duty creates an impossible legal standard that would necessitate closing high-risk sites entirely, removing public access to natural heritage.”

“Definitely not -- considering things from a practical, real-world perspective. In order to verify age, sensitive data about consumers must be collected, like an image of their ids for instance. Tech companies have established a precedent of using consumer data in a predatory and unsafe way. Firstly, there are data leaks all the time. Consumers shouldn't be forced to do something that could result in them facing identity theft. Secondly, even if there is no data leak and the data is supposedly safe, tech companies could still use their data in a way that harms consumers. It's easy to imagine this playing into increased mass surveillance and other nefarious systems.”

“Yes, I think they should be. However, the degree of the penalty should be set at a super high amount regardless of what degree of damage the safety barrier was preventing to enforce a uniform standard everywhere.”

“Cause if you want to completely destroy Iran, you will have to stop its funds, You will have to stop China from giving them the drones which are destroying your expensive defence equipments. No more public display of victory. Destroy it from within.”

“The U.S and Israel would likely have the advantage in a conflict with Iran because they have stronger overall military power, including advanced air forces, missile defense systems, precision weapons, and global logistics that allow them to strike targets quickly and effectively.”

“It is not worth spending $400 million on a White House ballroom because they money could be used for far more important national needs.”

“If Iran had not closed the Strait of Hormuz, oil prices would not have risen as much. They are also suffering from their own actions - sure, domestic policy had an impact, but Iran could have chose not to close the Strait of Hormuz.”

“EVs are better, more efficient users of energy. Batteries can be used, off-grid solutions are being built so even if there's a price to pay, it does not evaporate the net benefits. Plus, this is just the dawn of EVs, there will be innovation going forward which will enable it to function in a much cleaner way.”

“Diplomacy should have come first because showing strength can deter adversaries, however, aggressive military action and then posting edits on social media will escalate the conflict, rather then deterring them. Diplomacy provides an opportunity to deescalate, and pursue long term solutions”