Most active channels

Most discussed users

Most supported premises

Forcing the US incarcerated population into high-labor jobs would lower US gov't expenditure on prisons and incentivize companies from outsourcing labor jobs overseas.

A nation with an economy dependent on cheap prison labor would be more inclined to imprison arrested citizens, reinforcing America's incarceration rate, which is already the highest in the world.
7 supporter.

The death penalty is wrong.

The right to a fair trial includes the right to appeal a sentence. That right guarantees no specific outcome, but it protects a citizen's right to attempt. Immediate execution is unconstitutional.
1 supporter.

Plants should have the right to vote.

Plants are not citizens. They do not pay taxes, and therefore are not granted the rights that human citizens are granted, including voting.
1 supporter.

Forcing the US incarcerated population into high-labor jobs would lower US gov't expenditure on prisons and incentivize companies from outsourcing labor jobs overseas.

Studies have shown that filling an inmate's day with work keeps their mind occupied, lowering instances of adverse activity and violence. Teaching them skills they can apply after release also lowers the rate of recidivism, contributing to rehabilitation for society.
1 supporter.
1 fallacy report.
Irrelevant Conclusion

Forcing the US incarcerated population into high-labor jobs would lower US gov't expenditure on prisons and incentivize companies from outsourcing labor jobs overseas.

As of 2010, working couples paid an average of $500 in taxes that were used for corrections, cumulatively, for federal, state and local institutions. If the prison system was a closed ecosystem, that tax burden could be carried by the incarcerated themselves, loosening taxes on struggling families.
1 supporter.

If we were to abolish all ethics, humanity will be able to answer many scientific things about the human body (And possibly augment it) that would have taken decades and possibly centuries to answer.

The basis of medical science is to improve the lives of both individuals and humanity as a whole. If the method of study causes outright harm, then it has already disregarded its purpose and nullified possible improvement. It trades one health for another, rather than improving net health. Does harm
1 supporter.

If we were to abolish all ethics, humanity will be able to answer many scientific things about the human body (And possibly augment it) that would have taken decades and possibly centuries to answer.

To assume that the absence of ethics in human subject research will result in hasty and notable advances in knowledge makes assumptions about what can be learned. It's very possible that even in the absence of ethics, many of the questions we have will remain unanswered for centuries to come.
1 supporter.

The United States should implement a social welfare program both dedicated to repairing historic racial injustice, but open to all needy citizens

Opening accessibility to federal funding on the basis of racial prejudice is a non-quantifiable condition. There is no ability to measure which Americans are the biggest sufferers of racism.
1 supporter.

If we were to abolish all ethics, humanity will be able to answer many scientific things about the human body (And possibly augment it) that would have taken decades and possibly centuries to answer.

One cannot build an experiment based on the assumption that the conclusion is already known. That's not science. This means that every experiment has the chance that the hypothesis (with it's huge implications for engineering, etc.) is completely wrong. It's better to use methods that cause no harm.
1 supporter.