{"input": "CMV: Lining up to get on an airplane is pointless. + \n + This boggles my mind. \n\nI know that some airlines are different like Southwest because they do not have assigned seats. But why don't people relax until their seating zone/group is called when you have a reserved seat?\n\nIt's not like the gate person knows that the boarding tunnel is clear or that the previous zone has almost completed been seated.\n\nIt just seems more relaxing for everyone to go in a \"just in time\" fashion versus standing in the tunnel, then standing in the plane and trying not to make the person in front of you who is trying to get into their seat anxious.\n\nIt's a small thing, but its madness and because we can only fit one lane of people in at a time it seems really inefficient for so many people to be standing around.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:Sniper as a class has no place in TF2 [X-post /r/tf2] + \n + A little background, I have over 600 hours in tf2, mostly playing as pyro, soldier or medic. I don't think that anything would be lost from TF2 if sniper was entirely removed.\n\nA good sniper has no real counter apart from another sniper, making them frustrating to play against. A majority of the other weapons have damage fall-off to discourage long-range play, further separating the sniper as a class. \n\nAs far as I can tell, snipers mainly exist to pick off slow moving or high value targets, which the spy already does and does in a more interesting (to play as and against) way.\n\nI can't see any way the sniper, sitting at the back of the map away from the action, adds to the game (as a side note, I also think the removal of sniper would do nothing but good for the class diversity on pubs).\n\nPlease, CMV!\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: If college education was free, the value of a degree would decrease. + \n + One main argument I've seen against the Bernie Sanders \"free college tuition\" idea is that if everyone has a college degree, the value of a degree goes down.\n\nIs this true? In countries like Germany and Denmark, only the best of students make it into higher education, whereas in American, our standards to get into a university or a community college are laughable. \n\nWould we need to raise the bar on admission requirements if college was free?  The main argument here is that making college education free in our system would end up hurting the overachieving students.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Washington DC should not be a state. + \n + So this is a direct instance of a broader point: In a nation-state like the USA, the national--federal--capital should be outside of any state being represented.\n\nI'm not from DC, but my family moved there a few years ago and I had this debate recently with them. \n\nI fully respect the wishes of DC residents to be represented, and I think that the problem started way earlier. The problem is that in DC as it is right now, there's too much going on that is not directly related to it being the seat of the national government. \n\nI believe that the seat of national government should be just that, the seat of national government. And nothing else. In my ideal world, DC would consist of federal government buildings and embassies, as well as essential services to support those, and that's it. \n\nI have no problem with some of the solutions that have been proposed, including moving much of the area of DC within the boundaries of either Maryland or Virginia. However, no area that has as its role being the seat of the national government should also be a state.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: mobile payments like Apple pay, Google wallet, Samsung pay, etc. Are pretty useless when in a great majority of instances, it takes just as much effort to just pull out a credit card. + \n + People treat this \"feature\" like it's the next big thing... It's really not.  It'll be cool the first time.  \"yo dude, check this out. Ima buy this can of coke with my phone\" and then you proceed to try it and it fails and you try it again and it works and then your friend says \"cool.\"  \n\nBut other than that, there isn't much to it.  I realize that it's not nearly the first useless \"feature\" in the mobile industry but I just want to hear the point of view of those who think this is so revolutionary.  Just pull out your card. You don't look cool buying Starbucks with your iPhone... \n\n\nCMV lol\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: We are seeing the beginning of the end of Nation-States being the primary form of Civilization. + \n + This concept as it applies to the Middle East is explained by former Stanford Research philosopher [Jay Oglivy in a recent interview.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&persist_app=1&v=J5ZcSwhPUzg)  He notes that while the Islamic State keeps their religious front, the economic factors have become a firmer root in their actions long-term.  \n\nIn Latin America, of course, this trend of shifting tides has been occurring on a smaller scale for some time, with Cartels on both the large scale and decentralized smaller scale destabilizing/continuously picking at the governments of Colombia and Mexico respectively.  The latter is divided currently between Cartels associated with either the Sinaola Federation, the Tierra Caliente, or the Tamaulipas.  \n\nEven in Europe, where our modern definitions of the Nation-State were born, intrinsic faults with this structure are showing in the crisis of Greeks default today.  Whereas individuals or corporations would have only themselves to blame if they lent money to a poor investment or borrowed money they couldn't ever pay back, [societies collected under the national governments of Germany and Greece have used political systems to push the issue of unplayable debt to its inevitable conclusion, and both are to blame.  [Beyond the Greek Impasse</a> is republished with permission of Stratfor](https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/beyond-Greek-impasse)  The problem here comes from the European issue of Social Democracy, which built up entitlements as \"rights\" to material goods, which would never be assumed in a private institution, where some degree of input is always expected for participation.  More often than not these kind of institutions form a meritocratic chain of command, where rational analysis means much more than opinion by a momentary \"popular vote\" substituted for fact. \n\nNo firm of organization has been eternal, from hunter-gather, to city-state, to classical empire, to feudalism, to now with the \"nation-state.\" As Jay said, the most likely form of socio-political organization to come is the Market State, where the ability of greater actors to achieve economic profit will determine the trend of global events, much more so than any state.  In Austrian Economics, one such version of these Market-States is known as the REA, or Rights Enforcement Agency, which could be a preferable theoretical alternative to the partly Theocratically driven Islamic State, if put into practice.   Such experimentation may be necessary if we wish for the future of civilization to remain stable.  \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Extreme hunters are morally equivalent to omnivores. + \n + So-called 'extreme hunters' like giraffe killer Rebecca Francis regularly and deservedly receive public shaming, but few of us think twice about grinning at our lamb chops come dinner time.\n\nNo, this will not be another tired vegetarian diatribe; I want to pose the question as to why we humans seem to have a tendency to readily aboard the vigilante bandwagon for the giraffe killer but not the lamb killer. If both animals are equally peaceful and unthreatening to us (giraffes and lambs), what makes us react to Rebecca Francis with such vitriol but then react with such nonchalance to human omnivores, ourselves included?\n\nThere's no shortage of gruesome scenes being pictured in animal rights campaigns, so the macabre happy snaps next to the dead giraffe couldn't have been macabre only due to the dead animal being in frame. No, it was probably the fact this dead animal was a giraffe. I mean, come on! A giraffe! Who does that?! Well, perhaps we're simply unaccustomed to the idea of dead giraffes. It might be so far from 'normal' (to us) that it just makes it automatically wrong.\n\nIt's a bit like if I said I had intimate relations with my sister. For the record, I have no sister and so have had no such relations. But if I did, you'd probably say it was disgusting and unethical - but why? Couldn't there be some instances of incest which are moral? What if we'd used protection, were both adults at the time, fully consented to whatever standard, no one other than ourselves knew, and it didn't have any negative consequences whatsoever now or in the future? According to research by moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt, you're still more likely than not to react negatively to this scenario, despite there being few if any good reasons left for thinking so. Haidt termed this 'post-hoc rationalisation', our tendency to jump to an intuited moral answer and then come up with its justifications afterwards.\n\nHave we merely intuited our moral outrage to Rebecca Francis' photo next to her long-necked victim? Partly, perhaps. If the economic world was flipped and our centres of global commerce and industry were in Africa, we might live in a society which farmed giraffes and wildebeest instead of sheep and cattle. In such a society, a dead lamb might set off the same reaction as a dead giraffe has in our society, it would be equally far from 'normal'.\n\nThough this isn't just about what's normal and what's not. Part of our reaction was reasoned, not all of it was intuited - or, at least, our intuitions happened to be supported by good reasons in this instance. Online commentators reasonably posed questions like Where's the fun in killing a giraffe? and Can't you find enjoyment someplace else, perhaps where you're not killing?\n\nWhat's intriguing about these questions is how easily they can be transposed to the act of eating lamb chops: where Rebecca Francis killed a giraffe for apparent mere enjoyment, many of us regularly participate indirectly in the killing of lambs for mere enjoyable sustenance. Where's the fun in killing a lamb? and Can't you find enjoyable sustenance someplace else, perhaps where you're not killing?\n\nNow, I did promise this wouldn't get too preachy, so instead of dwelling on these questions, let's consider how and why this cognitive dissonance occurs.\n\nFor one thing, most of us who eat meat aren't directly involved in the killing or otherwise of the animal, whereas Ms Francis was (and seeing a grinning killer lying next to a carcass readily sets off emotional dials). And how could someone be happy about such a peaceful animal's death if it was only for that sake alone? At least lamb-eaters aren't necessarily happy about the death of the animal they're eating, but are merely happy about their culinary experience - a consequence of the animal's death.\n\nHowever, if the experience of 'extreme hunting' is actually what Rebecca Francis is happy about (which seems likely), then her enjoyment isn't necessarily anything more than - like meat - a consequence of the animal's death.\n\nIf mass-produced lab meat was indistinguishable from 'real' meat, might we feel more comfortable hoeing into our lamb chops? I think so, and I think we'd care a lot less about Rebecca Francis' happy snap if it was taken next to a life-like robot giraffe.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is nothing wrong with parents choosing to be on first name basis with their children. + \n + I don't see an issue with children being raised to use the first names of their parents in interaction, if that's what that particular family is comfortable with. I view it as a personal choice. While I don't think or feel any kind of way toward other parents wanting to be known to their children simply as mother/father, the idea has never resonated with me and I would personally prefer to be called my name.\n\nOffspring can easily acknowkedge a parent's role in their lives without referring to them only by the title of their relation to them in every interaction. To me, little would change. I see it as a matter of parental preference, like the kind of car driven. I can retain my individual identity without it interfering with or undermining my authority. If anything, I think that's a valuable lesson for a growing person to understand.\n\nI don't think simply being/not being called mother or father augments respect, bond or parental relationship dynamics if that is the family understanding. Of course, there is a difference when a family has an agreement to refer to the parents via parental title and the kid/s proceed to later call them by first name to ruffle feathers. That isn't the situation I'm referring to.\n\n The usual arguments against individuals who prefer to be called by their name rather than a generic mom/dad seem to be along the line of 'They're your child, not your friend', which in my eyes is a leap. Defining somebody by their label doesn't give their position more credence. Respect, authority, boundaries and understandings are established in countless ways more significant than being called by a title the kid should implicitly know is yours. If there is something wrong with all parties in a household being on first name basis that I am missing, enlighten me.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: If a woman gets drunk and has regrettable sex, It is in no way \"rape\" or the man's fault for \"taking advantage\" + \n + I will try to keep this short and to the point. Nearly every day I hear in a conversation, see on an advertisement, or read on the internet something along the lines of: Having sex with a drunk woman regardless of consent is rape. Although I do agree that it is very low for a man to have sex with a drunk woman just because she is drunk and somehow \"easy\" I do NOT agree that if a woman is drunk, has sex, and regrets it later on, that the sex should be considered rape.\n\nThe only instance where sex or any sexual acts should be considered as rape is in a situation where the man/woman **explicitly** says a form of \"no\". whether that is verbal, body language, or otherwise. EDIT: I should note that if a man/woman is passed out, too drunk to speak, or something in a similar pool, I would strongly consider all of those circumstances in which the person cannot express a yes or no to be rape.\n\nI happen to have a close male friend who while he and a woman were drunk, had sex with said woman. This woman grew to dislike my friend and explained to the police that it was rape since she did not know what was happening. Luckily after things got more legal she  backed down and dropped any potential charges. This is only one of so many hundreds of stories similar to this.\n\nIn conclusion:\n* consent is just the same drunk as it is sober.\n* regretted sex (of any kind) is not rape\n* It is not a man's job to not have sex with drunk women, rather it is everyone's job to understand consent and to understand that drinking can lead to regrettable/bad decisions.\n\n\nI want to say again that I am not in favour of sober people having sex with drunk people. I do understand the opposite view thoroughly but I do not agree with it.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The amount of finger pointing and agenda molding in American politics has become disgustingly inappropriate and is senselessly preventing the solutions to the real issues + \n + So this is an opinion I've had for a while, but after a recent bout of returning to watching certain news stations, it has been grinding my gears particularly of late. To me it seems that any tragic event which is deemed worthy to be broadcasted semi-nationally to nationally becomes fodder for both sides of the political spectrum to either smear the opposition or further their own agenda to a point of being disrespectful of those involved. For example: (And if there is more to this story then I apologize but I am basing what I know on what the common man sees in the news) the recent San Fransisco murder by the 6-time deported criminal. Yes I can understand how this would be a call to repair larger issues, but what I have seen so far has been nothing more than democrats pointing fingers at republicans to cover their tracks and republicans pointing fingers at the democrats to further their own agenda. All the pointing happened almost immediately after Donald Trump's immigration opinion controversy so the events wound up being the perfect fuel for fires. To me this it has almost been disgustingly disrespectful to the victim and her family to have been blasted on the news and using their tragedy to further political agendas. Along with values of disrespect, instead of actually addressing the issues at hand and working to form a solution to actually fix the issues at hand, both sides are so caught up in their own hot air that they refuse to work together and are actually being a detriment to any positive progress.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Monuments to confederate soldiers are symbols of racism + \n + Written hastily, but hopefully I can clarify any mistakes in comments, here we go:\n\nThe Confederacy was racist according to the cornerstone speech and secession papers (tx):\n[Cornerstone Speech] excerpt (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/)t:\n\n\n[Texas secession papers] excerpt(https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/secession/2feb1861.html):\n\n\nIf the new government the Confederacy was trying to replace the current one with was based on that Cornerstone, there is no denying the Confederacy was racist. Those that fought for the cause of the Confederacy and helped further it, helped further \"the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition\" are culpable.\n\nPoint 1: Someone who fights for a racist cause, helps create an institution to power that racism, and otherwise spread it is racist. People who have done this don't deserve to be monumented, or at the very least don't deserve to be monumented something as defining as a town square.\n\nPoint 2: A monument with the words \"Our Confederate Soldiers\" cannot monument just the soldiers without endorsing their actions to some extent.\n\nPoint 3: The image of a Confederate soldier being a defining landmark in the center of a city is an endorsement of the Confederacies actions and perpetuates racism by virtue of it being a defining part of the cityscape.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Doping should be accepted in professional sport and the Olympics + \n + Lance Armstrong won the Tour de France seven times by taking EPO and--when a test for EPO was developed--by taking blood transfusions during the race to increase his red blood-cell levels. He passed all of the blood tests (shy one, where the story of using a particular ointment for saddle-sores was concocted to explain it).\n\nDoping in one form or another is always going to happen, and there will always be another method that can escape detection. If you're a professional athlete, or an amateur competing in high profile tournaments such as the Olympics, then you either dope or you face a significant disadvantage.\n\nI don't think this will ever change, and the consequence is that every winner will be tainted by doubt, so I think the only way to address this is to change the policy to allow specific types of doping.\n\nBall-shrinking, liver wrecking, life endangering drugs would still be banned for the safety of the athlete, but anything that's either harmless (blood transfusions), or at the same level as \"professional hazard\" (like brain damage for boxers), would be allowed.\n\nOne of the things that encourage me to have this view, and that I'd like addressed if it's wrong, is my understanding that the IOC relaxed their criteria for gender verification. \n\nThe reason, as I understand it, is that there were simply too many legitimate side cases, so the hardline rule couldn't be enforced. Someone genetically male might have Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome or XX/XXY mosaicism, for example, and grow up looking like a woman to anyone but a gene lab.\n\n\nFrom Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_verification_in_sports\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think libraries are useful and should stick around for the foreseeable future + \n + 1) There are books on the internet but it's harder to get anything non-popular on the net than by going through a library.\n\n2) By sticking all kinds of books next to each other in one place, one is exposed to a variety of content. \n\n3) A lot of libraries have computers/free internet which is obviously hugely useful to people who need information and don't have access to the internet. Homeless people, people who ran away from home, who were kicked out of their house, etc.\n\n4) Libraries are also useful places for people who wish to study to go to if they cannot find quiet time at home for whatever reason.\n\n5) Paper is easier to read for a prolonged period of time than LCDs. Ebooks are changing this but many work with library systems for borrowing books.\n\n6) People need places where they are exposed to ideas that don't come from their friends or corporate overlords to maintain a diverse outlook on life which is arguably necessary for a happy society. \n\n7) Many libraries also have various free programs to help people find jobs/etc. It's a nice, convenient rallying point of sorts for community assistance.\n\nCMV.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Game publishers are holding the franchises we love hostage and its only a matter of time other publishers follow suite. + \n + So, with konami doing everything in there power to ruin MGSV and now square enix [pulling this shit.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJkzcQDqbpE)  I thought it was about time I brought out an issue and why it angers me so.\n\nYou see, it wouldn't be a problem if I could just say boycotting would work. But guess what? It won't. And both konami and square enix knows this. Deus Ex is a niche but brilliant series and it wouldn't take much for the series to go back to sleep for another decade (if not permanently) due to lack of sales. So i have a choice. I can boycott this game (which, concidering human revolution, is probably going to be pretty good pre-order bullshit or not) and then never have another deus ex game for god knows how long or I just shut the fuck up and buy it near launch. And no, buying it 2 years down the line won't help the series because square enix have already proven they only care about the short term sales. And they know this damn well. Thats why they're pulling this shit to begin with...\n\nAs for konami? They're basically done with console gaming all-together so they couldn't care less what \"gamers\" think about them at this point in time. And they just know theirs absolutely no way in hell people are going to skip out on Kojima's last metal gear solid game. So what are they doing? They're squeezing out as much as they possibly can out of us by doing the most lazy, sleazy shit this industry has seen in quite a long time.\nAnd don't say \"I'm just going to wait for it to go on sale!\" HA! Lets be real here, no you're not. You'll say you will in the comments, but you'll fall to the temptation. You always do.\nSeriously, guys, I have no idea what the hell we can do and I fear its only a matter of time before other publishers follow suite. \n\nMaybe I'm being to cynical and things will be okay? Because if I am, please convince me because things look very dire from my point of view.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: If you CONCIOUSLY and CONSENTUALLY put something in your body that you KNOW makes you make bad decisions, it's not rape. + \n + If this is a duplicate post, I apologize, an AutoMod told my my old version was too short and that it was removed.\n\nHere's my logic, though:\n\nIf I get drunk and blow off all my money, it's my problem.\n\nIf I get drunk and crash my car, it's my problem.\n\nIf I get drunk and get into a fight, it's my problem.\n\nIf I get drunk and have sex, it's my problem.\n\n-----------------------\n\nOf course, though, if you slip something into my drink and have sex with me, that's not my fault, and if you give me a drink and say it's Mountain Dew when it is actually something that knocks me out, it's your fault.\n\nSo if it wasn't concious and consentual, then it's still rape.\n\nAnd if you were given it under a false idea of what you were ingesting, it's arguably still rape. (But if you say, oh sir I didn't know that alcohol makes you make bad decisions it's not rape)\n\n------------------------------\n\nworknman brought up something I didn't think to address, but I meant if someone says \"yes\" and has something in their body that they put in themselves that they knew makes them make bad decision, it's not rape. A drunk person *can* give consent if they consentually got drunk.\n\nSo also, if someone attempts to have sex with them and they say \"no\" and are too drunk to fight back, it's still rape, because they didn't give consent.\n\n---------------------------\n\nI'm probably gonna get lynched for asking this, but it's basic courtesy. Please don't downvote everything I say just because you disagree, please. It's very obviously going to happen, but please, just don't.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Our 11 Year Old Daughter is Too Young to Have a Personal Email Account or Text her Friends + \n + We are parents to an an 11 year old daughter.  According to her, she is the only kid going into 6th grade in America that does NOT have her own email address or texting enabled on her ipod touch.\nWe admit - we are protective parents - one of us is a computer architect/engineer specializing in internet security and hacking prevention - and former wild kids ourselves, not wanting to make the missteps our parents did with us. I've asked some of her classmates parents what they do with their kids and I get mixed reactions. Some have regrets, another mom thinks I'm being too tight assed about it (her daughter is 9 and has an instagram account-- with 175 'friends??\")  I'm really trying to wrap my head around giving my tween email-freedom but really struggling with it and hope someone here can change my view.  I totally understand - My daughter wants to fit in and to be able to correspond with friends, and its embarrassing for her when kids ask for her email and she doesn't have one at 11 yrs old. It's hard to find general information about suggested age parameters for tweens and email & other social media accounts. So---Please CMV on the issue of controlling my 11 year old tweens 'rights' to an email address, texting, etc.  \nThank you in advance for your feedback...", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Equal pay in sports for men and woman atheletes cannot be attained currently, due to economic factors associated with demand, not social injustice + \n + I'm seeing a lot of heat against FIFA because of the unequal pay distributed to US woman soccer players compared to men. (See this article for more info: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102811922) \n\nNow, while I agree that pay gaps are a problem in ~~general~~ some fields, sports is a different ballgame (no pun intended). As such, the success of a franchise is dependent on the supporters who pay money for tickets, gear, etc. If we were to look at attendance figures for the National Woman's Soccer League (NWSL) for 2014 compared to Major League Soccer (MLS), we see a huge disparity in people attending games. \n\nOf course, this translates over to other leagues. The NBA draws more people than the WNBA, both live and TV ratings. The revenue of the NFL is exponentially greater than the Independent Woman's Football League. \n\nI'm not here to provide solutions to this, or look into why the mentality of America draws more into guy sports. Yes, I think that ladies should be paid equally. ~~I also think ladies have the ability to play all sports as good as men do, if not better.~~ And of course, ladies have as much of a right to play in any sport and play it professionally. But (and yes here comes a South Park reference) \"...you can't expect people to watch.\" My conclusion: the pay gap in sports is a consequence of economic revenue, rather than social injustice. \n\nOpen to any replies and criticism.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: America can't afford universal healthcare or free college education. + \n + I really like Bernie Sanders for his honesty, integrity, and his views on election finance reform and foreign policy. However, I don't know if I can support him because of his main campaigning points: free healthcare as a right for all, and free college education.\n\nBoth things obviously sound amazing, but I worry that we simply cannot afford it. Where does the massive amount of funding come from for these things? Bernie talks about fixing corporate tax loopholes, but will that really bring in enough income?", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Transgenderism is a mental illness, and the only reason were treating it as a social issue is because we have the means to cater to them. + \n + Title is self explanatory, but I'll elaborate. \n\nMental illnesses are seen as a deviation of \"normal\" human thought or behavior.  Behavior that we as animals find unnerving, dangerous, or anxiety inducing because of our *biology* are seen as mentally Ill behaviors, or thoughts. \n\nAn individual being born with a given gender, and appearing to be that gender, and functioning perfectly as that gender (biologically), but having a disconnect with how his mind feels about his body shows that his mind is sick. \n\nThe only reason were catering to these people instead of giving them the psychological care they deserve is because we have the means to. We can (to a certain extent) change your gender. So well make it a social issue as to not leave these people out, because now we don't have to. \n\nBut let's take a different route. \n\nLet's say I genuinely believed I was a mermaid (Merman? Merhombre?). You'd think I'm a loon, my behavior and my belief goes against social norms, I would be labeled as mentally ill.  But if the technological means came available to give me gills, and a tail then a social movement would gather around mermaidism, and people would expect to be taken seriously. \n\nOr so goes my thinking. \n\nI've fielded the other side and spoken to some transgender individuals, and I still don't buy the argument that it's not a mental illness. \n\nCMV \n\nPerhaps I should add: I'm a staunch libertarian, while the above is my view I fully believe that if that's what they want to do, then go for it, this is America god damnit. ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Day drinking is optimal. + \n + I will preface by saying, I am referring to the benefits of being drunk in itself. Being drunk generally feels good. However, alcohol consumption to the point of feeling drunk has negative health effects. \n\nGetting drunk at night, assuming a normal sleep schedule, typically entails falling asleep while drunk. Yet...Your body is still experiencing the negative effects of alcohol while you sleep through the benefits of being drunk. You are incurring the cost of being drunk, while not realizing the benefits. In addition and based on my personal experience, falling asleep while drunk does not lead to waking up well rested.\n\nThe obvious arguments against this will be with regards to social life. I completely agree that if getting drunk with your friends gives you additional utility, by all means drink at night. However, if you are simply looking for that strong buzz now and again...Day drinking is the way to go. \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Low information voters who are not interested in learning political issues should be discouraged from voting. + \n + People who have no interest in politics, and are not interested in learning about the candidates and issues should not be encouraged to vote under the pretense that it its their \"patriotic duty\" or that they are \"supposed to\". I believe it is the duty of all citizens eligible for voting to do so, but only as informed citizens. If they are unwilling to become informed, they should not be encouraged to vote. Please note that this does not mean that their right to vote should be infringed, simply that other people should not encourage them to do so.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is no \"wrong time\" to break up with someone + \n + You often hear complaints that a person is a bastard/bitch for breaking up with his/her girlfriend/boyfriend just before/after X event (be it a graduation, Christmas, death in the family etc.). I think that this is entirely unreasonable. If one has made up his/her mind to break it off with a romantic partner, there is no need to delay the inevitable. There will invariably be some reason why \"now is not the best time.\" Further, it is dishonest to stay with a person for any length of time after deciding conclusively that \"this person is not right for me and never will be.\" Staying in the face of certain relationship termination just to get past X event is unfair to both individuals involved. \n\nObviously this train of thought only applies to long-term committed relationships rather than casual or non-exclusive ones. \n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think the minimum wage system we have now is not optimal. + \n + I'm not sure if this is the right subreddit for this, but I think a progressive minimum wage system would be much better. Something like our progressive tax system, but for employers. I'm thinking that an employer should be allowed to give lower wages if they have a small amount of employees and a small or negative profit and vice versa for employers with lots of profit and employees. Now I've only taken a couple of introductory Econ classes so I'm not sure if this plan that I'm proposing is even plausible, but I think it would appeal to a lot of people.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: To push the other person off the bridge is the correct solution to the trolley problem. + \n + For those who don't know, the trolley problem is this:\n\nYou and another person are on a bridge which is over a trolley track. 5 people are tied to the track, and the trolley is coming. You may either push the other person off the bridge, which will stop the trolley before it hits the 5 people, which will kill that person, or you can do nothing, which will kill the 5 people. I add the rule that the trolley will not stop if it hits you, and will only stop if it hits the person with you, which eliminates the \"I'll jump myself\" answer and keeps the idea of the scenario in place.\n\nI believe that the proper solution is to push the person off the bridge. The purpose of the problem is to present a dilemma between utilitarianism (benefitting the most people in the best way) and deontology (doing one's duty in life as in following basic principles), but I do not believe that doing nothing and allowing the 5 people to die is ethical under either mindset. By neglecting to push the other person off the bridge, you have prioritized your own moral standpoint over the lives of not just one, but 5 other people. The idea that one should not kill may be generally applicable, but to effectively condemn other people to die because you do not want to compromise your morals is incredibly selfish, and goes against the implied deontological principle that one should prioritize the needs of others over one's own (especially if one's needs are really wants). In general, I believe that a failure to take a potentially immoral action to prevent an injustice due to the action being potentially immoral is selfish and unjustifiable. CMV!\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: i believe that Christian conservatives who oppose gay marriage are inconsistent in their desired application of the bible to law and politics + \n + I understand that the bible is pretty explicitly against gay marriage and behavior, and I get why religious conservatives might think to use the bible as justification to ban actions,  behaviors, institutions, etc. that would not be banned on the basis of rational, secular reasoning alone (e.g. gay marriage, which does not seem to have any valid secular reasons to ban). \n\n\nHowever, the bible is also explicitly against many things that I do not believe most religious conservatives want to ban. Most significantly, the [*very first commandment*](http://lifehopeandtruth.com/bible/10-commandments/the-ten-commandments/10-commandments-list/) states in no uncertain terms that it is against God's desires for God's people to have other gods. You might argue that this applies only to the Jews and descendants of those Jews who were saved from Egypt. But there are several [other verses](http://www.openbible.info/topics/false_gods) that forbid people from having other gods. Yet I don't see Christian conservatives rallying up, calling for the repeal of the 1st Amendment, and demanding a ban on Hinduism and other Polytheistic religons. Shouldn't \"literally worshipping false gods\" be *just as if not more* apalling to Christian conservatives as \"Two men who love each other getting a marriage license\"? Shouldn't there be just as much of an outcry from socially conservative Christians against the 1st Amendment's freedom of religion clause (which allows Hindus and others to worship \"false\" gods) as there is against legalized gay marriage? It seems to me to be a very inconsistent view of the bible's tenets in forming political opinions.\n\n(Resubmitted as the previous post had a typo in the title)\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: To achieve true equality, we must eliminate capitalism and inheritance + \n + The real problem with capitalism is that there is no equality of opportunity under this system. Your entire life gets determined by which class you happen to get born into. If the effect of this \u2018happenstance\u2019 could somehow be eliminated, so that everyone enjoyed equality of opportunity, then even though income and wealth inequalities continued to remain in society, this fact per se would not be a cause for concern. Access to larger income and wealth would then be determined not by \u2018luck\u2019 (of being born into a particular class) but by ability and effort. In fact, one can even go further: if the capitalist system could be so reformed that equality of opportunity for everyone could be ensured within this system itself, then even the continued existence of a group of people called capitalists and another group called workers, should not really matter. Needless to say, equality of opportunity in such a \u2018reformed\u2019 capitalist society must entail the confiscation to a significant extent, through death duties, of the property of the capitalists after their death so that their children do not enjoy an unfair advantage over others.\n\nEquality of opportunity is possible only in a society which can achieve and maintain full employment without jeopardizing work discipline, that is, only in a society where people work with discipline not because they are afraid of being consigned to the ranks of the unemployed but because they voluntarily internalize the need to work with discipline. This can only be a society where the workers collectively own the means of production. Of course, mere formal or juridical ownership of the means of production by the collectivity of workers is not enough to ensure that they internalize the necessity to work with discipline; they must feel part of a \u2018community\u2019 and transcend their individual self-interest as a condition for this. Equality of opportunity in short is possible only under socialism.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The correct response to someone driving slowly in the left hand lane on the highway is to merge in front of them and drive even slower. + \n + This summer in Colorado I've notice a large number of drivers cruising in the left-hand lane of major highways, at the same speed or slower than the drivers beside them. This is, of course, infuriating, illegal on many areas of the highway, holds up traffic, and increases the threat of road rage from the drivers behind them. Let's call these guys Left-Hand Cruisers (LHC's).\n\nWhen able to pass the LHC, I generally pass on the right, match their speed, merge in front of them, and then let off the gas. I begin slowing down, forcing them to slow or merge right in response. If they refuse to move over, I flash my hazards to get their attention and let them know I'm not going to speed back up for them (or trick them into thinking I'm having issues, whichever.)\n\nThis usually just results in the LHC realizing what they're doing, merging right, and leaving it at that. Sometimes they try to merge back into the left lane once I speed back up, but I just put the brakes on them again. The hope is that LHC's will realize that someone driving slowly in the left hand lane is a nuisance, and holds up traffic. At least they're likely to think about it, and this makes them less likely to cruise in that lane in the future.\n\nEven if they don't learn a lesson, and even if they refuse to merge right, this step will allow the faster drivers that were held up before to merge right (into the now faster lane) and pass the LHC with ease.\n\nThe only real risk is of road rage from the LHC, and I have encountered this. The normal response from them is to swing into the right hand lane, pass and merge in front of me, pedal to the metal. As long as I don't try to race them or anything, it's just left at that. They end up moving more quickly in the left-hand lane, or at least fast enough that I can't pass them again, and I leave them alone afterwards.\n\nWhen I first started doing this, I noticed a significant change in the number of LHC's (after a few weeks), and it went from 2-3 each day to maybe one every week. I felt like I was making a large impact. With the warm weather returning, their numbers are increasing, so I feel that my \"impact\" may have been largely selection bias. However, I feel that it does make some difference, whether in the short run or the long run, and is worth doing. \n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe laws requiring women to cover their breasts in america are no different than laws requiring women to cover their hair and faces in Islamic countries. + \n + So, people in my city are complaining that women are walking around topless in times square. Their fear is that the display of these sexual body parts is contributing to a decay in public decency. However, in Islamic countries, a woman's hair is seen as a sexual body part and their display is seen as contributing to the decay of public decency. I know that the punishments vary from country to country and it may seem more like a slap on the wrist in america, but I think both examples are based on a ridiculous premise. What is the difference here?\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Reddit was wrong to ban /r/fatpeoplehate but not /r/shitredditsays. + \n + I didn't like /r/fatpeoplehate. I thought it was a bad sub that had a toxic community, and I'm glad that it was banned. I'm all for free speech rights, even on a privately owned website, but it encouraged harassment, and in general, the sub was pretty indefensible.\n\nThat said, the given reason of \"harassment,\" while technically valid, rings hollow when other subreddits like /r/shitredditsays are allowed to continue on. SRS has engaged in at least as much harassment as any other community on Reddit, and is in general just as toxic as /r/fatpeoplehate. Yet, it is allowed to remain.\n\nI believe this is because /r/fatpeoplehate is blatant in its lack of political correctness, while SRS could technically be considered politically correct. This suggests that /r/fatpeoplehate wasn't banned because of the harassment it encouraged, but because it was a large sub that reflected poorly on Reddit, and the admins wanted to deal with it.\n\nBanning /r/fatpeoplehate but not /r/shitredditsays demonstrates a blatant double standard, and Reddit was wrong to ban one without the other. CMV.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Charities are a stop-gap solution that exists solely to prolong the social issues created and perpetuated by government and corporate interests. + \n + Society is held together by tape. This tape is the estimated [1.5 million charities](http://foundationcenter.org/getstarted/faqs/html/howmany.html) in the U.S. which offer a range of services to people who have \"fallen in the cracks\" of social policies: the people who the system has failed.\n\nPhysically sick, mentally ill, drug addicted people all rely on charitable institutions, either directly for care, or through research programs funded by donations.\n\nThese organisations are funded by private donations, and \n\n* Relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged,\n* Advancement of religion,\n* Advancement of education or science,\n* Construction or maintenance of public buildings, monuments, or works,\n* Lessening the burdens of government,\n* Lessening of neighborhood tensions,\n* Elimination of prejudice and discrimination,\n* Defense of human and civil rights secured by law, and\n* Combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.\n\nAll of which *should* fall in the domain of the government's responsibilities. The government is effectively outsourcing their social duties to a range of private organisations so that they can mop up the social outfall from government policies such as: \n\n* War\n* Poor healthcare\n* Poor consumer protection\n* Poor social policies (schooling, social programs etc.)\n* Poor prison system \n\nAll of which are outsourced to private organizations.\n\nI believe that if NGO's in the U.S. ceased exist, society would fall apart.\n\nThe role of an NGO is effectively to create a barrier between increasingly destructive government/corporate behaviour and utter societal collapse.\n\n* [633,782 in the U.S. are homless](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States)\n\n* [9.3M are unemployed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_in_the_United_States)\n\n* The US national debt is estimated to be [over $18 Trillion](http://www.usdebtclock.org/) - between 72.5% and 106.525% of the GDP - almost as high as during WW2.\n \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Gun Control groups should drop the Assault Weapon rhetoric and focus on what really causes the most violence: Handguns + \n + Everytime the topic of Gun Control comes up, be it on the internet, on the news or in person, it seems to me that these this point dominates the conversation. And frankly, nothing screams 'I don't know what I'm talking about' more than someone who keeps insisting that 'assault weapons' are the problem (or even *a* problem for that matter).\n\nAre you an individual who is against 'assault weapons?'  If so, here's a fun self-awareness test.\n\n**What is an Assault Weapon?**\n\nDon't Google it, just try and answer it for yourself.  If you're like most anti-gun types, you have absolutely no idea what it actually means.  I ask people this question plain and simple all the time and they get completely screwed up.\n\nThe fact of the matter is, **assault weapon** as a term used in the gun control discussion is completely made up.  For a rifle to suddenly become an 'Assault Rifle,'  all you need to do is add **cosmetic additions** that don't change the functionality of the weapon **at all**.\n\n[Here's an example of what I'm talking about](http://moelane.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/718415097.jpg)\n\nAlright, so we've established that the 'assault weapon' term is silly.  Now, let's look at what is actually killing people.  \n\n[Here's some numbers on homicide weapons](https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8)\n\nAs you can see, handguns are OVERWHELMINGLY used more than rifles ('assault weapons'). Rifles are used less than blunt objects!\n\nBut I know everyone gets worked up over **mass shootings**.  That's what's terrorizing our country, right?\n\nWell, take a look at this Mother Jones [chart](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data)\n\nThe weapons used are, again, OVERWHELMINGLY handguns!\n\nSo why is there is big outrage against AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles again?\n\nNow for my personal interpretation of this data.  I conclude that the polticians behind gun control laws don't actually care about reducing violence.  They rely on the ignorance of their voting base when it comes to firearm functionality and homocide statistics. As such, they pass laws that don't actually ruffle the Gun Lobby's feathers too much, because the cosmetic items don't really matter.\n\nHell, I wouldn't even be surprised if this is exactly what PRO-gun lobbyists are pushing behind the scenes. Anyone who educates themselves for a few seconds on Google can see that 'Assault Weapon' bans are entirely superficial and do nothing to curb violence, which makes the Gun Control crowd look more ignorant as a whole.\n\nWelp, that's about it. Go ahead and take a shot at my view!\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Transsexuality is just about having the emotional profile of the opposite gender, not about being born in the wrong one + \n + I've researched the issue and come to the conclusion that transexuality is nothing but a big misunderstanding, please let me explain.\n\nSociety had a definition for \"man\" and \"woman\":\n\nMan:\n-Has a masculine body and male genitalia\n-Has a masculine personality\n-Is only sexually attracted to women\n\nWoman:\n-Has a feminine body and female genitalia\n-Has a feminine personality\n-Is only sexually attracted to men\n\nNow society has progressed and homosexuality and bisexuality have become more accepted, and thus we have the following definitions:\n\nStraight man:\n-Has a masculine body and male genitalia\n-Has a masculine personality\n-Is only sexually attracted to women\n\nGay man:\n-Has a masculine body and male genitalia\n-Has a masculine personality (possibly a bit effeminate)\n-Is only sexually attracted to men\n\nBisexual man:\n-Has a masculine body and male genitalia\n-Has a masculine personality (possibly a bit effeminate)\n-Is sexually attracted to both genders\n\nWoman:\n-Has a feminine body and female genitalia\n-Has a feminine personality\n-Is only sexually attracted to men\n\nLesbian woman:\n-Has a feminine body and female genitalia\n-Has a feminine personality (possibly a bit emasculate)\n-Is only sexually attracted to women\n\nBisexual woman:\n-Has a feminine body and female genitalia\n-Has a feminine personality (possibly a bit emasculate)\n-Is sexually attracted to both genders\n\nSee the problem here? What happens when someone has a masculine body with male genitalia but a feminine personality? Or a feminine body with female genitalia but masculine personality? \n\nThat's what society calls \"transexuality\", but that's a misconception, society can understand (now) a man that likes other men, possibly a man that acts a little effeminate, but they can't understand a man who wears dresses and loves the idea of being perceived as cute, just like society can't understand a woman who likes to have short hair and wear tough clothes and wants to impose herself and be perceived as powerful.\n\nAnd for those people who defy the rule man = masculine, female = feminine, society calls them \"transexuals\", because it's somehow easier to comprehend the concept \"being a woman born in the body of a man\" and \"being a man born in the body of a woman\" than to understand that some men simply prefer to be feminine just like most women do and that some women simply prefer to be masculine just like most men do.\n\nThis is my point and I'm completely open to the idea that transexuality might be something beyond having the emotional profile of the opposite gender, so please try to reason with me :D\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The Kurds are the good guys, and western nations should be engaging in a hands-down alliance with them in the Middle East. + \n + I am a cynical man.  I don't believe in heroes, and so I'm prepared to change my view on this.  THe trouble is, every last bit of news I hear about the current Middle East conflicts goes only to reinforce my ever-growing belief that the Kurds are the only group involved with any moral high ground.\n\n1) The Kurds espouse a number of western values that are largely absent in the region.\n\nOnly The Kurds and the (middle and lower class) Iranians show any tendency to respect women's rights or treat them as equals deserving of respect or status.  The Kurds have women in their military, and even their conservative tribal organizations can have Matriarchs in charge of political and military decisions.\n\n2) They care about more than just themselves.\n\nThe Kurds have gone out of their way, at significant danger to themselves, to rescue other ethnic minorities in the region, including famously the Yazidis, who everyone else was more than happy to let ISIS literally murder, enslave, and rape at genocidal scales.\n\n3) Their political opponents have all shown themselves to be monsters in the fullness of time.\n\nTurkey is key here.  For a while Turkey managed to keep up quite a reputation as a modern secular-Islamic state.  Now they're wringing their hands about how *powerless* they are to stop ISIS while they gleefully watch the black banner do all their dirty work for them, then step in with overwhelming force to rescue Ataturk's grave the moment it's threatened.  They're bombing Kurdish targets *right now* while crying about ISIS.  I would want independence from them too.\n\n**Things that will not convince me:**\n\n1) A Kurd did something bad once.\n\nEvery group consists of a bulk center and extremes on either end.  It takes a pattern of ideological violence to establish that a group is responsible collectively.  I need to be shown that the Kurds, as a national or cultural entity, are at least half as bad as their neighbors in terms of the actions they will routinely, officially, or systemically commit or tolerate.\n\n2) It is advantageous to ally ourselves with monsters.\n\nLook, you can be totally right about this.  I won't even argue that this isn't possible, and might even agree with you, but it does not change my view about what we, the west, *should* be doing.\n\n\nMake me a cynic again, please.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Biking is the most superior form of personal urban transport, and I think everyone should do it! + \n + Biking is the overall best form of personal urban transportation, and is vastly superior to cars, and even buses! Bicycles have a number of things up on cars especially: they're cheaper, easier to use, safer to use, more mobile, better for the environment, better for your health, better for infrastructure planning (a lot of cycling encourages dense urban growth to keep things accessible by bike), and I would argue they even make you happier! :)\n\n* Cars easily sell for tens of thousands of dollars or more, which makes them inaccessible for many people, especially the poor who cannot afford payments and insurance. Bicycles are much smaller and simpler, and so are cheaper to produce, easier to produce in large quantities, and therefore can be made very inexpensive very easily. This makes them accessible to everyone, even the poor! In fact, they're so cheap, you might as well make some of them public use bicycles that can be used by anyone!\n* Bikes don't need a lot of training to use. Kids can operate them just fine. They're that easy, once you get it, you know it!\n* Being smaller and operating at lower speeds, bikes are much safer in crashes, although they come with the disadvantage of being very exposed while riding. Bike safety and controlled speeds should be taught so that people know their limits, and roads should be well kept.\n* Bikes can be built very lightweight, and it's easy enough to pick one up and carry it when you simply can't ride it (such as at a set of stairs). This allows city infrastructure to have more diverse planning, and makes it easy to go off track to avoid traffic or problems on streets.\n* Bikes don't produce any greenhouse gases, and have non-harmful upkeep. Cars and buses produce emissions that are harmful to the environment, and require all kinds of shit to keep them running (oil, lubricants, wiper fluid, etc) They're also smaller than cars and require less materials to make.\n* Biking everywhere is great cardio, and is good for your legs. It often requires more effort than walking, burns more calories, and works your leg muscles more. And, it keeps your heart rate up, which is good for blood pressure and general wellness.\n* Cities that bike are built more dense and concentrated in lockstep. Amsterdam and Copenhagen are two cities that are infrastructurally modified to promote biking, and people there seem happier and healthier. High urban density and biking infrastructure also opens up a lot of economic windows for the poor. With cheap bikes, they'd be able to get to more jobs at less cost to them, which would reduce economic inequality and spur consumption, investment, and growth. \n* There's something that just makes you very happy biking. Going offroad and biking through a park is magnificent in the summer, and biking out into the countryside is a nice getaway from the city. The experience of biking is also exhilarating - your focus has to be on the whole time, so you're just experiencing everything with more urgency, and it's kinda cool to travel around the urban landscape like that.\n\nSo, I think biking is ultimately superior. Buses can obviously still be provided by those who need them, but most people should cycle. Trains are of course good in their own right too, but are not private transport that is as versatile as biking. (Of course, they should stay if they're already there, and probably expanded - to be bike friendly!) I want to hear an argument as to why I'm wrong, or be convinced of what other kind of private transport is better than biking. CMV!\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The US government owes reparations to descendants of slaves. + \n + I acknowledge straight away that sending checks to black people will not solve all modern the issues caused by the slave economy. \n\nWith that said, I do believe that the government owes the reparation. The fact of the matter is that slaves generated wealth for their owners. This wealth translates into capital that is still present in our economy. \n\nA good amount of this capital went to the federal government. The government taxed some of the capital generated by slaves for owners. \n\nSome other capital was produced directly for the government. Slaves built the Capitol building. **Slaves built the Treasury, and their capital rests in the Treasury.**\n\nSo we can think of reparations as back pay. The recipients are not here to accept it, so their most direct heirs are entitled to it. \n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: If religion magically disappeared one day, I don't think the violence would be any different + \n + The likes of /r/atheism argue that most of the world's problems come from religion, and that a post-religion world would be miles better.\n\nAs humans, we inherently drive ourselves into groups based on similarities. Sometimes, these groups bunch up against each other. Eventually, the groups will want to expand over the same area. Each group thinks that they are the sole group worthy of that land, and that they must display this worthiness by stopping anyone that gets into their way. \n\nYou could replace the word \"group\" with anything: religion, race, color, etc. Sure, religion's the largest group, but if religion were to disappear any day, there would still be sectarian fighting. You'd hear news about conflicts between the \"Arab Nationalist Front\" and the \"Pashtun Defense Brigade\" instead of ISIS that could be just as violent as religious conflict. \n\nTL;DR: If humans weren't killing each other over religion, they'd be killing each other over ethnicity or race. ", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The stock market is a scam and only serves to make rich people richer by stealing from the labors of the working class + \n + Full disclosure: my BS is in engineering, not economics, and I'm an avowed socialist. Anyway, it seems to me that the stock market exists solely to perpetuate the accumulation of wealth at the top by people who do nothing of value. It seems immoral to me that people who don't work can make money by assigning imaginary value to the work that other people do and profiting on speculating about that work that they don't do. When their speculation gets especially irresponsible because of completely unchecked greed the economy collapses and the working class is left holding the bag, while the truly, fantastically rich laugh all the way to the bank. Can anyone explain to me why something like the stock market has to exist, or what benefit it is to the working class? I'm willing to do the reading if someone can point me in the right direction.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: parents should not read their child's private journals/diaries. + \n + \nI do not believe parents have a right to read their children's diaries. If parents want to find out about their child's life, they can attempt to talk to them. Reading through their private diary will only create distance between the parent and child and lead to more communication issues. Trying to take a shortcut and bypassing verbal communication with your child is only indicative of a larger problem in the family dynamic and will never end well.\n I was discussing this topic in /r/adviceanimals (of all places) with a very well reasoned gentleman/lady but we could not come to an agreement on whether this behavior was acceptable. While I do understand the idea that frustration and worry for your child could lead someone to consider this action, I was simply unable to change my view, and was hoping for some further rational ideas here.\n_\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Molestation is how gays reproduce + \n + 18% of children molested are boys.^† 1.1% of the population are gay men.^††\n---\n\nAnecdotally, the majority of gay men I've asked have admitted to being sexually abused as a child.\n\nThese statistics are only included to reveal what motivates this view, which I admit is both somewhat tenuous and unsettling. I can think of alternative explanations for these statistics, but they to me are less convincing, and I am hoping that another poster has thought deeply about this topic enough to reach some critical insight I may have overlooked.\n\n---\n\n†\nhttp://www.nsopw.gov/en/Education/FactsStatistics indicates that \"82% of all juvenile victims are female.\" From this we conclude that 18% of juvenile victims are male.\n\n†\n†\nConsulting Table 1 on page 7 of http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr077.pdf, we find that 2.2% of men are gay or bisexual. One half of the population are men. So, 1.1% of the population comprises gay or bisexual men.\n\nI realize that the first statistic is not perfectly comparable due to the fact that some boys are molested by women, so I accounted for this and it doesn't make much of a difference:\n\nhttp://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/types/violence/child-sexual-abuse.asp\n\nSo 86% of boys molested were abused by men. 0.86*0.18% = 15.48%. That's still over 14 times what we would expect given the assumption that gay or bisexual men rape as often as heterosexual men. There's clearly a link.\n\n---\n\nNote that this has little bearing on my feelings about how gays should be treated; whether you've had bad luck pre- or post-natal doesn't change my sympathy. However, this observation does have a strong impact on my beliefs surrounding, for example, how harshly pedophiles should be punished (with death).", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: If reddit's community cannot drive out hate subs, it is the admins job to do so. If the admins cannot do so, they should try until there isn't a reddit left anymore. + \n + Givens:\n\n1) Racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of hating classes of people are wrong.\n\n2) We have a moral obligation to do right.\n\n3) Free speech also means one has a right to challenge bad ideas, and that we are not obligated to act as platforms for the ideas of others.\n\nGiven this, individuals and groups SHOULD NOT promote racism, sexism, and homophobia. In allowing subreddits that do so to function on their platform, reddit is doing so. This is, in fact, wrong, and the admins have a moral obligation to do far, far more than they have already done to drive out hateful communities. \n\nThis doesn't mean that people should be arrested for their speech, only that no one SHOULD, morally, promote hatred. Free speech is kind of irrelevant in the banning of hateful subreddits, or rather, free speech demands that groups have a right to NOT publish hateful rhetoric, and morality demands that groups not do so.\n\nAlso, \"BUT FREE SPEECH\" arguments aren't going to work. If I can make a semi-coherent argument on this, I've probably already seen those arguments, so there's really no point in making them. \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is no practical reason for any individual to vote in national elections + \n + By \"practical reason,\" I mean a reason that motivates you to vote by ascribing a cause-effect relationship between the action of voting and the outcome of the election.  I admit there can be other reasons to vote--social pressure, solidarity, civic pride, etc.  But on a practical level, I can reasonably expect no difference between the world in which I vote and the world in which I stay home, except that in the former I'd have to go out of my way to perform additional actions.  If I'm trying to decide whether to perform those actions, based on pure self-interest, there is no reason for me to vote.  I'm setting this at the level of national elections (specifically thinking of U.S. elections) because it's true that, given a small enough \"nation,\" your individual vote would carry a significant probability of making a difference.  \n\nThis is a classic example of a [collective action problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action), and after considering this class of problems thoroughly, I've come to the conclusion that there is no self-interested practical reason to participate in these cases, barring external motivators (such as added incentives).\n\nIt would be nice to find a reason to believe this isn't a case, so I look forward to someone convincing me!", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Anti-discrimination law is discriminatory. + \n + Al Franken went on Jon Stewart [a few weeks ago](http://thedailyshow.cc.com/extended-interviews/wb5h9x/exclusive-al-franken-extended-interview) and said it was ridiculous for a politician to be against a law that prevents students from bullying gay people.  Stewart's crowd ate it up. \n\nStewart asked him what the Republicans said is their reason.  Franken dismissively responded, 'they don't believe *anyone* should be bullied'.  People laughed because well obviously LGBTQ people get bullied waayyy more than their counterparts so they need to be specially protected.\n\nIt seems pretty obvious you shouldn't beat up someone because they\u2019re gay, but you really shouldn't beat up anyone.  While heterosexuals students may get beaten up a lot less on average, I'm sure we could identify groups within heterosexuals that should be protected from bullying, (e.g. nerds).  \n\nObviously adding nerds to the list of protective classes is ridiculous.  The LGBTQ community is considerably more organized and properly defined, they've banded together and pushed serious change in policy in the last decade.  In the 1960s, the Civil Rights Act passed on the same tune, a group banded together and they pushed for social change.\n\nThe issue with the entire concept of \"protective classes\" is that they only protect the \"alpha\" minorities while leaving everyone else in the dust.  Any group that can get national and consistent attention can get \"protected\".  It's exclusion masquerading as inclusion, it goes as far as to split the world into three groups, \"normal\", \"protected\" and \"fucked\".\n\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Pansexuality is a completely unnecessary term and not a legitimate sexuality + \n + To start off, let\u2019s establish what pansexuality is. Googling the definition of pansexuality, we get **an individual not limited in sexual choice with regard to biological sex, gender, or gender identity.** \n\nBecause the definition mentions both sex and gender, I think that it\u2019s important to acknowledge the difference. Sex is scientific. The only way that one can change their sex is undergoing an operation that would change their sexual organs to resemble the other sex\u2019s sexual organs. One cannot simply choose to identify as male or female\u2014 it is 100% genetic. Gender, on the other hand, is the whole of society\u2019s view on the attributes of that sex. For example, a very simple society might choose liking cars to be a \u201cman trait\u201d and liking flowers to be a \u201cwoman trait\u201d. This makes it very possible for a male to identify as a woman because he likes flowers vice versa. \n\nHowever, when discussing something such as sexuality (notice the sex part of the word), the concept of gender feels rather irrelevant. The term heterosexual, for example, is defined as someone who is attracted to the opposite sex. That\u2019s it. The term doesn\u2019t mention that the member of the opposite sex must like cars, flowers, males, females, or anything. A man that likes women with large breasts isn\u2019t a \u201cbreast-sexual\u201d. He is just a heterosexual who, just like almost everybody else, is slightly more complicated than loving every single woman he comes across.\n\nKeeping this in mind, there are only two sexes according to biologists: male and female. There are rare cases where an individual might have parts of both sexes, but a sex is always determined nonetheless. Thus, speaking to which sex an individual is attracted to, there are only four possible sexualities:\n\n1. Asexual \u2013 Attracted to neither sex\n2. Homosexual \u2013 Attracted to the same sex\n3. Heterosexual \u2013 Attracted to the opposite sex\n4. Bisexual \u2013 Attracted to both sexes\n\nThis is what makes the term \u201cpansexual\u201d so unnecessary. Since a pansexual does not care about a person\u2019s sex, they are attracted to both sexes. This makes them bisexual by definition. There is no need to add anything more to the word because sexuality is not meant to give a complete overview of what you find attractive. Otherwise, if people asked me my sexuality, I would say I am a brunette-female-who-is-shorter-than-me-but-not-too-short-and-has-a-good-sense-of-humor-as-well-as-an-appreciation-for-science-and-has-an-attractive-looking-face-sexual, which is absolutely ridiculous.\n\n**TL;DR: Pansexuality is just a subset of bisexuality. This makes it an unnecessary term since almost all attraction is a subset of sexuality (I.e. A heterosexual male who only likes blondes) and we could not possibly give a term to each.**\n\n\n\n> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: People's weight is none of your goddamn business. + \n + Generally speaking, you have two sides on the \"Fat Debate\": the fat acceptance movement (Healthy At Every Size, etc.) and the fat shamers (who cajole fat people into losing weight, with either benign or malicious intentions.\n\nFirst of all, I don't buy HAES. I believe that anyone of any size can be *healthier* at that size. If I start jogging once a week, I probably won't lose weight, but I'll be a teeny-tiny bit healthier and that's good. \n\nSecondly, BMI is an overall population indicator. There are of course given people who are overweight who are healthier than given people who are within normal range. Same goes for given people who are underweight vs people in normal range. However, I would state that *in general*, the further you slide on the scale from 22.5 in either direction, the further you're getting from optimal.\n\nHowever, wherever people lie on that scale - underweight -> optimal -> fat is none of your fucking business whatsoever.\n\nYou are not a stakeholder in a stranger's health and people would do well to keep their mouths shut about other people's appearance. If you *are*  stakeholder in their health (and this is exclusively limited to loved ones and the person's healthcare practitioners) then maybe you get to say something. *Maybe*.\n\nThe best analogy for this is smoking. I smoke and am slightly overweight (~10lb) and it is certainly the smoking that is more detrimental to my health than the few extra pounds.\n\nI *know* that smoking is bad for me - I'm not an idiot. I view the HAES as a bit like \"Healthy No Matter How Much You Smoke\". It's not true, it may even be damaging. On the other hand, encouraging hardened smokers to run around despite being smokers ain't a bad thing. Attack the campaign, if you must, but leave the people alone.\n\nIt does not matter how many people tell me that smoking is bad for me. Their statements are uninvited, irritating and will do precisely nothing to change my habits. They may even reinforce them. \n\nIt is *none* of their business if I smoke.\n\nYou know when you're eating pizza and you have that one vegan health nut friend who tells you about how pepperoni is full of carcinogens and dairy will cause all kinds of damage to you? That, **at best** is what fat shamers come off like.\n\nI'm not saying there shouldn't be public health campaigns (much like we have anti-smoking campaigns), just that YOU PERSONALLY should never say a damn thing about a stranger's weight, EVER. \n\n\n\nDon't bully fat people, kids. It helps no one.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: \"Thin Shaming\" (of women, by women) is not a thing because, in American society, there is nothing shameful about being thin. It is a desirable trait and those who criticize it are just jelly. + \n + We sometimes hear thin, attractive women get offended because they have been \"thin shamed\" or \"skinny shamed\" by another woman.  I don't see how that is possible in American society, being a thin woman is a desirable quality. [*edit for clarification* - having an actual eating disorder is not desirable, but being thin *is* desirable]\n\nThis alleged shaming is typically expressed with language such as \"you need to eat something\" or \"do you even eat\" or \"you're so skinny\" or \"you need some meat on your bones\" or \"you need a hamburger\".  In all of those cases, the speaker is not criticizing the subject of the speech for being thin.  Rather, the speaker is deflecting and express displeasure about the excessive size of her own body relative to the size of the subject's body.  In other words, she *wishes* she was thin and she's just jelly.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The US should allow airline cabotage. + \n + Cabotage is the practice of allowing foreign airlines to operate domestic routes.  Currently, if your airline is not headquartered in the United States, you can't fly between two US cities.  \n\nSo Air Canada can fly a plane from Toronto to New York, but can't continue that plane on to Miami.\n\nI think this rule is dumb and protectionist.  [Airline safety and protocols are subject to international treaties already,](https://www.faa.gov/passengers/international_travel/) and if we wanted, foreign airlines could be subjected to additional FAA safety checks as a condition of being allowed to engage in cabotage.\n\nWith the current state of the US airline industry being [so close-knit as to promote collusion,](http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-doj-investigating-airlines-20150701-story.html) a healthy dose of competition seems like it's in order.  Opening up cabotage would allow a lot more competition in US aviation, which would be a big benefit to consumers as far as price.  It would also likely allow a lot of airports which aren't presently hubs to get better overseas service.  For instance, British Airways might not be able to justify a direct flight from Cleveland or St Louis to London, but it might be able to justify a flight that does St Louis - Cleveland - London.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Donald Trump is exactly what the Republican party needs. + \n + Donald Trump and his campaign has been in the news for quite some time. He's been the butt of many jokes. Many think he is hurting the Republican party and their image but I think the other candidates could learn a lot from him and the way he is campaigning. \n\nThe main reason is because he is being unapologetic. What Trump said about immigration was not racist. He did not say Mexicans or people of Latino descent were rapists and drug dealers, he claimed there is a high percentage of crime from ILLEGAL immigrants and that the Mexican government shoves their criminals into the American jail and healthcare systems instead of dealing with them on their own. Now, I've looked and looked and found many conservative sources that back his claim and many liberal sources that refute it, but it is not a racist comment regardless of whether or not it is factually correct. He didn't say immigrants, he didn't say Mexicans or Latinos, he said illegal immigrants. \n\nMost political candidates would come out and apologize profusely and try to further clarify their point after such backlash but not Trump. Trump is standing by his words. The Democrats have been very good lately at painting their opposition as racist, sexist, etc. as a retort and Trump is not having it. He is taking the offensive instead of taking the defensive which both Romney and McCain did which is accredited to their loss.\n\nIf you look at the last presidential election, what were the candidates saying about each other? The Romney campaign painted Obama as a nice guy. He was the kind of guy you'd like to get a beer with and is a good family man, but he is an incompetent president and will lead us into financial ruin. What did the Obama campaign say about Romney? That he hates women, he hates gays, he hates Latinos,  he tied his dog to the top of his car, he fired some guy which then killed his wife, and he doesn't pay his taxes. Most people will vote for a good guy that screws up over a terrible awful person.\n\nTrump is not taking that stuff lying down. He's fighting back twice as hard. He's responding to his critics with twice the ferocity that they came at him with. The Republicans are not going to win if they continue to try and be the bigger person and not get down and dirty with the mudslinging that is American politics. The Republicans and their leadership have been sheepish ever since Bush's horrible second term and it is costing them elections and they are losing their base. \n\nIf you saw Chris Christie's speech, he blamed both parties for failing to compromise and for the state of the country. Do you see any Democrats blaming the Democratic party for anything and vowing to work with Republicans? That is not a strategy that will win.\n\nCheck out Trump's interview on NBC with Katy Tur. She constantly asks him leading questions about his offensive comments and Trump does not let her control the interview in any way. Many other Republicans would respond diplomatically in order to appear reasonable but Trump got it right. He stood by his words and didn't apologize. Do you remember during the Republican primaries of 2012 when George Stephanopoulos asked Romney questions about whether or not he supported states banning all birth control even though there were no states or candidates that supported that? Romney let him run all over him with that ridiculous question. Trump wouldn't stand for that shit and he would call Stephanopoulos out on that.\n\nThe Republicans were unhappy with McCain, with Romney, they are unhappy with Boehner and McConnell. They are losing their base of American conservatives. Trump is energizing that base and if more candidates took his approach, they could get conservatives back into the voting booths. Of course CNN, MSNBC, and CBS are going to trash him, they have always been much harder on Republicans than Democrats and anyone denying that is not being intellectually honest. He doesn't care. He's sticking to his guns which is what the Republican base needs.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Free markets are great, but they are inappropriate for necessities like housing, etc. + \n + I think free markets are an excellent idea and am generally one of your small-government, financially conservative types. I feel that the whole idea of free markets necessarily includes both parties being able to \"walk away from the deal\". Fundamentally that can't be the case when you're talking about necessities, such as housing, health care, education, utilities, transportation, and heck, even internet. The whole USA is going through an embarrassing struggle with healthcare. Parts of the country such as San Francisco are having crises with housing availability and sky-rocketing rent. The cost of college has increased staggeringly in our lifetime. Internet providers are lobbying congress with some success to discourage or even outlaw competition.\n\nNo one benefits from a neighbor struggling to have the basics. It is simply in all of our best interests to have everybody confident that they can work and live and get treatment if they're sick.\n\nI have avoided talking about how to institute this change, since it's not my field. I am admittedly not a political scientist or economist of any kind (I'm a cook), which is why I'm so interested to see what new things you guys can show me. Thanks!\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Auto manufacturers should make their vehicles' headlights shut off when the car shuts off + \n + Headlights are mostly useful for improving the driver's vision while driving in low-light conditions and for increasing the visibility of the driver's car in low-light or foggy conditions. While stationary, the only non-malicious use of a car's headlights (I.E. other than parking the car and turning on the headlights/high beams in an attempt to confuse or blind oncoming drivers) is to light up an area for somebody on foot. However, a flashlight would be much more effective for this purpose.\n\nWith the lack of usefulness of stationary headlights in mind, cars should be designed such that the headlights turn off when the car is turned off in order to prevent the car battery from running down.\n\n\nDeltas:\n\n* [Always-on behavior in addition to auto-off behavior](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3ffta7/cmv_auto_manufacturers_should_make_their_vehicles/cto7tnn?context=1)\n* [Headlights on a timer](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3ffta7/cmv_auto_manufacturers_should_make_their_vehicles/cto8c9k?context=3)\n* [Stopping on the side of a country road in low visibility conditions](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3ffta7/cmv_auto_manufacturers_should_make_their_vehicles/cto8zsu?context=3)\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Fast food restaurant meals' default state should include no toppings + \n + Hello, CMV! I'll clarify myself with a situation that just happened to me. I went to a fast food restaurant, ordered my meal, and took it home to eat. When I opened up my food, I realized the meal included a large amount of chopped onions. Now, I absolutely loathe the taste of onions so my choices were to slowly pick out each onion, then add some other topping to mask the taste or not eat the food I just bought. This led me to realize that the default for food at fast food places should have no toppings at all and, if you want toppings, you would just ask to have the workers add them on.\n\nFrom a customer's perspective, I think this would cause a lot of people less issues when ordering food. There are plenty of people, for example, who don't like the default lettuce, tomatoes, onions, mustard, mayo etc. that are put on hamburgers. However, not every hamburger meal includes those toppings. So, customers have to either know or ask what comes on the meal in order to ensure no topping they don't like is included. With the new system, they would just order what meal they wanted and ask the workers to add what reasonable toppings they want which I think is much easier and way less likely to lead to mistakes and unhappy customers.\n\nNow, this would only include toppings that aren't stated outright in the meal name. For example, if you order a BBQ bacon burger, of course the hamburger is going to include BBQ sauce and bacon. Or if you order a grilled onion hot dog, of course the hot dog is going to have grilled onions. My proposal is just for meals without specific toppings in the name like a McDouble or a Whopper.\n\nFrom a restaurant's perspective I think it would save a fair amount of money because you're not preparing to add on 3-5 toppings on a meal that could just end up in the trash. Instead, you're just liable for the basics and any extras would be added on. I don't see a reason for the price of meals to change at all. Whether customers have toppings on their meals or not in the current system, the price usually stays the same.\n\nSo there it is, change my view!\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:It was entirely irresponsible of Rand Paul to filibuster in order to force the end of the Patriot Act + \n + On Sunday, Rand Paul spoke  for 10 and a half hours in order to ensure that the Patriot Act, which contains sections used to justify government surveillance, would not be renewed.  While doing this, his campaign was selling [\"Filibuster Starter Packs\"](https://store.randpaul.com/index.php/filibuster-starter-pack.html) in order to garner support for his presidential bid.  He additionally used parts of his filibuster in a political video made for his campaign.  While I know my opinion that it is important to renew the patriot act is unpopular here on reddit, I think that it is fair that anyone who agrees with the act or not should consider the fact that Paul intentionally stalled debate on the matter, a matter of national security.  While Rand held the floor, shouting the same ideas over and over again in various permutations of the same couple lines about the government committing criminal acts and how American freedom is being violated, no informed debate on the matter could occur.  To prevent debate on a matter of national security like this I believe is already irresponsible, but to then to blatantly use this restriction of informed debate for the sake of promoting his own presidential bid makes it even more irresponsible.  I don't think that it is necessary for one to agree with the provisions of the patriot act (though I do) in order to believe that what Rand Paul did was incredibly irresponsible.\n\nNow, I would anticipate that I will get some responses saying I likely find filibusters an irresponsible practice.  I still have mixed feelings about them on the whole, but I do want to focus on this specific one as I believe that it was entirely irresponsible.  \n\nFinally, This is my first post on this sub, though I've been reading and commenting for some time.  So I just want to say this sub is an awesome community, so Thanks everyone!\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is no good reason for the average person to ever buy a new car + \n + I'd like to preface this by saying I'm not a car guy, so it's entirely possible I'm overlooking something major, but given how fast cars depreciate in value, buying a new one seems like a really dumb move to me. Whatever features you are looking for in a car, you can get better features for the same or a lower price in a used car. Like, say you have $25,000 to spend on a car. You could get a nice new Toyota, or you could get a fully loaded Lexus that's less than a year old and has features that are superior in every measurable way to the new Toyota. Seems like a no-brainer to me which one I'd buy. So basically, aside from people for whom money is truly no object and I suppose people with pathological fears of sitting where others have sat, I just can't imagine any good reason for the average Joe with a limited budget and no debilitating phobias to buy a new car. \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:Disparate Impact makes no sense: a business practice that isn't discriminatory shouldn't be disallowed because is happens to impact persons in a protected class. + \n + The [theory of disparate impact](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact) \"holds that practices in employment, housing, or other areas may be considered discriminatory and illegal if they have a disproportionate \"adverse impact\" on persons in a protected class.\"  This holds true even if the business practice is \"facially neutral\", which means that the practice doesn't appear discriminatory on its face, only in the application or effect of the practice.\n\nIt seems to me that if a business has an objectively non-discriminatory policy in place that happens to effect certain races, genders, etc. more, then it shouldn't be problem.\n\nI can see there being issues with business putting policies in place that are de facto discriminatory without being overtly so, but I don't want to focus on those.  I'm talking about business practices that are not, and have to goal to be, discriminatory.\n\nChange my view!\n\nNote: the is especially relevant today because the SCOTUS rejected an effort to ban the use of \"disparate impact\" in the Fair Housing Act. \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: We've gone way overboard lately with PC-ness and the Social Justice movement. + \n + This may be surprising to some if you look at my history on this sub, where I posted several CMVs critical of Gamergate, the police and conservatives, but here goes... we've gone way overboard with this PC/Social Justice mentality.\n\nRecent examples are-\n\n-the furor this morning (at least on twitter) over Amy Schumer in the WaPo. http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/07/06/dont-believe-her-defenders-amy-schumers-jokes-are-racist/\n\n-Hannibal Burress had a minor run-in with several notable female twitter personalities including Gaby Dunn. https://twitter.com/hannibalburess/status/618179591140564992 (there's a whole list of responses, if it doesn't show up just go through his timeline)\n\n-Jerry Seinfeld made news when he said he wouldn't play college campuses anymore, to much reminding of his relationship with a 17-year old twenty years ago, and snickering over how his material isn't even edgy anyway. http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/10/living/seinfeld-comedy-colleges-feat/\n\n-Chris Rock said the same thing last year. I guess he's a shitlord too. http://www.vulture.com/2014/11/chris-rock-frank-rich-in-conversation.html\n\n-Patton Oswalt, who at one point was booed in Philly for his anti-Bush beliefs back during 2004 or so, is now not worthy of being followed. He's in a category with Trump and Palin. http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/patton-oswalt-twitter-troll-unfollow/\n\n-Not to pick on Gaby Dunn, but earlier this year she blew up at Josh Groban, because I guess young male celebrities being horndogs is completely new and has never, ever happened in human history. https://storify.com/amandataylor88/don-t-fall-for-this-famous-guy-s-flattery\n\nHell, even amongst the more notable far-left twitter there's infighting. Suey Park and Lauren Chief Elk are going at it over DMs to an ex/stolen laptops https://twitter.com/suey_park/status/617747933987889152\n\nAnd depending on who you believe, Rania Khalek is anti-black http://bad-dominicana.tumblr.com/post/87992874258/rania-khalek-such-an-antiblack-piece-of-shit-like or \"bad_dominacana\" is racist against Arabs https://twitter.com/raniakhalek/status/514920026236018688.\n\nI was, am and will be a dyed-in-the-patchouli liberal. I was ecstatic that gays can get married now. I will call Caitlyn Jenner whatever SHE wants me to. I'm a big fan of Bernie Sanders. I absolutely believe all fortysomething of Bill Cosby's accusers.\nThat said, I'm starting to feel a little lost. I cringe when I see the word \"thinkpiece.\" I hate that people get so caught up in a perpetual outrage machine and so high off their own self-righteousness they will destroy a life like Justine Sacco's (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html?_r=0) for sport. (Also, how great is Sam Biddle for basically admitting he'd do it all over again for \"the clickz?\") I have to believe that the right or, \"The Man,\" are absolutely loving this infighting. Endless digital ink is spilled on Black Widow in The Avengers while cops are still shooting anyone with a skin tone darker than Burnt Sienna.\n\nAm I wrong? Am I the asshole here? Is all of this of vital importance? Will the 24/7/365 internet analytical news cycle bring us to the promised land? Or is this just a tool of cultural commentators on a deadline?\n\n\nTry not to focus on the Twitter thing as much.  There's pieces on Gawker, WaPo and Daily Dot that I've used for examples.  Here's a piece on the AVClub where the writer complains about female fans of Captain Marvel for... reasons.  Not sure.  They're problematic somehow.\n\nhttp://www.avclub.com/article/marvel-learned-wrong-lessons-carol-corps-218003\n\n\nSomeone in the comments said this seemed like neurotic hand-wringing by an alienated individual, and that could very well be the case.  I didn't really spend a whole lot of time making a comprehensive essay about this because a-it's just reddit and b-I posted from the gut with immediacy.  If someone wants to take this theme and do it up better, by all means go for it.  I never claimed to be a social scientist.  Or even just social.\n\nSome good opinions here, with the major consensus being that these things seem big and important on the internet where everything is a hot take and people are either Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil with no in-between.  So in stepping out from the cyberspace will keep the perspective in check.\n\nGood talk everyone!  No name calling or trolling!\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: We should dramatically decrease the maximum work hours while eliminating minimum salary, both to increase efficiency and to achieve full employment + \n + The logic goes like this: If there's unemployment of any kind, then the demand for jobs is *higher* than the offer for jobs.\n\nConsequently, if the maximum work hours were decreased in those sectors that show unemployment, then there would be a shortage of employees, companies would have to *compete* with each other to get enough employees, and thus unemployment would become 0 in every sector of the economy and minimum salary would be unnecessary, as companies are willing to pay much more than that to get some really needed employees.\n\nAnd of course, this would also mean a drastic decrease in the amount of time that people have to work, what would greatly increase the overall wellbeing of society (and to an increase in the efficiency of work hours, since companies now wouldn't be able to hire someone for little money to do tasks that a cheap machine could do, and thus there would be an economical \"laissez faire\" incentive for them to make jobs more efficient).\n\nThe only negative effect would be a decrease in the competitivity of the economy (what is bad but not catastrophic) due to decreased company profits as they'll now have to treat their employees like valuable, limited assets instead of disposable sources of labor (which is the case for unqualified jobs that anyone can do).\n\nI believe that the increase in wages would be dramatic enough that people would be able to work less and earn the same without any dramatic effects in the economy.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV : State and parents supporting children until 18 years is insufficient - it should provide indefinitely + \n + In my opinion since a person has no say to being born into existence or not , his parents and state should provide means to continue that existence. If the individual has motivation to provide for himself this should be viewed as optional and not the default scenario. Simply put i am not responsible for having no motivation to provide for myself and since i'm born this way and i had no say into being born at at all - such state that allows my parents to have children should be held accountable. It is not individual who should be shamed for entitlement and being called lazy , it is state who should be shamed for entitlement and if parents can't entertain the idea that their children would not be intested in providing for themselves should have no entitlement for having them", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: My vote in an election doesn't matter + \n + I really want someone to change my view on this, since everyone i know are frowning on me for thinking this way.\n\nMy argument is, that just with my single vote, i'm statistically extremely unlikely to make a significant difference. Whether i vote or not is irrelevant on that scale. The obvious argument against me, that i hear time and time again, is that my vote is a vote in a bigger picture. But that still doesn't counter my argument that a *single* vote doesn't matter. Statistically.\n\nPlease change my view, if any of you can refute my arguments above.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: It's okay to pay people money to do embarrassing things. + \n + There's this Russian youtuber who's a grandson of a billionaire and he makes videos where he comes up to random people on the street and pays them (usually around 100-300 bucks) to do different things like lick his shoe, take their dress off in public and eat a bunch of ruble notes. He paid this one guy 200 bucks to drink a cup of his pee, which caused quite an uproar in the community.  \n\nI feel like there's a good reason why this is bad, but can't really put my finger on it so my current stance is that it's okay as long as he's not forcing anyone and his actions don't cause any real harm.  \n\nCMV", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think that drug testing recipients of government benefits is a terrible idea. + \n + A common thing I see on many news stories, etc. is how expensive people on social assistance are to society and how we need to start taking more actions to reduce abuse on the system.\n\nI feel this is based on misunderstandings and jealousy from the people making those suggestions and that implementing them would be more expensive, violate the government's legal and ethical obligations, and make society less enjoyable for all.\n\nMy reasoning:\n\n* Welfare benefits are typically a lot lower than most people assume per recipient, and drug testing and administration a lot more expensive.\n* Unless there is an extremely high frequency of drug users, the savings realized from removing people from the system is less than the cost of the test and the administration.\n* Therefore, it will always cost taxpayers more to do this than to simply pay benefits to all that qualify.\n* Drug users cut off from benefits may turn to crime to find their addictions, causing additional indirect costs in policing, healthcare, etc.\n* There are also likely many legal costs do doing this as the ACLU has already challenged many states who have started drug testing.\n* In states that have tried it the program has had a net cost.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The state should provide a painless method of suicide to those who want it. + \n + The state should provide an easy, painless method of suicide (for example, Nembutal, a barbiturate that is lethal at a certain dose but is quick and causes no known suffering) to those who want it, perhaps with some basic restrictions (i.e. showing that they have had a certain amount of therapy)\n\nPeople should be free to make the choice to end their own lives if they wish, for whatever reason. This should not be restricted to the terminally ill - anybody should be free to make the choice for themselves. Some people decide that they just don't want to be here any more, and society should accept that.\n\nCurrently, society takes every possible action to prevent people from taking their own lives - e.g. placing tight restrictions on certain substances/items, forcibly detaining & \"treating\" people who appear to be \"at risk\" to themselves, even basic discussion of suicide methods is banned here on Reddit and elsewhere. There is a mantra of \"Saving lives at all costs\" - even if the cost is the person's own well-being & freedom. We place far too much emphasis on extending people's lives as much as possible but almost none on actually doing anything to improve them.\n\nThis leads to a number of problems - some people are afraid to talk about their problems and seek help for fear of being forcibly detained, or have restrictions placed on them (such as being unable to buy firearms, for example). Someone who has simply decided that they have had enough and just don't want to continue won't be able to discuss their feelings with anyone due to the fear of being labelled \"mentally ill\" and sectioned.\n\nPeople who are unable to access a painless and \"mess free\" method still take their own lives anyway - often resulting in public, gruesome suicides that affect others (jumping in front of trains, for example) or failed attempts that could leave them in a vegetative state.\n\n\"Suicide on the State\" would solve a lot of these problems. People could be more frank about their feelings. Public suicides would be a lot less common. It would far less of a shock to loved ones - they'd get notice, and the person would have the chance to get their affairs in order before their departure - giving notice to their employer, for example. Suicide would have much less of an impact.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe that the US should support a basic income but at the same time remove the minimum wage + \n + I believe that the US should support a basic income wage but at the same time remove the federal minimum wage.   And possibly, in addition to that, the US should reduce spending on welfare programs because the basic income would cover those costs, including medicaid and federal food stamp programs.\n\nMy post was prompted by a recent years look at suggestions to increase the federal minimum wage.  Bernie Sanders had suggested it.  Several states are working on it.  I saw one post that suggested we should increase the minimum wage because it is good for society.  The problem though, you increase the benefit for one group (the employee) and take away from another group (the employer), you essentially could double the employers cost for wages.  Why not vote on a basic income, all Americans will have to decide if that is what we want.  Tax paying Americans can pay for the basic income if we want it.      With minimum wage increases, you essentially put the onus on ALL employers that are currently paying minimum wage.  It could be a small bookstore in Idaho or a coffee shop in New York.  So I think we should remove the minimum wage and protect our society from poverty through a federal basic income.\n\nI would suggest that we do an \"opt-in income\", meaning that if you want the basic income, you can ask for it, no strings attached.  But, your other income cannot exceed the basic income.  For example, if you make 100k a year, you don't really need the possible 15-20k? a year basic income.    Or even if you make 20-30k, you are not eligible for the basic income.\n\nOn the removal of the minimum wage, I don't feel arbitrary wage rates set by the federal government is fair to the employer.  Ultimately it is the employer that desires an employee to work at their business.   A wage rate should be set between the employer and prospective employee.  If it is too low for the employee, don't take the job.  Or the employer should increase the wage to garnish more interest.\n\nHere are my current views and final summary:\n\n* A guaranteed  basic income would address poverty issues without a forced requirement on employers\n*  A basic income might save US tax payers with a reduction on other programs like Medicaid and food programs\n* A basic income would allow citizens the ability to train in new areas without worrying about income\n* A basic income would reduce the burden on employers\n* Removing the minimum wage is fair for employers and the basic income would mean that employees don't have to work at low wage rates.\n\nLibertarian case for basic income:\nhttp://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/08/04/matt-zwolinski/pragmatic-libertarian-case-basic-income-guarantee\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Students should not be evaluated through creative projects for certain subjects + \n + In English class for example, I often get group projects where we have to portray certain things in a \"creative way.\" This usually involves creating a painting/drawing, or a video/mini movie. The problem is, I have pretty much no drawing ability or acting ability. As much as teachers say that it doesn't matter if you're good at drawing/acting or not, in the end, it always does! An elaborate oil painting on something will always get higher marks than a sketch with stick figures. Its clear that the groups who spend the most time, or money for fancy props, and have good drawing/acting skills ALWAYS get better marks. I understand that spending more time is justifiable for getting higher marks, but I don't think having good drawing/acting skills is for ENGLISH class. Why should I have to draw and act for English, shouldn't I be doing those in Art and Drama class? The same goes for any other creative method of expression like singing and dancing, which also come up sometimes. \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: People who read/user their phone while pooping are fucking weirdos + \n + There are no excuses. If you take a book, magazine, smartphone, etc, to the bathroom when you poop, you're a weirdo.\n\n\u00b7 \"But hey, I like to read something while I do it, it makes me relaxed\"\n\nWhat exactly makes you relaxed about smelling shit while you read? Why don't you read in the bed, whitout smelling shit, and in a much more comfortable position?\n\n\u00b7 \"Hey, but pooping takes time, what should I do with sooooo much time in my hands? stare at the wall?\"\n\nOk, but then you have a health problem, because pooping is quick. You feel like you have to do it, you go to the bathroom, you do it, you clean yourself up, you finish. How much can that take? 2-3 minutes maximum?\n\nI don't really see the point of spending any more time than the necessary sitting on the toilet. You guys are in a Freudian anal stage, I hope you realize it.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: We Should execute the weak to improve the human genepool and reduce overpopulation + \n + \n\nAlright, so, i was challenged by a friend of mine to post this here for discussion, and while i am open to ideas to modify it or drop it entirely, i will only do so if you can actually change my mind. I will not give up easily.\nI believe I can change this country, better yet, this world for the better. The whole idea behind what I am about to say relates back to evolution. Humans do not allow evolution to take place properly. We save the weak. I personally believe that we should execute the weak. yes, this sounds harsh but let me explain why. We are not advancing as a race. For now though, we will keep it to America for the sake of the argument and hope the rest of the world catches on. Another massive problem we are facing is over population, we are using our resources and producing waste and pollution and mind blowing rates.\nYou look at animals and if an animal doesn't want to eat, it dies, if a human doesn't want to eat, it has an eating disorder and is treated for the disorder. More importantly that human is allowed to procreate. We allow shitty genetics to be passed on. We SAVE the WEAK. We also allow these morbidly obese, incredibly stupid people live and breed. If an animal in the wild isn't fit, or cannot attract a mate, it will die and or be unable to pass on its genetics. Humans may be fat and physically repulsive but if they have money they can still get women and still have children, which fucks with the gene pool. I could go on for longer in this section but if more reasoning is necessary i'll continue on later.\nNow to determine who is to be executed. The type of people i want to execute are people who are not able to make a contribution to society. If you weigh 500 pounds but you're incredibly smart, you can still make a contribution to society. The opposite is also true, if you're borderline retarded but you're very physically fit, you can also contribute to society. People who are mentally unstable shall also be executed as we wouldn't want their genetics passed on and they are a threat to the gene pool we are creating.\nWhat will determine who is executed: At the age of 14 years old, annual testing will begin based on birthday. There will be three tests, a mental test, a physical test, and a psychological test. Your Mental test exactly 3 months after your birthday and your physical test 9 months after your birthday. Tests will vary depending on your age, the older you get the harder they become, until the age of 20 where they will remain the same until 35 and gradually work their way down until the age of 65 where no further testing will be required. At the age of 20 we will also introduce psychological testing which will continue until the age of 65.\nWhat the tests will consist of: The mental test will be a basic evaluation of your ability to do math, your ability to read and write, and your basic understanding of the sciences. This test should not be difficult, anyone who has at least a D average in school should be just fine. For the physical test, every age group will be required to complete a mile in 16 minutes. This is a very easy time to make, you can walk that pace. Physical tests will include varying push up or sit up tests depending on age group. There may be a few other exercises required in certain age groups, and the amount of repetitions will also vary depending on age. this should be easy for anyone who isn't morbidly obese. Next is the psychological test. These will be administered every 5 years to insure mental stability and health of everyone. We want the mental health of our gene pool to be good as well. Lastly, there will be certain ways to be omitted to testing, ALL WILL BE FROM SOME SORT OF SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIETY, the main one being in the military. If you served in the military without being dishonorably discharged, you will be exempt from any further testing in your lifetime. Another example of a way to be omitted from testing is by paying for it. The cost will be $25,000 per year, per person. Many will be angry that it's giving more power to the rich, but i see it as a valid way of determining someones potential for making a contribution to society. If you are rich, I will almost guarantee you are either physically fit enough or mentally fit enough to pass the tests and you would have been fine anyway. AN IMPORTANT NOTE: You will only have to pass 2 out of 3 tests.\nHow we will execute people: We will set up an organization in charge of carrying out testing and executing people. My idea is to possibly have the military be in charge of this, though I haven't had the time to think too much into that, this I am very open to other ideas on. The method of execution i think will be best is the firing squad. 8 men, 2 with real bullets to ensure death, 6 with blanks for the obvious reason. For those who are unaware, my understanding is that firing squads use primarily blanks so the gunmen aren't aware of who actually killed the person so they don't have trouble with living life after killing someone.\nNow another thing i would like to do that isn't executing people, but will improve our gene pool is preventing certain people from having children. People with MORE THAN two generations of diagnosed cancer or potentially terminal illnesses that tend to be passed on genetically will be sterilized. These people will not be allowed to produce offspring, however we will make it easy for them to adopt if they would like to have children.\nI would also like to place a limit on the amount of children a person may have. The maximum number of children a person may have is 3, which is a very reasonable amount. It should slow the rate of population increase or possibly make the population decrease due to some couples not having children or only having 1 child. There is no reason to have more than 3 children because at that point you're just putting a burden on society. If say you already have 2 children and you would like to have a third but you end up with twins, triplets, or even more, you will be allowed to keep them as it wasn't your intent to have that many. When you hit the limit for children you will be sterilized.\nThis is all i can think of for now, if i remember more of my plan i will post. So reddit users, change my view.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think female teachers should not be judged as harshly as male teachers when they are arrested for engaging in sexual intercourse with their [teenaged] students. + \n + [This](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3155546/Female-ex-Utah-teacher-36-sexually-abused-three-male-students-tearfully-begs-forgiveness-sentenced-30-years-bars.html?ito=social-facebook) is an adequate example of what I am talking about in terms of overly severe sentencing, however i'd love the discussion to be less about sentencing and more about societal judgement. As an example, of course she should never work in education again, but holy shit she shouldn't be rotting away for what is essentially a third of her life just for making 3 people extremely happy. \n\nWhy I think this:\n\nI'm a 27 year old male with a perfectly normal upbringing, a healthy sex life and in a healthy relationship of over 2 years. \n\nThere is nothing I wouldn't have done to get the chance to be intimate with one of my female teachers starting from year 5 right up to university. In my teen years, regardless of losing my virginity at 14 to my then 13 year old girlfriend, I was still completely infatuated with every mildly attractive person I encountered. I was a ball of hormonal clarity, not confusion, I wanted sex, and that was the extent of it. Whereas I feel women as a gender are not as predisposed to hormonal imperatives, so the base need for women does not exist anywhere close to the need that an adolescent man has to get the job done. \n\nTLDR: Adult male vs teenage female, not OK, they're not as into it as men, and the act itself is being driven by a pretty gross desire to bang someone, which they've then chosen to act upon a teenaged girl.  Adult female vs teenage male, what are you an idiot? Of course I'll bang you.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Bernie Sanders has a better chance of being assassinated by his own government before Jan. 20, 2017 than he does of being sworn office in on that day. + \n + Bernie Sanders offers a categorically different approach than others, making him such a direct threat to the status quo that there is no way corporate America will allow him to come to power. No matter how popular his views become and no matter the consensus behind him, The Establishment (meaning big banks, big oil, coal, and establishment politicians) will resort to any means necessary to prevent that from happening. \n\nThough he is a long shot in a \"clean\" election, the actual probability of his election is zero. Too much is invested in maintaining the present balance of political and financial power in the country, and incentives are so great to prevent the rise of someone like Sanders to the WH. Though such means of preventing this outcome are unlikely (a manufactured scandal is more likely), Sanders has a better chance of being assassinated before Jan. 20, 2017 than being sworn into office on that date.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: it is clear that I am meant to be alone + \n + I am a 23 year old male Indian American male. I have never held hands with a girl, been kissed, or obviously had sex. I have never even asked someone out. I do not think a girl has expressed even the slightest interest in me. I graduated from college last year and am about to start med school in a month. I had been fat for years but lost all the weight over the past year and am pretty fit now. I am only 5ft 4 tall however. I do think facially I am slight above average and I wouldn't call myself ugly. My family struggled  financially and I focused on academics like a madman and was able to go to a great college and am headed to a great med school. It is my ticket to a better life. Yet I believe strongly that life will be one of loneliness. Internally I am angry and bitter even as all my friends think I must be so happy to start this next chapter of my life. \n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: In the US, specialized high schools are revenue centers for the college industry. + \n + For all of those outside of the US, in the states going to college/university is very expensive and will drain the finances of the average American and keep them paying for most of their lives. It's a huge profit center, even for \"non-profit organizations\" (most non profit college corporations pay huge salaries to their directors). \n\nAs for specialized high schools, throughout the country there are high schools that attract the higher performing students and gather them into an environment centered around accelerated and competitive learning. By the middle of a student's sophomore year (10th grade/ second year of high school), they have already been bombarded with information about countless colleges and college services. The students are pressured into buying services to give them an upper edge in the college admission process and are instilled with the fear that if they don't get into prestigious institutions they will have not lived up to their potential. The schools themselves even funnel thousands in public dollars to college services and advertising college services. Throughout my junior year (11th grade), I have missed at least four periods of English class because the school wanted us to attend a 40-minute long advertisement assembly for The Princeton Review (test prep service). I'm going into my senior year (12th grade) and watching how all my friends who also go to specialized high schools are being compelled to pour their parents money into countless services to gain an extra edge against other students. The specialized high schools even subtly shame students who pursue going to public universities like myself.\n\nBecause of all of these factors, I'm compelled to believe that specialized high schools are just places to gather the students who have high interest in prestigious universities and squeeze all the money out of their families into the US college industry.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Rock music is no longer culturally relevant + \n + Rock and Roll music is no longer an important part of the cultural conversation. This is obviously not to say that there is no longer rock music being made, that that music is never popular, or that that contemporary rock music isn't good. But rock has become similar to jazz and classical\u2014while there is still lots of it being made, it's not a powerful cultural force any more. The modern cultural conversation is being played out in hip-hop and EDM.\n\nOf the current Top 10 on the Billboard charts, the only rock single is \"Shut Up and Dance\" by Walk the Moon, at #9, and that song is heavily influenced by EDM. The current Song of the Summer is generally agreed to be Fetty Wap's \"Trap Queen.\" The most consistently popular rock band currently is probably either the Foo Fighters, a band that has been around since the late 90s and still plays a very similar style of music to what they were playing then (and arguably still owe a large portion of their popularity to nostalgia for Nirvana, a band whose largest cultural moment was 24 years ago), or the Black Keys, a band playing with a deliberately retro style. \n\nTame Impala and Arcade Fire, two bands that have been lauded for their innovation in the rock genre have on their most recent albums embraced EDM influences, and largely moved away from guitar-based rock. \n\nI would argue that the most culturally important albums of the past few months have been outside of rock\u2014Kendrick Lamar's *To Pimp A Butterfly*, Drake's *If You're Reading This It's Too Late*, Mark Ronson's *Uptown Special*, Taylor Swift's *1989* (in which she ditched her country roots for an embrace of EDM pop).\n\nThere has been a lot of rock music recently that has been great too (Father John Misty, Courtney Barnett, Colleen Green, and Jim O'Rourke have all released albums I have absolutely loved, and I just listened to the new Titus Andronicus album yesterday) but that has become an exception, and as my examples point out, it's not really commercially popular or culturally relevant beyond a small core. \n\nI don't have a real problem with rock losing its cultural cachet. I love rap, R&B, and electronica as well, and think that there is a lot of great innovation going on in modern music (and even that 2015 is an all-time stand-out year). But I think that rock has lost its importance in the wider culture, and that rock music is now even imbued with an inherent feeling of throwback, the way that jazz now makes people think of a certain time period even as jazz continues to innovate to this day.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The UK fox-hunting ban, as it currently stands, is inconsistent and nonsensical. + \n + *Disclaimer: I'm unsure what the conventions are for this, but I decided not to go source-hunting for the various statements I'm about to make, with the understanding that if anyone disputes them, they should be able to find sources to the contrary (this being CMV, after all). If this isn't the case, let me know.*\n\nA bit of background for anyone who doesn't know: a few years ago, the UK parliament issued a ban on fox-hunting with dogs. That is to say, you can now no longer deliberately set dogs to chase a fox, and subsequently allow them to kill it.\n\nMy contention is that the sole reason for this legislation is to 'spite' the upper-class practitioners of the 'sport' of fox-hunting (which I am not a part of, to be clear), which usually takes place in the form of a grand hunt with hordes of dogs, horses, horn blowing etc.\n\nMy reason for this is quite simple: though ostensibly designed to prevent animal cruelty, foxes are still classed as vermin in the UK. This means that you can legally kill them in the wild, without any reason, by pretty much any means you like. This includes snaring, a common method employed by farms, whereupon a trap is laid to catch the fox's leg in a loop of wire, restricting its movement and causing it to starve to death over a period of several days. Other traps and poisons can also be used, and I can say from experience in a rural environment that regulations are non-existent in practise.\n\nThe argument made by proponents is that, for the fox, being hunted in the manner I described is truly terrifying, and the dogs proceed to brutally rip them to pieces. They tend to use a lot of emotional language about how horrific it is, and make unsubstantiated claims about how these evil fox-hunters paint blood on their children's faces. The best thing is, I don't even need to argue against any of these, because *the ban doesn't even target them*.\n\nWhile the foxes can no longer be *killed* by the dogs, the hunting itself is still very much legal. Now, the hunters simply finish it off with a gun, or a bird of prey. If they were feeling sadistic, they could even starve it to death over a period of several days, laughing and stroking their *evil* moustaches as it gets progressively weaker and pained. The ban doesn't even do the job they supposedly designed it for, and yet people still defend it.\n\nI would go one further, and argue that even an 'improved' ban that targets fox-hunting more effectively isn't a good idea. The other common argument I hear is that fox-hunting is, by definition, a blood sport, and that as sentient beings, we should have higher moral standards, and not indulge in the killing of animals simply for our own enjoyment.\n\nNow, I totally understand, and personally agree with, this argument. But, foxes and other animals *are still classed as vermin*; they can be killed for *any* reason, or no reason at all. Aside from much broader and stricter animal rights laws (which I would potentially be open to, but this isn't the discussion being had), the alternative (and what people seem to be in favor of) is some sort of ban on the killing of foxes for the purposes of having fun. I'm against that type of legislation on principle; laws should be based on actions, not on whether the perpetrator enjoyed themselves or not.\n\nSo, in summary, the ban as it currently stands is ineffective, inconsistent, and in my view, representative of class warfare and government-imposed moralistic regulations. This puts me in some, uh.. \"interesting\" company, politically, despite my otherwise bleeding-heart-liberal views. So please, reddit, CMV.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: America should dissolve in a Velvet Divorce + \n + In the early 90s Czechoslovakia peacefully dissolved in the \"Velvet Divorce\" into two separate countries: the Czech Republic and Slovakia. I like that they split the name evenly as well.  They divided the national assets by population and want their respective ways.  While there have been some hiccups, by and large both countries are doing fine. \n\nI think America should undergo a Velvet Divorce of its own.  First the how, then the why. I'd like to focus on why it's a worse outcome than the current course of the country, rather than on the problems with execution (which are admittedly huge).\n\nThe How:\nEach political party designs a policy platform for their own country.  Everyone votes in a \"primary\" referendum for the various platforms, and the two platforms with the most votes advance to the general referendum. Based on the current U.S. political situation, Democratic and Republican platforms are likely to win top-two. (If we want to do more, we can, but it seems like 3rd parties would still benefit)\n\nIn the general referendum, every state holds a vote between the two platforms. The majority decides which country the state will join. \n\nThe likely countries we'll call the \"United States\" and \"America\". These are short-hand for the more liberal/Democratic country and the more conservative/Republican country, respectively. They're likely to look somewhat similar to the last few presidential elections, though with perhaps some defectors in either direction, depending on which country the states see as the real successor to the USA. \n\nFor five years, the government plans and executes the division of itself, the national assets, and national debts by population.  Anyone who wants to move from an area that will be in one country, to an area that will\nbe in the other, will receive government assistance to move.  (I would predict an exodus of African-Americans from \"America\")\n\nAt the end of the five years, the USA is dissolved, its citizenship, currency, flag retired and replaced by those of its successor states. \n\nThe Why:\nIt's apparent to even casual observers of American politics that The USA is a nation divided, mired in gridlock. The result is a non-functional government in which no one is satisfied and major policy initiatives are tortured into Frankensteinian monstrosities to pass (Obamacare). \n\nAmericans have already begun to segregate themselves politically and we've seen a real deterioration of moderate politicians in both parties, who normally could help bridge the gap and find compromises.  \n\nThis stagnation is hurting the USA both at home and abroad. Significant domestic policy challenges are going unaddressed on the federal level (climate change, loss of the middle class, deterioration of transportation infrastructure, tax reform, cost of higher education) and as a result, the USA is losing ground against other countries economically. \n\nSo instead of constantly tripping over each other, screwing up each other's plans, etc, why not divorce?  The \"United States\" can try every left-wing wacko policy it wants, \"America\" can finally do all the nutbag conservative things it wants, and in thirty years, we see which country is the better for it?  Could it really be worse than the partisan gridlock that is dragging the USA down?\n\nProblems with this idea:\nThere are a lot, so I'll highlight some big ones on the procedure side and the effect side. \n\nMilitary:  Each nation would be nuclear-capable and have procedures and armaments the other side is familiar with. This means duplication of key assets (two NORADs, two Pentagons) and that new procedures will have to be developed to ensure neither has the advantage over the other. The \"United States\" might also suffer significance military brain drain to \"America\" due to the average political inclinations of service members. \n\nWorld Economy:  The world economy would go into recession as the world's biggest economy divides and both countries struggle with the inherent inefficiency of two economies where there was one.  Especially if either side enacts trade barriers to the other. \n\nRace to the bottom:  \"America\" would probably remove or reduce labor, environmental, and health and safety laws that are considered bad for business, making it more attractive for capital investment.  This would undermine the \"United States\"economy and progressive policies, as companies can get the same workers for cheaper. \n\nGeography:\n\"America\" would be continuous and vaguely similar to the Republican \"L\" of the south and midwest, with the \"United States\" split between the west coast and northeast.  This is not conducive to the survival of the \"United States\" as an intact entity, I'm not sure there's a nation that's been divided into two parts that has survived very long. ", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe that religious studies should be a required aspect of a student's curriculum + \n + I would first like to clarify that I am aware that some countries do this, laws are different, some places like the Bible Belt would likely use it to push a single ideology etc.,  but this is more focusing on the concept instead of the logistics. I believe in a non-biased environment, a course covering religion (ancient myths to modern religion and secularism) is an extremely important subject to learn. Regardless of individual beliefs, religion has played a massive influence on art, culture, conflict, and civilization as a whole. In addition, with the ease of mass communication that we have now, religions are becoming much more mixed in certain areas. It is often the case that people, do to their environment, have certain incorrect presumptions about different faiths that are never discussed (e.g. \"Atheists are immoral individuals\", \"All Christians believe the earth is 6000 years old\", \"All Muslims are violent terrorists\"). I believe a course would help people understand more of other faiths, and perhaps cause them to question their own (which they may not have done) or consider others.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Goldeneye 007 is useful only as a historical artifact and is, functionally, vastly inferior to today's FPS games. + \n + Let me preface this by saying I own Goldeneye 007 and have played it in both single and multiplayer. Neither particularly impressed me. Note that I don't blame Goldeneye's developers for this; they did the best they could with what they had at the time, and if you compare it to Duke Nukem 64 or SNES Doom it beats them by a landslide. \n\nGoldeneye was absolutely revolutionary for its time, and shaped the path of future FPS games. However, by today's standards, it is absolutely awful and is outclassed in literally every way by today's games.  This is for a number of reasons, including mechanics, controls, and map variety. Despite this, many people choose to play Goldeneye, even though it is crap. \n\nIt's not even moderately close-ish who wins between, say, Battlefield 4 or Goldeneye. However, since I know you guys are going to point out the massive price disparity between buying a PS3/X360 with 4 controllers and an N64 with 4 controllers, I'm going to instead compare it with Timesplitters 2 on the PS2, which I believe to hold up far better today. A PS2 with 4 controllers and TS2 costs you $50 + $10x4 + $10 = $100. (Amazon prices) An N64 with 4 controllers and Goldeneye costs you $50 + $20x4 + $15 = $145. (Amazon prices) All of this is used.\n\nLet's first compare game mechanics. It makes sense that Goldeneye's game mechanics are less complex than Timesplitters 2's because the controller has fewer buttons. In Goldeneye you have the ability to do the following: aim, move, zoom in, fire, perform contextual actions, and switch weapons in one direction. Timesplitters 2 offers all of that as well as the ability to crouch and reload, as well as cycle backward and forward through your weapons. Of course, both of these games' mechanical complexities pale in comparison to today's FPS games, which add sprinting, jumping, and more.\n\nNext, controls. The N64's lack of dual analog makes the clear winner TS2. Other than that, they pretty much have the same control scheme. Props to Goldeneye for having more variety, but most of the variety is exceptionally poorly thought out schemes where moving and aiming are mixed between the C buttons and the analog stick.\n\nFinally, there is map variety. Due to the limitations of the N64, all of Goldeneye's maps are basically the same: completely indoor mazes of hallways and doors. Granted, there is much more variety than on most games of this type in that era, but compare this to TS2. You can CREATE YOUR OWN MAPS and many of the pre-created maps are outdoors. The maps also feel very different: the difference between Caves and Library is nothing compared to between Circus and Hangar, for instance.\n\nAll these points are why I feel that Goldeneye 007 is a relic of the past and if you're looking for a multiplayer FPS experience you are better off looking elsewhere. In fact, other than \"because I played it as a kid,\" or \"because I own no consoles newer than the N64,\" I don't think there is any reason at all to play Goldeneye. CMV!\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Amazon Echo is an incredibly harmful piece of technology. + \n + A lot of futuristic technology has floundered lately (3D TV, Google Glass, etc.) but Amazon Echo can be incredibly harmful if it takes off.\n\n[Watch the launch video to understand what Amazon Echo is.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQn6aFQwBQU) If you don't have the time, this is the pitch:\n\nAmazon Echo is designed around your voice. It's hands-free and always on. With seven microphones and beam-forming technology, Echo can hear you from across the room\u2014even while music is playing. Echo is also an expertly tuned speaker that can fill any room with immersive sound.\n\nEcho connects to Alexa, a cloud-based voice service, to provide information, answer questions, play music, read the news, check sports scores or the weather, and more\u2014instantly. All you have to do is ask.\n\nEssentially, it is an omnipresent Siri that lives in your home and is constantly listening. The device already has 23,058 reviews from testers and it is just hitting the market. Now imagine one of these in everyone's home. I will cover some of the highlights of the launch video as examples in my argument.\n\n---\n\n**Reason 1: Laziness**\n\nA lot of technology today encourages laziness. However, this takes it to a whole new level.\n\nExample: \"Alexa, add waffles to my shopping list.\" Now we don't even need to jot things down or even type them into our smart phones at the very least.\n\nExample: 'Alexa can provide news!' Instead of reading the newspaper or watching the news we can listen to a mono-tone robot recite world events.\n\nExample: \"Alexa, what is the chance of rain?\" The woman is literally standing next to the door when she asks this question. However, she would rather receive the weather from her nifty new gadget than to actually look outside or watch a weather report.\n\n---\n\n**Reason 2: Reliance on Technology**\n\nMost of us can admit that we are uncomfortably dependent on our smart phones. However, what if our smart phone was never in our pocket? What if it was always plugged in and tempting us? This is essentially Amazon Echo. The narrator even proclaims that Echo will, \"Become a part of the family!\"\n\nExample: \"The echo is a tool that we use to keep our household functioning.\" This is a quote from a mother as she dresses her daughter. I am aware that these are commercially invented situations being reenacted by paid actors. However, I feel as though they are fairly accurate depictions of how people will use this technology and how they will respond to it. Clearly, there are many issues with one piece of technology keeping a household together.\n\nExample: \"The prime re-ordering is when you can ask Alexa to order something you've already ordered through your prime account.\" Now we can shop by shouting a phrase at a robot! No need to go out.\n\nI think laziness coupled with reliance on technology have been the most harmful qualities that todays youth (myself included) suffer from. We find it difficult to go out and make plans. We find it difficult to socialize. We find it difficult to talk on the phone. In a world full of constant updates and fast information, why should we access things in any other way? We want things instantaneously and at our discretion.\n\n---\n\n**Reason 3: Invasion of Privacy**\n\nMajor corporations will do anything to learn more about consumers and what they want. Echo allows consumers to order things through Amazon Prime. I am not afraid of what this AI will do granted that it can always hear and learn. As long as it's just a black cylinder speaker (with no hidden flame-thrower) I don't believe we have a reason to fear an Echo uprise. Rather, I am more afraid of what the men and women behind the scenes will do. \n\nExample: 'Echo can hear you from anywhere in the room, so it's always ready to help!' \"I can have the water running, I can be cooking, the TV can be on in the back room, and she still can hear me.\" \n\nAll I could think while watching this was, \"Genisys is Skynet!\"\n\n---\n\nHere is a link to the [Amazon page.](http://www.amazon.com/Amazon-SK705DI-Echo/dp/B00X4WHP5E)\n\nSo, can anyone give me some reason as to why Amazon Echo can be more helpful than harmful?\n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Suicide is the only logical option for me / someone in my situation. + \n + I'll describe as much as I can without giving away my identity.\nI have undergone in-depth analysis of my life over the last few years, and I have concluded that suicide is logical, at least for my situation.\n\nTo start with, I am a trans female. I underwent SRS (sex reassignment surgery) seven years ago, but I do not feel that medical science is advanced enough to cure my dysphoria to an acceptable extent - my physical appearance is just far too different from my inner self image.\n\nFor this reason, I have been unable to enjoy any aspect of my life. I have had numerous relationships, some short term, a couple of long term, but they have all felt \"forced\" - not at all natural and how I'd expect a relationship to be. As I never felt like myself, I could never really participate in the relationships in the way I'd like to - and more or less all of them ended for these reasons. To elaborate, I felt no real emotions - I told myself I was feeling them, because that's what I expected, but none of it was ever \"real\".\n\nThe rest of my life has followed similar patterns. It's as if I am looking at someone else's life through a window, never actually experiencing the feelings and emotions that I'd expect to feel. I am unable to experience most emotions - the only thing I feel is disappointment and frustration about my situation. Other than that, I just feel numb. Never excited, or happy.\n\nI have tried various avenues to make my life worthwhile. I have taken up hobbies, sought medical treatment for the dysphoria as well as counselling, various anti-depressants and SSRIs, etc. (despite the fact that I do not suffer from depression) all to no avail. I know what my life is missing and I know that it will not be possible to fix it, at least not within my lifetime.\n\nI am currently in a state of existing rather than living. I see no point in going through the motions of life, having a job, buying a house etc. I quit my fairly well paid job and took up some part time work for a small business. It's enough to pay the rent and bills, but not much more. It keeps me alive, and I have far more free time.\n\nI have no desire to continue to live like this. In everything I do, I come across obstacles that make me more and more frustrated. I faced problems in full time employment for various reasons - I never wanted to be there, I never felt 'rewarded' despite my high pay and I had disdain for authority. Some days I just wouldn't bother to go in, because I felt like I had better things to do. In my current situation, I have constant worry about my financial situation - having just enough money to survive, I face huge problems when the unexpected happens - such as the recent head gasket failure in my car, and faced with having to move yet again in the next month or two.\n\nIn addition, I find new things to reinforce my desire to leave this life on an almost daily basis. It seems like every news article I read gives me further disdain for the human race, for the world around me.\n\nThe simple fact is, I have absolutely no desire to be here. Therefore, the logical alternative is to put an end to my life.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: As a Vietnamese, sometimes I wish the America won the Vietnam War + \n + Look, I know this is a touchy subject, and while people might say I'm young and didn't understand the complexity of wars, just hear me out.  \n  \nVietnam was essentially a communist state, due to influences from China and USSR, which were alliances (the former is debatable) of Vietnam during the war. After the war, our country has suffered multiple economic depressions, and famines due to the incompetence of our liberally named Communist Party. Granted the South Vietnam government wasn't any better, but what the U.S wanted for Vietnam was for the best.  \n  \nI understand that, technically the US did not wage war with our people, but stood against the spread of communism in Asia, and with our strategic location, a battle surely followed. The US did not deliberately invaded our country. And look at what they did to the world. ~~Defeated the Nazis and fascist countries~~, uplifted South Korea, Japan (which were both smaller and less resourceful than my country) to their respectable position on the world map today. And what had the sole communist party in my country done? Nothing but left our people in the struggle of a third-world country. And China is still brazenly harassing our borders and seas to this very day, just because our army is incapable of standing up for themselves.  \n  \n~~Please tell me if I was wrong and why the North won was a good idea.~~  \n  ", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The black community is perpetuating stereotypes and self-segregating itself. + \n + I am a young black male, who is torn between both sides of the aisle regarding race relations in America. \n\nI have experience racial profiling and understand that there is a prevalent problem with minorities -- specifically African-Americans and Latinos receiving lengthier prison sentences and disproportionately being targeted by law officials. \n\nI also understand that my experiences do not relate to all of the black community. By that I mean, just because I was able to make it out of the 'hood' doesn't necessarily mean every black person is awarded that opportunity. \n\n\nHowever I also believe that police brutality should not be the pressing issue within the (urban) black community. I believe that the black community is a ''riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma''. And that movements like Black Lives Matter only polarize the country. The American consciousness does not change overnight. \n\nObviously I'm not going to be able to go into deep analysis of my views but I'll try touch on some view points.\n\n* Mindset\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nBlack people throughout American history have been disproportionately impoverished, and throughout the last 30 years have developed a mindset of \"hustlin\". Now I understand that \"hustlin\" can translate into any race/culture as just another medium in which to get money. But black culture seems to value poverty and the 'hustlers mentality'. If I turn on the radio to HOT107.5, I am very likely to find the radio announcer perpetuating this stereotype. \"Hustlin'\"  is glorified while education is not. \n\nThere is very little initiative towards the Arts, STEM, etc. Sports/athleticism seems to be the major avenue to which black people feel they can ascend from poverty. \n\nHip-hop is attached to black culture, and it seems that black culture (which has churned out great literary works and ideas) cannot distance itself from hip-hop. I don't believe hip-hop is bad. Quiet the opposite, but it is the black community that has embraced the hip-hop scene and made the world associate it with us & crime/street life. Even TV shows portray this, everything from sitcoms to drama. You are less likely to find the token-black guy, and more likely to find the 'reformed thug'. \n\nBlack people want to be included in mainstream society, yet reject it at the same time. We want to have black casts in popular TV series or movie franchises, but we also want black-only things. I believe you can't have your cake and eat it too. America works best as a soup, not a salad. \n\nThe black community has yet to tackle black on black crime, yet it sees police brutality as more important. We HATE to be labeled as thugs, criminals, yet social media has only made our stereotypes more transparent.\n\n/r/blackpeopletwitter, albeit funny, is also embarrassing because black people are again perpetuating a stereotype or being cast a stereotype. Tweets about is 'how fire is my mixtape, 'bruh' 'nigga this, nigga that'. We have normalized it to the point weere teenage white girls are saying \"nigga\" and \"bitch\" like it's a pronoun. Political action by black tweeters seems to also alienate other groups of people. The issue of police brutality for example seems to be marketed/targeted as a black-only issue. Again, creating polarizing opinions/slogans like \"All Lives Matter\" \n\n\n* Black nationalism\n\nIn my eyes, black nationalism is dangerous because it perpetuates a lot of misinformation and half truths. It is on the scale as 'white washing' history. Social media has become a breeding ground for misinformation by/for the black community. Black nationalism will ultimately lead to polarizing the nation.\n\ni.e. \"Ancient Egyptians were black, Jesus was black, Mohammed was black, etc\" or teaching talking about slavery only in terms of black v. white. \n\n\n* Homophobia/Racism/Misogyny\n\nAs I stated earlier, the black community hasn't made a very active attempt in stemming the mindset that mainstream hip-hop culture perpetuates. All I can tell you is from my own experience but homophobia and misogyny  seems to be rampant in the black community. Not so much in terms of violent actions but insults through social media and subtle homophobic/misogynistic remarks made on radio and TV. \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The Jesus Myth Hypothesis is Plausible + \n + Crossposted from a comment on /r/skeptic\n\nI've read David Fitzgerald, some of Richard Carrier, and the criticisms of both and it seems to me that there is a lot of vitriol on both sides. The mythicists take umbrage at being dismissed as amateurs and dabblers and vociferously defend their hypotheses, the historicists take umbrage at the strenuous attacks, and it all gets very torrid very quickly, and becomes very difficult to actually analyze the actual strength of the arguments.\n\nSo, as a skeptic, I'm sufficiently intrigued by the Mythicist arguments to profess agnosticism as to the Historical Jesus, for the following reasons:\n\n* There are no extrabiblical attestations of any significant event from the life of Jesus. On the contrary, events such as the slaughter of the innocents, the census of all the Empire are clearly fictitious, and multiple miracles, the triumphal entry to Jerusalem, and multiple events surrounding the crucifixion are absent from all historical records when there's a reasonable chance that some account of them would have survived, had they occurred at all.\n*  The synoptic problem indicates that we are working from at most one source that even approaches being primary, and even that most likely written much later, anonymously, and as hagiography rather than history.\n*  Well into the third century, pagan sources mostly recount the existence of Christians and document the claims of Christians. This is at best hearsay.\n* attempts to reconstruct the \"real\" historical Jesus are invariably unprovable and contradictory with one another--there is no consensus.\n* While the vast bulk of NT scholarship presumes an historical Jesus, the \"scholarly consensus\" should be given less weight since for centuries, such research has been largely a devotional undertaking. Jesus mythicism is very nearly literally heretical, as well as figuratively. At least sufficiently that it deserves consideration even though a strong consensus exists that contradicts it.\n\n\nSo, we accept the historical reality of many persons throughout ancient history based on much less proof than gospels and various other pagan mentions. So maybe there was an itinerant sage named Yeshua who ran around, gathered a minor following, and was executed for sedition. But the problems above mean A) we know nothing about him and B) almost everything written about him is unknowable or outright fictitious.\n\n\nI look at it as the difference between \"Abraham Lincoln\" and \"Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.\" Notwithstanding that there is an historical person that was the basis, the hero version is a myth.\n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Negative stereotyping and profiling can only change when the potential victims break the stereotype. + \n + This view of mine might sound obvious or simple but I think a lot of sensitive, complex social issues have simple underlying causes that are often ignored. In fact, I think they are so often ignored that I start to doubt my own view, hence this post. I'm a little embarrassed to share it. Here's my basic line of thought:\n\n* Stereotypes exist because the generalization is accurate.\n* Several of society's popular problems are blamed on other people acting with an awareness of stereotypes, or the stereotypes themselves.\n* A lot of cases regarding these problems are caused or made worse by the victim acting in accordance with a stereotype while blaming either the stereotype or something else.\n* If people made more of a conscious effort to not act in accordance with a stereotype in a situation where the stereotype could be considered relevant less incidents would occur.\n* When less incidents occur the stereotype changes or evaporates completely. \n\n'Victim' is somewhat of a loose term here (I'm excluding people who are indirectly involved with an incident pertaining to whatever social ill anyone might refer to) so before you shout \"victim blaming!\" I'll freely state that yes, I believe victims are *very rarely* 100% free from some kind of responsibility. \n\nAn example would be a black man being pulled over in a bad neighborhood and getting ticketed, arrested, or worse after arguing with/ resisting the police officer. We *might* be able to argue the man was unfairly profiled, but we can't prove something like that. It's much easier to take preventative measures (respect and compliance with the officer, no matter how shitty of a person they may be) and either avoid the situation completely or not make it harder than it needs to be. But once the black driver starts getting loud and upset, in the cops mind he's just another loud black person (fulfilling the stereotype) which could lead the officer to believe that the driver fulfills other aspects of his stereotype. \n\nAnother quick example would be the stereotype of men only being interested in sex and men saying \"not all men are pigs.\" Well, if that stereotype upsets you as a man, the only thing you can really do that will have any kind of effect is to not be a pig! But nobody seems to realize this, they just want everyone else to do what they ask. \n\nObviously I'm not proposing an over-night fix to any social issue, but what I'm proposing would benefit our society a lot more than victims telling everyone else to stop stereotyping. Pointing the finger at the aggressor(s) doesn't actually help solve the whole problem; all that does is either end that individual incident or piss people off. That shortsightedness does absolutely nothing to solve the problem on any kind of large, lasting scale. \n\nI'm happy to edit for any needed clarification. \nCMV!\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Mainstream acceptance of the Book of Mormon Musical shows that joking about a religion (of any kind) should be allowed in the USA + \n + To start off yes I am Mormon and no I am not offended by The Book of Mormon Musical. In fact I know a ton of very devout Mormons who have seen the play and they all said that they thought it was very funny. In fact the LDS (Mormon) church even bought ads in the Playbills of the musical to direct the audience to the official LDS website. Prominent political figures such as Hilary Clinton have also seen the play and didn't have any issues about it.\n\nYet at the same time there are certain religions in the United States that are big no-no's to make fun of.  This seems slightly counter intuitive. \n\nI only have the view from a Mormon perspective but there have been other pieces of media that openly mock and slap at Mormons including [this](http://images.politico.com/global/2012/07/bbw_mormonempire_cover29.jpg) from the cover of Bloomberg Businessweek. For a little bit of background on this cover and what it is depicting. That is Joseph Smith who is the founder of the Mormon church along with another member of the church receiving a blessing from an angel.  Obviously this angel did not say those things that are on the cover and disputing what the cover brings up is a topic for a different subreddit, so please don't address those things, but know that this cover is offensive to most Mormons. This scene in Mormon theology is as sacred as Moses receiving the ten commandments or Buddha reaching Nirvana. \n\nSo I guess I'm just trying to understand why its acceptable to harshly mock some religions (not just Mormons) but not others.\n\nTL;DR Why is it politically correct to never criticize one religion but its okay to criticize another?\n\n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: X is better than Y + \n + Clearly, X is better than Y, for a number of reasons. \n\n1. Pronunciation. Saying X has a stronger, more powerful sound than saying Y, which only manages to sound a bit whiny, perhaps because is is too close to \"why.\"\n\n2. Exclusivity. Only about 300 words in English start with X. Y starts over 700 (per Wolfram-Alpha, and this appears to include proper nouns). X appears in only 0.15% of English words, while Y appears in far more. I could not find an estimated percentage, but so many adverbs end in \"ly\" that it rather proves my point. Even though it's so exclusive, it is so much more versatile, as shown below.\n\n3. Consistency. X is always a consonant. Y? Well, it cannot make up its mind. \n\n4. Scrabble. X is worth twice as many points (8:4). \n\n5. Use in math. First, x is almost always the first letter used as you learn algebra. This could go with consistency above as well, but the x-axis shows the constant, stable variable. \n\n6. Appearance. X has a strong, stable stance. Y looks like it could topple over in a slight breeze. \n\n7. Sex. Our favorite word not only has X right in it, but the whole last 2/3 of the word sounds like saying X. Y? Nowhere to be found, unless it tags along to make something sexy. Not to mention the uses of XXX, and the fact that fairer sex is made up of X chromosomes. Y gives us baldness, hairy backs, and emotional immaturity. \n\n8. History. Malcolm X, not Malcolm Y. There's even \"American History X.\"\n\n9. Versatility in other areas. X can be used to show that something is crossed out, used as a check mark to indicate the choice on a form, used in cartoons to show that a person is dead, used in medicine (x-rays), used to show treasure on a map, \n\n10. = X. \n\n11. ~~No one has ever died in a state spelled with an X. Kentucky, New Jersey, New York, and Wyoming combine for 10% of the deaths in the US each year~~ I somehow came up with the 4 Y states off the top of my head and also thought there were no X states. New Mexico and Texas. \n\n12. If you're talking about unknown items, you always say \"X is better than Y,\" never \"Y is better than X\". \n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Dating Sites Shouldn't Have a 'Just Looking For Friends' Option + \n + **Partial Delta for /u/DHCKris.**\n\n*I'll give you a partial \u2206 because I do think that New Friends works as a combination option, but I think my CMV is more focused on the idea of someone who's either exclusively listed as For Friends, or their profile makes it out that they are primarily (nearly exclusively) for friends. I think in terms of actually being useful to users, it would be nice to have some kind of flagging system for this. My main gripe is that all these sites just show you faces and user names, and you don't really know that these people aren't interested until you've already been drawn in.*\n___\n*This is based on my experience over about 4-6 months of casually using Tinder and OkC, if that helps you form any counter arguments or gives any perspective. Also, this isnt about poly relationships looking for another partner, the scope of my view doesn't even approach that.*\n\nSomething I've noticed with slightly surprising frequency on dating sites are profiles that have one of the following kinds of statements- \"Looking for friends, no commitments.\", \"My husband/boyfriend knows I have this to make friends, and I'm not going to cheat so don't bother\", \"I just moved here and thought this would be a good way to make some friends\", \"I don't take this seriously, I'm just here for the laughs, really not looking for a relationship\" ... etc...\n\nPersonally, I feel these kinds of profiles don't belong on dating sites, and only serve to come off as disingenuous or disappointing. Most dating sites just give you a series of profile pictures and names, and you choose which ones you find attractive to open up and read. The image draws you in, and then the \"Just for friends\" lets you down. To me, this is like someone attending a speed dating night at a singles bar, someone finds them very attractive and wants to see about striking up a relationship, and then they say \"Oh I only came here to maybe find some friends and enjoy people trying too hard\". If you're really looking for friends, there are places designed for platonic relationships- in the context of online communities there's places like subreddits for local towns, there's meetup.com, there's plenty of public Facebook groups for all kinds of interests, etc... \n\nGoing to a place specifically marketed to and called a dating app is just disingenuous. I wouldn't go to Ashley Madison if I just wanted to get a platonic shoe shopping buddy. \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Laws and regulations restricting the \"power\" of firearms are ineffective and only serve to punish lawful gun owners + \n + I think the topic of gun *ownership* is pretty well covered, lots of interesting discussions have been made already. What interests me are places where guns are fairly obtainable, but there are restrictions on the power of these guns; I don\u2019t think this issue has been touched on very much, and I feel it\u2019s extremely important in areas that are affected. I would cite locations such as Massachusetts, New York, California, and Canada as examples of places with bans/regulations on things like magazine capacity, size/shape of the gun, and attachments/accessories. \nMy primary argument mirrors one from gun ownership, in that things like standard capacity magazines, almost all gun components, and most accessories are legally purchasable pretty much anywhere except the places with the stricter laws. Unlike complete firearms, making these purchases don\u2019t require going to extremely far away locations, dealing with shady individuals, or paying a significant markup. I don\u2019t believe these laws have any significant impact on anyone\u2019s ability to obtain these items.\n\nThis leads into my primary concern, which is that these laws are meant to incriminate lawful gun owners and discourage lawfully owning guns and accessories by making it annoying, costly, and a general waste of time. Low capacity magazines force users to bring excessive amounts of magazines for recreational/hunting use. It\u2019s quite annoying to have to constantly reload magazines and switch them when shooting high volumes of ammo. I don\u2019t buy the commonly cited rational, which is to make shooting sprees more difficult. For the aforementioned reasons, anyone with criminal intent can easily go get standard capacity magazines; if they\u2019ve got a gun the hard part is already over. \n\nAnother issue is the practice of deliberately keeping federal regulators, the BATF, understaffed and underfunded. To obtain accessories such as silencers or obtain permission to build a SBR, you have to pay a significant fee and then wait a stupid amount of time. Not only does this make it harder for the BATF to actually do their job, this fundamentally is making following the law as difficult as possible. I don\u2019t think there is any legitimate reason to use defunding as part of the regulatory process. \n\nIn addition to the uselessness of these laws, these accessories are far more likely to be used for recreational purposes, rather than illegal activities. Having something like a silencer is great for hunting or shooting at the range, and not much else. Unlike movie silencers, the sound of the gun is not going to be suppressed so much that nobody in close proximity will be aware a gun is being fired. It would take a very specific scenario to actually use a silencer in a meaningful way to commit a crime; someone robbing a gas station or shooting someone in the street can\u2019t ninja vanish just because they have a silencer.\n\nLastly, I would argue these laws have little to no punitive impact on criminals. There is a huge step up in punishment for those committing crimes with guns compared to having no weapon, or something like a knife. There is little change, if any, between committing a crime with a gun verses committing a crime with a gun and some illegal accessories. As stated earlier, I believe these punishments are more targeted towards lawful gun owners, as they usually won\u2019t entail anything more than a fine and restrictions in one\u2019s ability to own firearms. On the other hand, if someone has committed murder, armed robbery, or another heinous crime with their gun, these punishments would be the least of their worries. \n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Anyone who actively opposes same-sex marriage based on religious reasons cannot justify it without admitting hypocricy, and in doing so, are likely damning themselves in the eyes of their lord. + \n + CMV: There is no way someone can say they disagree with same-sex marriage, based on religious reasons, without being a hypocrite.  Nobody can live their life to the word of the Bible.  At least nobody in Western culture in this day and age.  To live by the Bible to the letter would land whoever did in prison and on death row.\n\nSo, with the way that humanity has grown and laws have evolved, people must pick and choose what to follow verbatim and what to shrug off as no longer relevant or possible to follow.  With same-sex marriage (something that is not even mentioned anywhere in the bible), people tend to take a few phrases from the Old Testament and interpret them to say that we should not allow gay people to be able to marry each other.\n\nNow, it is of my opinion that in fighting against gay marriage, unless you're also fighting for every other thing in the Bible that nobody adheres to, you are a hypocrite.  Not only that, but you've chosen a part of the Bible that keeps others from a basic civil right.  If your concern is about the sanctity of marriage, why is there no outcry about the divorce rate or how many people remarry without stoning their previous wife (who they must have divorced because she was unfaithful)?\n\nI see no other possibility than these people dislike gay people for personal reasons, be it that they think it's icky or it just makes them uncomfortable, etc. and have found a means to combat it.  To me, this is exploitation.  Exploitation of the religion they claim to love in order to make their lives a little bit better for themselves.  I do not know if this is considered a sin or not, but as everyone who is against SSM seems to assume that is a sin, I would have to assume that this is as well..... and in all likelihood a greater one.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The Minimum Wage is Immoral. + \n + I've heard some decent arguments for why the minimum wage is ineffective, but that is not what I'm arguing here. I believe the concept of the minimum wage itself is inherently immoral.\n\nI think that society *should* provide a baseline which no citizen will be allowed to fall below, but this burden should be shared equally. The minimum wage arbitrarily puts this cost on to companies that use low-skilled workers. Google doesn't provide their employees with a modern cafeteria and relatively high pay simply because they are a great humanitarian organization. They do it because the work they do requires highly-skilled workers and the market demands this kind of work be compensated with higher prices, and as a result, they don't have the media and politicians attacking them for being cruel to their employees despite simply paying them the market rate for their work.\n\nIf we had something like a universal basic income similar to the [Negative Income Tax](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM), then this would ensure that all tax-paying citizens helped contribute to maintaining a safety net in the country. Instead, the minimum wage is a discriminatory tax that targets certain companies and ignores others based not on any moral principle, but instead on an arbitrary aspect of the work they do. The constitution explicitly outlaws any taxes that are aimed at a certain group for this very reason. It was considered unjust to do something like this. It was one of the reasons they fought the revolution.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Please convince me we aren't currently in a North Korea-like situation + \n + How can you convince me that all the nations that i'm allowed to visit aren't all working together to hide a bigger and better and more free world. Maybe the internet I know is actually just a restricted and monitored intranet. I personally don't know anyone who has tried to fly a plane in any direction they wanted for as long as they wanted, so maybe all commercial airlines are restricted to brother nations that perpetuate the lie. You get the idea, convince me we aren't in North Korea #2.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Voting shouldn't be a right, but something granted only for certain people + \n + I know this is a very controversial subject, and many people disagree with me, and I have to admit, I am not the perfect judge for this.\n\nA little background on me, just because you should know. First, I consider myself conservative/republican and I am also under 18, so I can't vote. I also live in the US but I think this applies to most countries.\n\nSo, I don't think everyone should be given the right to vote. The average person I have found does not know about economics, politics, and policies to make an educated vote.\n\nI see people all the time saying stupid stuff on facebook about something about politics and they really don't know what they are talking about.\n\nIn school, you may take one or two economic classes, but that is definitely not enough to make enough of an educated vote. I don't know, because I don't know what I don't know but I feel that the economy is much more complicated than what could be covered in that time.\n\nSomething that bothers me a lot is when people make opinions over something they are not educated about. I think we should let the experts make decisions, because they are smarter and more knowledgeable in that subject than the average person. So people, not knowing what the experts say, will go in and vote over something they don't know hardly anything about. Unless you know virtually all the facts about something, you are not educated enough to make decisions about it if there are people do know all of it.\n\nAnd frankly, you average Joe did not go to school for years and years to study political policies and their effectiveness. Yet he has a vote on what is going on, and that really bothers me. And honestly, I am in that same bout. Maybe it changes when I can vote, but it does not seem like that when I look at older people I know.\n\nIs part of my argument possibly flawed because right now we have a democratic government, and I am republican? Maybe. But I think I can recognize the same problem even if I had the \"upper hand\". I know reddit is generally very democratic, so please don't make this about that.\n\nI would honestly would like someone to change my view.\n\n\nAlso, /u/drjonesenberg added something that really helped change my view. Delta to him.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The best way to achieve marriage equality is for everyone to just stop getting married. + \n + There is no real argument against allowing people of all genders from getting married. However, Marriage as a whole is in fact an outdated and completely unnessecary institution.\n\nIt may have served a purpose in the dark ages, but now, there is simply no need for the state to acknowledge a romantic union.\n\nI understand that there are some Tax benefits to some people as married couples, and it certianly helps a few people stay in foreign countries, but these are not good reasons to sign a government contract that is against human nature.\n\ninstead of making marriage legal for everyone, it would have been far more progressive to just get rid of marriage alltogether,\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The US military budget should be diverted into projects that aim to fix the world. + \n + \"Each javelin round costs about $80,000, and the idea that it's fired by a guy who doesn't make that in a year, at a guy who doesn't make that in his lifetime is somehow so outrageous that it almost makes this war seem winnable\"\n\n-Sebastian Junger\n\nThe [US military budget](http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending) for both 2011 and 2012 was around $690 billion ($690,000,000,000). This money is wasted on overpriced training, equipment and massacres for a war that is helping no-one. The \"earth's 6th big extinction event\" scare is doing the rounds and regardless of its scientific legitimacy, there is little doubt that the world is on a course for annihilation. However, I would argue that the world is not doomed and could be brought back to a state of balance (more or less) with the right funding in areas such as sustainable energy, global education and environmental rehabilitation. Unfortunately that funding is going towards America's collosal erection for blowing brown people up.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: People who are \"saved\" by suicide hotlines aren't legitimately suicidal; they just have poor crisis management. + \n + \nAlso, downvotes don't change views, people. \n\n***\n\nI've suffered from very severe depression for most of my life, and have considered suicide quite frequently. One of the things people like to throw out is contact information to suicide hotlines, but they've never been helpful to me.\n\nMy personal experience aside, I really don't see how these crisis hotlines could help someone who legitimately wants to die (as opposed to someone who uses suicide or self-harm as an escape from acutely painful emotions or a stressful situation). If you were set on dying, then why would you want to call a hotline like that in the first place? I think that if someone wanted to die, they wouldn't commit suicide on an impulse in a moment of crisis; they would do research and try to carry out suicide in the most effective way possible with the least chance of error. Calling a hotline is also not going to change any of the external factors that would lead up to someone being suicidal. Perhaps they would help the person consider their issues in a different light, but again I think that's evidence of poor stress management.\n\nI can't make any statements to whether or not my personal suicidal wishes are \"legitimate\" or not because there is always the looming possibility that my mental illness is clouding my judgement to some extent, but I think that it's theoretically possible that someone would want to die on a rational basis. I also don't think that suicide hotlines are generally helpful for the chronically depressed, but that's only tangential to my main argument. Once you're mentally ill for a long period of time, (I think the issue of mental illness and consent become very clouded, if for no other reason than it's impractical to deny someone consent for the majority of their lives because of a mental health condition.) It seems like the wish to die in and of itself is a basis to claim that someone is not acting in their right state of mind, which I think is illogical and unfortunate. \n\nI know this paragraph was written somewhat messily, and I apologize for that. I'm just trying to provide some context for my view. I will be happy to clarify anything for anyone that asks.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I feel as if North and South Korea should resume the war for the sake of reunification and prosperity in the big picture. + \n + I'm Korean-American and I have family in Korea. I disagree with many of those I encounter who usually tend to also be of Korean descent when I don't get all too frantic about the idea of war on the peninsula. I feel as if this conflict, whether it is dormant or tense or whatever, must be dealt with in the future and we're just kicking the can down the road.\n\n1. Many people would die, regardless. People are dying under the famines and in the concentration camps. The longer we wait, the more people will suffer and die. Taking action as soon as possible would cause a high death toll but can potentially be made up for it by the fact that we'd be taking action soon and not \"whenever unexpected situations lead us to.\" Plus, it's arguable that simply leaving things be is 'inhumane'.\n2. Long-term, a unified Korea would turn into an economic powerhouse. We have two countries with very strong work ethics, a country with a ton of technological advancements and billionaire tech companies, another country with a ton of cheap labor (that can help jump start the economy after unification), lots of natural resources that would offset the costs, and infrastructure that must be built in the northern half of the peninsula. Some experts say a unified Korea can surpass Japan in economic power.\n3. I highly doubt China would be as uncomfortable having a unified, US-influenced Korea on their doorstep like people say they'd be. It's not like people aren't able to fly from Beijing to Seoul or New York City; they're aware of lifestyle in first world countries. China and South Korea are, contrary to popular belief, close allies. The number of refugees who would attempt to cross the Chinese border would probably be minimal if China expresses force in the region and South Koreans distribute food effectively and quickly. Furthermore, they know they'd have to go through sex trafficking and risk of death if they want to go through China... and then go where?\n\nI have a very open mind when it comes to this issue. The reason why I am posting this is because I see others worrying a lot when seeing news of a potential resumption of war while I feel a sense of hope. But my thinking may be entirely backwards. I'd like to see opposing arguments to this topic. Thanks for reading!\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The Guardian is the most objective, hard hitting, ethical and trustworthy news company/mass media organisation in the modern global journalistic landscape. + \n + Over the the last couple years (basically since Snowden stuff) I've slowly defaulted to going to The Guardian for my daily news needs. I have never been able to fault them on any of their work, and aside from few opinion pieces everything under The Guardian brand has been top journalistic work.\n\nHowever, I'm well aware that holding somebody in such high regard puts you under enormous influence of their opinion, especially since media company's job is basically to convince me to think the way they want me to think. It's gotten that bad that now when I see titles of news articles on, say, Facebook often I'll simply Google the keywords and add \"the guardian\" and read their article instead of the original article that caught my attention. Regardless of how good The Guardian is you can hardly say you're well informed if all of your opinions come from the same source.\n\nSome of my arguments for The Guardian (feel free to attack those):\n\n- they seem to be the most independent news organisation with no ties to any other media conglomerates and or political organisations\n\n- they embrace the internet and new technology\n\n- they put journalistic integrity over any other concern; no story is too difficult or awkward to them\n\n- they don't paywall their content and aren't even dicks when you block their ads, instead gently offering you to voluntarily subscribe\n\n- despite being British, they tend to have a good spread of international content and don't focus on Britain only\n\nSo, please change my view that The Guardian is overall the best place to get your news.\n\nP.S. If you don't like The Guardian, please offer alternatives. I like Deutsche Welle and Al Jazeera as well.\n\nP. P. S. Just for the sake of context I'm Australian and I often read http://www.theguardian.com/au as well as http://www.theguardian.com/international. \n\n> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Instead of firearms, police should use/carry tranquilizer guns. + \n +  I have been noticing the news about police officers shooting children or innocent people mistakely, and causing death or serious injuries a lot. So I thought, why would a police officer even use firearms (I mean the guns that can kill, I'm not sure since it's not my native language) if he/she doesn't intend to kill? I have seen the tranquilizer guns making animals unable to even move, so wouldn't they be quite useful? Thanks to this, they could've shoot the suspect without worrying about killing him/her, and accidents where the innocent people are dying wouldn't happen. Plus, even if the suspect is really guilty, a police officer shouldn't kill him/ her, right? And if something happens like in the scenes we see in the movies, where the criminal takes a hostage and police officers can't shoot because they are afraid of hurting the hostage, wouldn't this make everything easier? They could've just shoot without worrying about anything, and make both the hostage and the criminal collapse?\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think affirmative action should be based on socioeconomic status, not race. + \n + ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Elements created in a lab that cannot exist in nature or in quantities greater than a few atoms for microseconds at a time have no place on the periodic table + \n + I'm no chemist, but I do study science as a hobby, and in reading up on elements such as [ununpentium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ununpentium) or [ununtrium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ununtrium), I got the feeling that it's almost cheating to call these things elements and add them to the periodic table.\n\nThe atoms are created in a lab, usually by slamming two other heavy atoms together in a collider. The resulting atom decays in microseconds and does not naturally occur outside the lab.\n\nCalling these things new elements strikes me as the same thing as grabbing two random objects, (say a water bottle and a book), holding them together in your hands and saying, \"Look! I've created a bookbottle!\"\n\nThe object will only last until you let go of it, and then be torn apart by the stronger force, in this case, gravity. It's not a new tool or object and you can't file a patent for it.\n\nUnunpentium and its ilk are not elements if they can't be found outside the lab, cannot exist as more than a few atoms at a time, or last more than a few microseconds. They are interesting experiments to be sure, but they are not new elements.\n\nChange my view.\n\n\n\nWow, I really didn't see how many gaping holes my argument had. \n\nWhat I've learned:\n\n\nIt's short by our human standards, but that means nothing on the universal scale. Our lives are nothing on the scale of the universe, that doesn't mean we aren't alive.\n\n\nThis is just a limit on what we're able to synthesize. Massive quantities could theoretically be created in a supernova.\n\n\nWhere it is synthesized doesn't matter. The lab is still in the universe, so it could be said that the universe is creating these atoms.\n\nThere are lots of convincing arguments here, and I'll respond to all of them and delta the ones I feel really swayed me. Thank you for the discussion.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe incestual marriage should be legalized. + \n + My view is that I believe in incestual relationships and I'm going to give a few reasons why:\n\nThe reason behind my post is the recent legalization of homosexual marriage in all of the US. To expand, think of marriage and sex, it's between two people that are willing (and old enough) to give consent, so gay marriage fits these guidelines and therefore was legalized. So if you apply the same logic, incestual relationships should be legalized as long as the couple involved are of legal age of consent, but many will disagree because of the fact that the offspring of the incest couple will be more likely to be disabled (which is true), however, it's not illegal to have babies if you have illnesses such as Huntingtons. Feel free to change my view, and let mine embrace you.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: If there is nothing we can do about climate change we should destigmatize suicide as soon as possible + \n + As threads like [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3fqtyj/speed_of_glacier_retreat_worldwide_historically/) show, the world is on a slow motion path to oblivion. Notice how all discussions about what can be done all boil down to \"Nothing. Enjoy your life\". Maybe some people can take solace in that but not all. Even climate scientists [are showing signs of PTSD (and I think I might be as well)](http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a36228/ballad-of-the-sad-climatologists-0815/).\n\nSociety should encourage the use of voluntary euthanasia. Aggresively campaign to tell people that anyone who chooses it is NOT a coward, is NOT selfish and they should NOT be mourned. In fact, they should be celebrated, because they have either transcended their base desire for survival (or never had it in the first place) and have made a decision that not only benefits them but the world at large as well.\n\nIt is sick how people are forced to keep playing the game of life even though they have already lost. People are brought into this world by the surpremely selfish desires of their parents who are either completely oblivious to the fact that their children will die drowning in their blood of the bodily fluids of their violators cursing their parents' name while the latter will likely sleep soundly in their graves or because they want to make their own \"tribe\" to fight in the ashes convinced of their own superiority. The children never had a choice. If any of them did and could be conscious enough to understand it, no one would be borne.\n\nI don't see the point in living in a post collapse world. I hate exercising. Most people I know are incapable of having a conversation that doesn't involve sports, travel or the weather and I can only assume the number will grow as access to the Internet collapses. The thought of having to grow my own food makes me sick, let alone the thought that 12 hours of my day will have to be spent there. Probably until my back gives out and I'm left to die by the outside \"community\" that took me in before they realized I was \"weird\" and was looking for an excuse to murder me.\n\nI don't want to learn self defense, I don't want to fight. I want to live in a world where specific people exist to protect me and as long as I don't do anything stupid, they won't hurt me. I want to live the rest of my life doing what I am told and being rewarded for it. I don't want to become a leader, I don't want to be responsible for people's well being. I never had any sort of relationship and perhaps it's for the best because if I did have a family during the collapse, I don't know what I would do.\n\nMore people like me must exist. We must help them.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Abortion is killing + \n + The idea is pretty simple but I want to clarify that I don't want to talk about when is abortion justifiable. I'm just simply answering the question: Is abortion killing?\n\nLet's take two women: Annie and Belle. Both of them get pregnant and none of them wants their kid. Annie goes and aborts the kid. Belle on the other hand first gives birth to the baby, then she kills it. Right after it's born she takes out a knife and kills the baby. The result is the same in both cases. Neither of the two children actually lived because their mother ended their life. That means to me that Annie did just the same thing as Belle did: she killed her baby.\n\nCMV\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Personal use vehicles (except with handicapped plates) should be banned from city centers + \n + Let's face it. Nobody likes driving in the city. Some people have chosen to arrange their lives in such a way that it's necessary, but overall, it's a miserable experience for everyone involved. By forcing this change, everyone's life would ultimately be improved. I should clarify I mean personal use *motorized* vehicles. Bicycles are fine. Commercial vehicles such as buses, taxis, and delivery trucks obviously need to get into and out of the city.\n\n1. The budget for road repairs would be greatly reduced, as would the need for traffic police, and meter readers.\n2. The money saved from the above could be used to expand and improve public transit.\n3. Parking could be moved from expensive downtown real estate to the cheaper fringes of the city (where drivers could park and take public transit downtown).\n4. Pollution would be greatly reduced.\n5. Traffic would be greatly reduced. Instead of becoming increasingly concentrated as everyone approaches downtown, it would remain dispersed in the suburbs since there would be more spread out points around the city where people pick up public transit.\n6. The city would be much safer for bicycles and pedestrians.\n7. The real estate freed up from parking could be given over to other uses, lowering rents in desirable areas for everyone.\n8. Emergency services would have a much faster response time due to less traffic in the city.\n\nI'm sure there's even more benefits. I can't think of any downsides except that it would annoy some people who currently drive because they would have to change.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: SJWs are as bad as the sexists/racists they purport to oppose + \n + I am angry beyond exasperation by the generalised hate some of the SJWs I appear to follow/friend are sharing/re-sharing on Twitter/Facebook recently.\n\nI can't stand by it any longer -- if you share something that generalises men / women / white people / asian people / immigrants / wealthy people / poor people / Northern / Southern / City / Rural... In fact, pretty much anything you attack by generalising a group based on one bad example -- I feel the need to not only unfollow you, I think I need to make sure you understand why I'm doing it. Publicly.\n\nThat goes equally for people that make unfair assertions about people it's \"cool\" to hate: Such as calling UKIP (UK Independence Party who exist to try and remove the UK from the EU) racists, or Conservatives (once again, a UK political party, currently in Government office) thieves, or the police thugs. I've never met a racist UKIP member, a Conservative thief, or a police thug.\n\nPrejudice happens. We all have prejudices. I have prejudices. Allowing that prejudice to become discrimination, and that discrimination becoming openly attacking people is something we all need to combat. If one of your friends starting mouthing obscenities towards a gay man, or a black woman, I'd hope you'd try to stop them. You should do the same for someone attacking a straight man too because he's male and straight and not because he's done something himself.\n\nSomehow it has become acceptable to post insulting things like https://twitter.com/flexlibris/status/621873976063692800 which tar all men (in this particular example) with the same brush. People I respect retweet it. That's just not fair, and it's something I can't put up with any longer.\n\nIf you want to point out *a* man acting inappropriately, that's fine by me. I've done it before, and while I know a lot of people just turn away and pretend it's not happening, I'd like to believe that many would say something.\n\nIf you say *all* men are trash, you're attacking *me* and *I've* done nothing wrong.\n\nThis kind of generalisation behaviour is completely unacceptable to me, and these people are just as bad -- no, they're WORSE than the people they're trying to oppose. They DO know better and choose to be inflammatory.\n\nGeneralising a group of people based on bad information is exactly why many major conflicts occur worldwide. I'm not talking about in history and making a veiled Nazi reference, I'm talking about today. People *today* are excluded because of sweeping generalisations like the ones these people perpetuate.\n\nI can't stand silently by it any longer. If I don't speak out against it, it gives silent consent to those that do it. However, I realise that perhaps I'm over-reacting and there's another side to this story.\n\nSo, before I go on a massive unfollow and outrage spree amongst people posting SJW type material: (Try and...) Change My View!\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Dirty plates should not be stacked, in a household. + \n + I believe that stacking plates is a silly way to get the perfectly clean undersides of plates dirty, by making them come in contact with the dirty side of the plate below. \n\nI do believe plates should be washed on both sides, but if you don't stack the plates then you won't require to do as much scrubbing and cleaning of the underside. \n\nI myself have washed plates with greasy Mexican food bathed in salsa, which IMHO is some of the worst mess to clean, and in my experience keeping the underside clean makes my life easier. \n\nI specify at the post title that this view applies to households, because in restaurants or places with many plates to wash, it may make sense to stack plates to save space.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: No one over the age of 16 and under the age of 65 should celebrate a birthday. + \n + Celebrating your birthday is the most attention whorish thing you could ever do. There really is no need to celebrate a birthday because you didn't do anything on that actual day. If anything, one should celebrate their mother or father on their birthday. They did all the hard work. When I see grown ups celebrate birthdays I cringe a little bit. \n\nThe one exception is senior citizens (those who are past 65 years of age). Then it's acceptable to celebrate a birthday because it is a true celebration that you're still alive, and you could die soon.\n\nEven worse is grown men who celebrate their birthdays & throw parties to do so. If you're a grown man, there is no need to go out & celebrate your \"birth\". \n\nI think one thing that should be celebrated is your work anniversary (or school year completion if you don't have a job). This is something that you have to put effort into, and requires something on your behalf that requires a cause of celebration. \n\n\n\nThanks for the responses. I posted this here because I was hoping for some answers that would \"Change my view\". I know what birthdays are for celebrating.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: We do not have to fear automation + \n + They've been saying this since the 30s. Keynes predicted that as technology increased and our material needs would be met, we would only need to work 15 hours a week, instead we are working longer hours than ever.\nThere's no reason to think this will change anytime soon, if it hasn't in the last 80 years.\n\nhttp://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/sep/01/economics\n\nPeople were saying from the 18th Century that the industrial revolution will make man redundant? But did it? People moved on, new types of job openings which we'd never have imagined before came to be, think about the luddites' opposition to technology. We do not have anything to fear.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Preventing sexually promiscuous adolescent children from engaging in sexual behaviour with other children (or adults, if they choose) is a violation of a child's rights to bodily integrity. + \n + My view is based on the acceptance that a free expression of bodily integrity includes the ability to chose not only what is done to a persons body, but also, what to do with it. \n\nBefore commenting, please understand this isn't an argument for allowing children to have sex with adults. It may simply be the case that society accepts that infringing upon a child's right to bodily integrity is a reasonable thing to do, since it is generally considered unacceptable for children to be engaging in sexual behaviour. \n\nAlso, just to point out that when I talk about children engaging in sexual behaviour with adults, I am saying this knowing fully well that children cannot **legally** consent to sex. That isn't to say that children cannot consent, just that the consent isn't considered to be consent in law. A child can consent to anything with regards to their bodily integrity but there is quite rightly a standard in law which protects children against certain things. \n\nFurthermore, in a situation where a child instigates or freely consents to sexual activity instigated by another person it can be said that a child's bodily integrity is violated by any law which prevents them from engaging in that behaviour. In a situation where the behaviour in question is instigated by another person and the child does not freely consent then it would obviously be a violation of their bodily integrity TO engage in the behaviour in question, so by virtue of the nature of bodily integrity, this situation only applies when the child really is willing. \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The only way to change the ignorant is with violence. + \n + I've (M) grown up in a very accepting family where they accept me for who I am and how I express myself. Now, I can't say that for some of my friends or the people who have gone through that with family or people in general.\n\n\nAs I was walking with my date (M) through town, a group of college students started laughing at us for holding hands. As we were walking by, I kept thinking of all the ways I could get them to stop because if they were to laugh at us, who else are they gonna make feel humiliated or disgusting. I felt like a pet. Some play toy. And that my life was humorous to other people.\n\n\nI can't say that there would be anything to say or do to make them realize that it's normal to appeal to the same sex. I'm ALL FOR education. I believe education makes the world go around and it's so perfect to learn abd understand new things about the world AND be open minded to everything. \n\n\nHowever, when I see a group of people act ignorantly, I can't help but clench my fist and think about raising hell in their life. The people they are are the kind that take pleasure in hurting people. Why? Because they want to do it for themselves. They can only think about themselves and that they're more perfect than everyone else.\n\n\nI sure as hell am not perfect. I resort to violence when it comes down to this topic. But when I hear or see ignorance made to hurt others, like this (https://youtu.be/1df_i26wh-w). I can't help but feel like this ignorance needs to be dealt with a punch in the face. Nobody deserves what I got. And nobody deserves the ignorance others recieve.\n\n\nIgnorance stems from close mindedness, which is something in this world we don't need. If we were all close minded, we wouldn't have advanced as far as we have. Do we really need more of it in this world? Is it necessary for our survival? I believe so to the extent that when there is an absolutely close minded person,there is an equally absolutely open minded person (the bell curve).\n\n\nSo to deal with these people is to punish them with hurt nowhere near the pain they've inflicted onto people, while still sending a message. CMV\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Statistical Thermodynamical Basis for the existence of God through Entropy + \n + Hello! I recently saw a CMV on an argument of the probability of the existence of God or Extraterrestial Life. I had posted a comment but no one has replied so I figured I would post my own CMV. Basically I am relating science and religion.\n\n\nThere is a statistical basis for God that gives an absolute definition for God's existence and that can be explained through statistical thermodynamics and entropy. Thermodynamics is a powerful science that is deeply underrated because it has evolved into the science of defining what is possible and impossible.\n\n\nI will try to explain entropy to the best of my ability but it requires a fundamental knowledge of the Laws of Thermodynamics. But the Second Law states that the entropy of the universe must always increase for any (natural) irreversible process (or be equal to zero for processes at equilibrium). I claim these irreversible processes \"natural\" simply because they exist in nature without any perturbation of an outside intelligent force. But the proper scientific term would be \"isolated\" when referring to the system in question. Now entropy is defined as the \"measure of randomness or disorder\". This concept is hard to grasp because it requires the definition of two terms \"macrostates\" and \"microstates\".\n\n\nThe best way for one to explain this is through the statistics of dice. There are 11 possible outcomes once rolled (2-12) and these represent the macrostates. However there are many ways to represent a set of the numbers (or macrostate), say macrostate(5) = 1+4....2+3...3+2...4+1 (assuming distinguishable dice). Now each set of the dice outcome (1+4 or 2+3...etc) represents a microstate. Now if we rolled the dice infinite times what would the results look like? A perfect bell curve right? With 7 the highest and 2/12 the lowest. Why is this? because 7 has the highest number of possibilities (or microstates) (1+6...2+5...3+4...etc) and 2 or 12 have the lowest (1+1 or 6+6, respectively). Thus the Second Law can be defined that \"An isolated system tends toward an equilibrium macrostate with maximum entropy, because then the number of microstates is the largest and this state is statistically most probable.\" This matches with physical observations. Think of an ice in a perfect crystal lattice where all the atoms are arranged in a lattice becomes in a thermal equilibrium with the environment. It begins to melt and move around increasing the possible arrangements in the liquid state. The atomic arrangement increases and therefore the entropy of the system is increasing as the water changes states. (similar argument for liquid to gas).\n\n\nThere is an argument that entropy can be a viable definition for the passage of time because any spontaneous process goes from an ordered state to a more disordered state. In other words, one with more macrostates and possible outcomes. In the case of the previous examples, before you roll the dice, there exists only one microstate, where there is no value of the dice right? (because you haven't rolled it duh) Then you roll the dice and open up the possibilities. Therefore the process goes from holding the dice in your hand with only one state (ordered) to actually rolling it opening up 36 possibilities (more disorder). Same with transfer of thermal energy from the hotter (or possesses more thermal energy) environment to the ice for it to melt. Energy cannot transfer from the ice to the environment because the ice possesses less potential energy. Heat always flows from hot to cold. Never the reverse.\n\n\nNow what does this have to do with God? Well imagine the entire passage of time of the universe, where the universe is always increasing entropy (i.e. going from order to disorder). Now imagine going back in time, where things go from disorder to order (dice go in your hand or reverse heat flow from ice to environment). Reverse time in your head all the way to the Big Bang, where there can only exist ONE PERFECT STATE and that is God. The whole universe and everything in physical existence in one perfectly ordered state and that is God. That is the basis of God being omnipotent because he is literally everything and in everywhere. Then there was a Big Bang and the Universe was created (compare to Genesis 1 in the Bible). The \"Universe Clock\" started and the perfect state proceeded towards a more disordered state.\n\n\nThinking of this thermodynamically, God is the unnatural action of going from disorder to order. Therefore, God is order. God is considered \"supernatural\" because he is a force different than that in the physical world where entropy is violated. Now, the Bible claimed that \"God created life\" and this can be proven true. Life is a statistically improbable result from physics. But it arose from a perfect condition and arrangement of molecules that somehow produced an well-ordered organism. (There is a theory that Earth before all life was basically a barren wasteland of gasses and electric storms which the lightning produced enough energy for the gasses to arrange perfectly and organized perfectly). Statistically speaking, life shouldn't even exist because it is ordered perfectly that it is extremely improbable. The example my physical chemistry professor gave is that if you gave a monkey a type writer and trained it to punch a bunch of random letters, what is the probability that it will type out the whole entire encyclopaedia? However, I do not disagree with the possibility that other life (aliens or whatever) exists because there is always a possibility (The Black Swan Theory) but we might as well have a better chance with monkeys and typewriters. Also I have found a paper in which relates the origins of life and entropy: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.06988v1.pdf\n\n\nAlso, the Bible claimed that \"God created man under the image of himself\". This shouldn't be taken literally because we don't ACTUALLY look like God but the original interpretation is that we are, in some ways, Godlike. I say this because we do things that are against entropy because we have intelligence. Well actually all life has some degree of intelligence but there are levels. The most fundamental act against entropy that all life possess is that life exists and strive to continue to exist. We (as in all life, plants, animals, cells, humans...) are highly ordered structures that are the result of disorder becoming ordered and we continue to exist! Not only do we continue to exist but it is a biological concern for us to continue living and reproduce. Merely producing babies or more life is an act against entropy because we are continuing to make more ordered structures. The thing that separates humans from the rest of life is that we have a higher level of intelligence in that we are smart enough to interact with the environment and one another to a higher degree. Think about this, if there was a bunch of random metals laying on the Earth, what is the probability that it will become the Eiffel Tower? That required the work of man. Paraphrasing the Bible again (sorry just justifying Christians and Catholics) \"God made man the rulers of His creation\" We are the masters of craft, creating wonderful structures and arts. We created civilizations which are highly ordered organizations. This is what people meant when they said math is the language of God and engineers are craftsman of God. They create ordered things which require a level of intelligence that is parallel to God.\nHowever, we still need to keep entropy in mind. The entropy of the universe must go from order to disorder but it can be broken up into two parts: the entropy of a system in question and the entropy of everything else or surroundings. If we create something whether it be a building, a computer or whatever, we are making a higher ordered system but we are still increase the disorder of the universe by opening up more possibilities. Buildings allow more physical space for the rest of the environment to use or computers open up more possibilities (faster chips, software, internet).\n\n\nI have been toying with this idea for the past year and I would love to for someone to change my view.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Everybody will have to be switched to basic income eventually due to automation and the elimination of human labor. + \n + Automation is coming. It will more than likely replace every job there is. Even if there still are some jobs left over, it will be too small of a pool to create a sustainable humane capitalism. \n\nHowever, to prevent automation would be both silly and irresponsible. Machines will be more efficient than humans, and it's our responsibility to make the most out of the resources we're given. It would also cripple our economy. If we pass up automation another country will take the reins and we will become economically weak. \n\nWhat other solution is there besides a basic income? What else can you do when the majority of you're population isn't just unemployed, but unemployable?\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "I think rapists are not able to be rehabilitated and society would be better off if we executed rapists. Change my view. + \n + I want to see if anyone can give a legit justification of why rapists aren't unsalvageable human beings, if they can be considered that.  I'm looking for concrete evidence that rehabilitation actually makes rapists stop raping and if the kind of person that could rape someone is even capable of being considered a decent human being ever again.  I hold this view because due to some events in my past that I'd rather not discuss I am incredibly biased on this issue. If yall catch my drift.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe that poor people have every ability to pull themselves out of poverty, but most don't due to a lack of motivation. + \n + **Firstly**, I'm using a throwaway because most people get really sensitive about this and my views are pretty much the antithesis of reddit (love Rand Paul, support Mens Rights, hate Pink Floyd).\n\n**Secondly**, for context, I come from a wealthy family and have had very little experience with people from the lower socioeconomic spectrum, which probably shapes my view of the wealth ladder and how one climbs from rung to rung.\n\n**MOST IMPORTANTLY**: I believe there are levels of poverty within the lower class and perhaps each level should be approached differently in this discussion. They are as follows:\n\n1. *Physically/Mentally Unable to Work*: For all intents and purposes, this category should not be considered in my argument. They physically can't produce value and have little-to-no means to change that situation.\n2. *Homeless/Welfare/Food Stamps*: Sometimes shit happens and people need help, but six months to a year should be enough time for anyone to get out of this category, yet many don't. I think [the 35% of Americans](http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/354-percent-109631000-welfare) asking for handouts get so used to doing it that they forget how to be a valuable member to society and end up just sucking resources from the rest of the productive population which brings everybody down. \n3. *Crippling Debt*: I think people in this situation, regardless of their financial education, show a general lack of care to manage their money. It's not difficult to see if a degree will be worth the salary raise or if a loan will actually solve your current problems and their are more than enough resources online and in libraries to learn about proper finance skills in order to do so.\n4. *Below the poverty threshold*: This is the general catch-all for everyone else in the lower class. I think problems like a botched health care system, over-imprisonment for drug sentences, and a generally rigged system such as having to pay to cash checks, not being able to afford the bulk deals, or own a home are factors that plague the lower class and rigidize social mobility, but it does not take away their opportunity to pull themselves up.\n\nEvery person starts somewhere in life, some get college education paid for, some join the family business and some are born an orphan without a bank account in their name. There's no question that some situations are more difficult than others, but there is also no question that examples of social mobility exist in both directions: rich kids wasting away a fortune and migrant farm workers becoming well-paid astronauts. \n\nI believe that as long as everyone has the freedom to climb the socioeconomic ladder rung by rung, that the only difference is between those that take the opportunity and those that don't and the reason why many people remain in poverty is because they lack the motivation to take the necessary steps, be it because they don't have peers pushing them to do so or because they would prefer to work a minimum wage job instead of applying for better positions--I can't say.\n\nAlthough I was fortunate enough to start adulthood with no debt, I have had to work my ass off to get everything else I have and believe that anyone could be doing what I do and making as much money as I do regardless of their starting hand if they desire it.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The BlackLivesMatter protesters who interrupted the Bernie Sanders event were wrong for doing so. + \n + You may have seen news that BlackLivesMatter protesters interrupted a Bernie Sanders campaign event in Seattle. I think this was wrong to do, because he has fought for civil rights before and his economic platform greatly fights for the poor and working class, in which black people are disproportionately represented. \n\nI also think many of the things that were said by these protesters were racist or at least bigoted in their own right, like criticizing Bernie Sanders for being white. \n\nWhy did these protesters think that this was a good thing to do? Why did they think it helps their cause? ", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Mandating vaccinations in kids is a terrible idea + \n + Hello! I understand the majority of reddit feels quite strongly about vaccinations and I believe my view is the opposite of many of yours. I hope you go into this with an open mind and I will return the favor. \n\nThe mandating of vaccinations would involve the government deciding what goes into a child's body. But I ask why shouldn't parents decide if they want to prevent something from entering their child's body? (Note: There is an argument to be made that parents shouldn't decide and the child should. However there are several important vaccinations that would occur prior to the child having the capacity to make such a decision. Polio Vaccine and Hepatitis B Vaccine come to mind. So either way someone is making that decision for the child. I believe that person should the parents or guardian - not the state.)\n\nWhy? Because parents are more so connected with their children than the government and therefore should be trusted to have their children's best interests in mind. Yes, sometimes parents are idiotic and make a health decision that is horrible and sometimes even fatal. However, the government has also been shown to not have the best health interests in its citizens at times. (See: Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment)\n\n\nBut at the end of the day, a parent not vaccinating their kids indirectly effects others. That has to count for something, right? Forcing vaccinations upon those who don't want it is for the greater good, right? Perhaps those thoughts are best summed up by Former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who once said, \"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.\" I'm sure he would have supported a mandate, which will likely reduce the suffering of many people, wholeheartedly for this reason. But also for this reason he supported the horrific Buck v. Bell decision (a decision that unfortunately still has support, particularly on reddit.)\n\nSee. That's the problem with doing things for the \"greater good\", it often doesn't accomplish much and reduces the rights of others. \n\nA final point I'd like to make would be to highlight the parallel between vaccinations and smoking. Yes there are efforts to curb the activity in public places (In my own city of Pittsburgh, they recently banned smoking in bars.) However, smoking still effects more people than just the user. Second hand smoke is a real thing and damages a person's health when they had to choice but to breathe it in. Perhaps you could say that it is avoidable and being in contact with unvaccinated people is unavoidable. But secondhand smoke is practically unavoidable. It can stay in an area for hours - long after the overbearing smell is gone. You wouldn't even know. But yet there is no real support for a general ban on smoking as there is with a mandate for vaccinations. \n\n\nJust to cover my bases, I 'd like to say I'm not anti-vaccine. I fully support vaccinations, am fully vaccinated, and if I were to be blessed enough to have my own children, I would have them vaccinated. I view this as a freedom issue (right to body) and not a vaccines are bad issue. I thank you all for reading and look for to any possible responses. \n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I am a father who hates Father's Day. + \n + I am a husband and father of two. I love my wife, and I love my children, but I am not a fan of Father's Day. I feel the \"holiday\", if one can call it that, forces people to adopt a tradition that bills itself very similarly to a birthday...which I already have once a year. If you want to appreciate someone it should be done on an individual basis and *not* based on some yearly Hallmark Holiday. Yes, I feel the same about Mother's Day, but I'll be damned if I don't go through the motions.  \n\nI feel much the same way about many of the other \"appreciation days\" (e.g. Administrative Professionals Day, Thank a Mailman Day, etc.). You are thanking someone for doing what they *chose* to do. Society should not force an expectation on others to give you praise for the things you choose to do or become. \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is no reason to believe that extra-terrestrial life is likely + \n + I hear all the time about how sure people are that there is life elsewhere in the universe. I don't see the logic for such confidence. \n\n- We have one plot point for where life *has* begun.  \n- We have never been able to create life in a lab even under extremely ideal conditions.  \n- The more we've learned about life in our world the more we've learned how unlikely life is (Sagan thought life needed very few (2, I believe) things to see life develop on a planet. That number is now well over 100.  \n\nWhat good reasons do we have for believing life is possible if not common in the universe?\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: If our society thrives on competition, I should just massacre everyone and hog all resources. + \n + When we attempt to superimpose the Darwinian dictum of 'survival of the fittest', isn't it going to lead us this obvious conclusion? Earth is going to be populated by a bunch of fat, rich warlords ordering their subjugated population to garner hold over global resources. If i decide to take the pacifist route, I get killed, or alternatively the 'leaders' passively attempt to bridle my growth through manipulation and domination. Hence I should become proactive and get rid of their lackeys(general population), and finally cut off the head of the snake as well. Please do change my view.\n\nP.S. Is this footnote etiquette some kind of moderator powerplay? I'mma lace your mod-drinks with Polonium at the next meetup!\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Parents who put the child up for adoption/leave child at firestation must pay child support until the child is adopted + \n + I see people argue against fathers who want to relinquish their parental rights, saying that because there is a child, it has the right to his child support. Then, what about mothers who leave the child at the fire station/put the child up for adoption? \n\nPutting up for adoption does not guarantee the child will be adopted. Thus, the parent still owes the child child support until s/he is actually adopted. Leaving the child at fire station is obviously a cop out, there is no excuse for abandoning your child thus that parent absolutely has to pay child support. The rights of the child must be the highest priority, right?", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Amtrak should receive much higher levels of funding than they do now. + \n + Unfortunately, the only time Amtrak specifically and passenger rail generally become a part of public discussion seems to be when something goes wrong. Most of you are probably aware that something did go wrong last week, when Amtrak's Northeast Regional #188 derailed in Pennsylvania. This CMV is not about that incident, however.\n\nI have long held the view that the passenger rail should, and inevitably will, become a much larger part of our national transportation mix. I've yet to hear a thoughtful, legitimate argument against greater investment in passenger rail, specifically Amtrak. Most people who oppose Amtrak, particularly in Congress, seem to be doing so based on ideological or political reasons. For example, the last Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has called Amtrak a \"Soviet style railroad\". Most criticisms of Amtrak I've heard are similarly based in ideological beliefs. \n\nNow, I will try to briefly summarize some of the key reasons I've long thought Amtrak should be a top priority for investment and expanded funding.\n\n* Critics of Amtrak often point to the fact that it is a money losing operation, and is consequently subsidized by taxpayer money. This is perhaps the most common complaint from some (not all) Republicans. The way I see it, all modes of transportation are heavily subsidized, and Amtrak should not be singled out for losing money. All railroads, public and private, are responsible for all of their infrastructure. That means every inch of rail, every freight terminal and passenger station, every locomotive and car, their traffic management systems, and even their own police departments. By contrast, we (the taxpayer) fund the construction and maintenance of airports and highways. We pay for the FAA, which manages private airline traffic. We pay for the TSA, which provides security for the airlines. We pay for traffic officers in police departments. The bankrupt Highway Trust Fund, paid for by the federal gas tax, no longer covers all of its costs. Consequently, Congress has bailed it out with short term extensions for more than eight years now. According to Amtrak's CEO, Joe Boardman, these \"bailouts\" have added up to more than Amtrak's entire operating subsidy since its inception in 1975. So, with all this in mind, it seems ridiculous to single out passenger rail as the only transportation mode that needs to be profitable and should not be subsidized. We subsidize all modes, and all lose money, why should Amtrak be the one exception?\n\n* Even if Amtrak was as burdensome on taxpayers as some politicians and pundits suggest, there seems to be a strong public interest in expanding passenger rail. Unlike road and air competition, even if you personally do not use Amtrak, you benefit from higher Amtrak ridership. According to the Brookings Institute, Amtrak is now the fastest growing method of transportation. Its broken its ridership records nearly every year for the past 12 years, with the Northeast Corridor (NEC) in particular booming since the introduction of the Acela. Amtrak controls more than 75% of all air-rail traffic in the Northeast, which benefits air and road travelers as well. Less traffic on our already congested highways, less traffic in our airports, less pollution in our air, and downward pressure on the demand for oil are all secondary effects that benefit people who do not use Amtrak.\n\n* If lowering our dependence on foreign oil via decreased demand and if global warming is a concern for you as it is for me, then prioritizing rail over air and road transportation seems to be a necessity. Trains are masters of efficiency in a way that even the most fuel efficient jet and greenest hybrid are not. According to the Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics, in 2012 Amtrak's energy intensity per passenger mile sat at 1,561 British thermal units. By contrast, the average domestic airline service uses 2,477 BTUs per passenger mile. For some reason, 2006 is the last available data on passenger cars, and they used 2,898 BTUs and light trucks used 5,465 BTUs per passenger mile. Even private freight carriers are extremely efficient. According to FreightRailWorks.com, the average train can move one ton of freight 475 miles on one gallon of fuel. These facts suggest to me that the future lies in rail, not road, and that further Amtrak expansion could help lower our national energy consumption and transportation related pollution.\n\nSo Change My View! Like I said, most arguments against Amtrak seem overly politicized. So I'm interested to hear any cogent argument opposing passenger rail investment generally or Amtrak specifically. I suppose the latter is likely easier to make than the former, because it could be possible to support passenger rail investment but oppose Amtrak as an entity. If this is your argument, I would be interested in hearing what alternatives to a federally subsidized passenger rail corporation are out there.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe that you, die-hard atheists, would be doing a good thing if you instilled faith into your children. + \n + Dear reader, let me re-introduce you to an argument known as [\"Pascal's Wager\"](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager), which you probably know about if you decided to look here. \n\nFrom Wikipedia:\n\nI am addressing the counter-arguments of \"Nature as not a proof of the existence of God\" and \"Argument from inauthentic belief\", which you should read about if you would like to talk to me about those.\n\nSince I'm not great at reported speech, I will quote the thoughts of my imaginary atheist:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nI only see as conflicting the \"Argument from inconsistent revelations\",\n\ne but even so, instilling ANY faith could still be better than NO faith, more because a number of deities value believers more than non-believers.\n\nAs such, Change My View, from the standpoint that there is multiple religions, and, for the sake of argument, from the standpoint that there is only one religion in the world (imagine a planet of only Christians and atheists, or Jews and atheists, etc.)\n\ntl;dr - I should teach my kid to believe in God and be a good human being, and not just the latter.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Warning labels that state the obvious should be removed from consumer products. + \n + On a hair dryer: \"Do not use in a shower.\" If somebody's dumb enough to use a hair dryer in the shower, they're not going to pay much attention to a warning label! Really those things only exist because corporations are so afraid of frivolous lawsuits that could have been avoided if the consumer had only applied common sense in the first place. (Those lawsuits just drive up costs for everybody else, but that's a whole another story.) So I say corporations should be allowed to remove warning labels that would be obvious if one applies common sense without fear of litigation when Darwin strikes again.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:Our concept of love is simply a construct used to justify survival behaviors and nothing more. + \n + I do not date, nor do I have any intention of pursuing any romantic relationship or marriage. I am mentally unable to do these things because I view the concept of love as something akin to a fable you might tell a child to teach a concept or lesson.  I believe what we call love was invented to give justification or more noble purpose to survival behaviors.  Namely reproduction (sex) and herd mentality.  Reproduction of course ensures propagation of the species, but couples or families sticking together mirrors herds found in the wild where crowding together increases chances for survival.  [This is also supported by research where married couples have lower premature mortality](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00968.x/abstract;jsessionid=8B4E487903DEF2AC92EC6D774B4D8566.f02t03?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false).  All well and good.  I like surviving! I'm sure Darwin was a fan of love.  All I can see is the survival benefits of love and not much else.  I feel like I've deconstructed love in my mind and now I can't put it back together.  Kinda like how if you ever saw how hot dogs are made, you'd never want to eat them.  I don't know if any of this makes sense, but I'm open to other points of view.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Prisoners should have the option to end their life. + \n + \nI believe someone who has been convicted of a non violent crime should have the option to end their life in prison. So if someone is doing 20 years for drug distribution they can choose to die. This would decrease prison population and relief funding to the prison system. Less people = less taxpayers have to spend. The prisoner would get to choose if they want to die, but the state would perform the execution. This would only apply to people 18 years or older.\n\nPrisoners sometimes have to endure very horrible things while in prison. Rape, sexual assault and violence affect many prisoners that are serving time for theft, drugs, etc. This would also apply to criminals who are terminally ill and suffer everyday from the side effects.\nPeople are given life sentences without parole for non violent offenses sometimes.\n\nlink:http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/23-petty-crimes-prison-life-without-parole\n\nI believe it is right to give these criminals an option to end their life's so they don't have to suffer in prison if they don't want to.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The preservation of Panda bears. + \n + I was having a heated discussion with a girl who really, really likes animals and I was trying to explain to her that Pandas are very expensive to keep alive. Yes I know that they're cute and they should be alive and all but no, I don't think that we should dedicate so much money on an animal that would have been extinct if natural selection would have followed its natural course.\n\nI would like someone to make me change my opinion on the preservation of these animals.\n\nPanda bears are being ripped away from their natural habitat due to humans not giving a fuck about the ecosystem, yes I know why that's sad and bad. Regardless of that, Panda bears are dumb and lazy. We have to resort to artificial insemination because they are so fat they can't have sex. The females are only fertile for like a month in a whole year.\n\nI say let natural selection do its job. We can spend the money we've spent on Pandas on more worthwhile causes because the preservation of this beautiful 'bear' is a money sink.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Asking what someone's ethnic background is in casual conversation is not microaggression nor racist behavior. + \n + I have some friends who get terribly offended when they are asked what their ethnicity is. These friends are Korean, Chinese, and Iranian.\nIn conversations, each has expressed that such questions are racist in nature no matter the context. I completely disagree and here is why:  \nI'm Italian, German, and Native American. My entire life I've also been asked the same question. I've been asked it by people of all ethnicities; even my ex-wife (chinese) asked me when she and I first met.     \nSometimes, with me,  people don't ask, they guess. I've gotten spanish, greek, middle-eastern,white, italian, etc... even this I do not consider to be racist.\n     \nAnd, as far as it being a form of white-privledge when asked by a Caucasian person (which one of my friends says it is), I have noticed that my \"white\" friends do this to each other as well. \"What are you? Irish? Scottish? Etc...\"\n      \n\nMy view is that It is a legitimate and benign question to ask, and unless a person is partnering the question with other racist behaviors it is not a racist question on any level.  \n\nCMV.\n\n****\n\n**UPDATE: Hi all, thanks for the contributions so far.  I'm really glad that this has remained civil and constructive this far.  A couple thoughts so far:\n\n- I agree with many of you that this line of questioning can be rude or shallow.  In fact, I realize that I even leave out some of my own heredity when asked this question simply because I don't like the conversation that inevitably follows.      \n\n- also,  I wanted to clarify that I don't personally ask this question in regular conversation often.  I get asked it more than I ask it,  which is where this post stems from:  I don't mind the question, while some of my friends have expressed that it is inherently a racist question.     \n\n- the responses from many of you regarding personal experience has helped me understand where my friends are coming from in their contempt of this question.  However, I still put it in \"potentially rude\" realm and nothing worse.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Children should have the vote. + \n + Note: I'm from the UK where voting age is 18 (or 16 in all Scottish independence referendums).\n\nI believe that all children should be eligible to a vote.\n\nMy argument for this is that decisions of government (or, say, as a result of plebiscite) also impact children's lives and, if anything, have a greater impact in the long term than for adults as they typically have longer to live through the repercussions.\n\nTo clarify, my practical view of an implementation of this is that a responsible guardian would vote on behalf of the child until such a point as the guardian feels the child is suitably mature to make their own decision or the child has reached a certain age.\n\n-----\n\nI feel people are paying too much attention to the suggestion for implementation rather than the overall idea.\nNevertheless, I edit the suggestion to be that whenever the child wishes to adopt the decision over their vote and can get an adult to vouch for them, the child and not the guardian should vote.\n\nI have awarded a delta for this.\n\n----\n\nI shall attempt to debunk a couple of reactions I think will quickly come to many minds:\n\n*More babies means more POWER, mwah-ha-ha!!!\n\n-No, I don't think that any person falling within even an extreme definition of sane would attempt to influence an election by simply having more and more children.\n\n*Would this not lead to greater pandering and unfairly positive treatment of families? What about people who are without children?\n\n-Whilst I would agree that families would perhaps get more positive treatment than they currently do, that is sort of my argument. Consider a single parent with two children; those are three people, not one and so surely their access to decision making should reflect this fact. Should there be better deals for families as a result of such an electoral reform (and perhaps worse deals for those without), is this not simply fairer and more reflective?\n\nFurther note that I'm aware there are other groups without the right to vote who perhaps should have it, but that is not the subject of this CMV.\n\n-----\n\n\n-----\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:Star wars episode V (Empire strikes back) is one of the weaker star wars films + \n + So Episode 5 is often cited as the best star wars movie, I find that this is not the case (for reference, best to worst: 4,3,6,5,2,1). While I wil not deny that there are some great bits in it (the hoth battle and the cloud city fight) but the rest of the movie is dull. \n\nFirst of all, dagobah the entire sequence with yoda is essentially pointless as Luke goes in knowing nothing and comes out knowing a tiny bit more but still is wrecked by Vader. \n\nThe millennium falcon story is also fairly dull to me, they hide form the empire for a while then after some fake tension they get away to cloud city. \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Cultural appropriation by means of a personal tattoo is not immoral. + \n + I definitely realize a lot of harm can come from poor examples of cultural appropriation. Often my idea of bad appropriation was the Christianizing of many pagan holidays/traditions by the church to get the pagans of europe joining up with them. \n\nBut my particular case seems a lot different. Yes I am a dominant race type (being white) and I am seriously considering getting a tattoo based upon textiles and patterns used by the Incan Civilization during their peak. Specifically, it would be a sleeve only representing the vibrant colors and geometry that the Inca use. I'm getting it for a few reasons:\n\n* Aesthetically it is very pleasing to me\n\n* I hold a lot of respect for what their civilization accomplished, and would like to \"advertise\" them more through body art\n\n* I may possibly incorporate their symbols for the sun, their main focus of focus worship. Although nonreligious myself, I respect that worshiping the material sun and nature around us is an important trait more of us should take note of. \n\nThis still seems to be textbook cultural appropriation, but is it immoral for me to do so? If I believed this could truly degenerate the Incan culture or offend many rational minds, then there is no way I'd go through with this plan (that just isn't the type of person I am). So, please, change my view if there is something I may be missing here. \n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:It is wrong to have children if you are knowingly passing down a deadly or devastating disease/condition. + \n + I'm talking about serious medical conditions like Huntington's, Neurofibromatosis, Tay-Sachs, and others. I think this especially true if you can be tested for the condition before reproducing. I'm thinking about the quality of life that the child or future adult would have. NF is one in particular I am personally acquainted with that concerns me, and has a 50% chance of being passed down from parent to child *with each pregnancy* . It is a human right to reproduce, but why would you bring a child who would know only immense pain and suffering **knowingly** into the world. \n\n\n\nI've had this talk with family, and the only argument I've heard was that \"you can't worry about chance\". That doesn't fly with me, so I want other opinions.\n\n Change my view?\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: An increase in the minimum wage would hurt only the lower and middle classes + \n + Over the last few years, and especially now with the popularity of Bernie Sanders, a heavily debated subject is the raising of the minimum wage to $15/hour. While many would expect this to strengthen the lower class and only decreasing the wealth of the upper class, I feel as if it would end up hurting those it is meant to help.   \n  \nThese company's would now have to spend much more of their budget on paying employees, and it's not as if they're going to magically have more money. I understand that the increase of wealth in the lower class would eventually circulate back to the business's, but I highly doubt it would be enough to make up for the increased wages of their employees, and it definitely wouldn't happen right away. Since I highly doubt the CEO or other upper management would take cuts from their pay to make up for this, that leaves two possible solutions that I can see: \n  \nThe first would be to decrease the amount of employees. If approximately an equal percentage of employees are let go to the increase in pay the company will be able to function without upper management having to take a pay cut. While those who are able to keep there jobs would be greatly helped by this, for the most part it would just increase the unemployment rate; with these lay offs happening in a large portion of minimum wag paying company's there would be no demand for jobs while the supply would be sky rocketing. \n  \nThe other solution would be for the company to increase prices (for retail/restaurants). With increasing prices nobody would have to loose their job, however it would still end up hurting the lower class. Practically all people get there basic necessities and luxuries from retail and grocery stores- the lower and middle classes especially rely heavily on major stores such as Walmart or Target. Even if your paycheck is increasing you'd still end up paying more the things you already buy, taking a large chunk of your paycheck. \n  \nWhile ideally an increased minimum wage seems perfect, it would in reality end up creating a combination of these two things. I'm sure I didn't hit on some points, so please try to change my view on this, I, as a minimum wage employee myself, would love to have a good reason to support raising it.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: a significant % of non-voters do not vote because they do not have confidence in any party. Countries should have a 'no confidence' vote in elections if they want to increase turnout, while achieving a better understanding of the public's perception of the political climate. + \n + In New Zealand between the last two elections there was a significant increase in funding pushing for a better voting turnout. For many years now they have made it compulsory to register, however measures such as these seem to be highly ineffective globally at getting an increased turnout in elections, not just NZ. There was less than a 5% increase in voting in the last election despite it being a far more prominent election due to the kim dot com saga. National, our right wing party won so promisingly they were able to not form a coalition with other groups (this is almost unheard of in NZ). Many of my peers did not vote, nor did I as we believed that john key was a poor choice for a leader, but there was a lack of any leader that appealed to this group of 10 of us. We all agreed at the time that if there was a vote that had no significance in the election other than to measure those people who do not believe we have any valid current person running for prime minister we would not only have a higher turnout at the election with little effort, but we'd also have a better idea of what the general perception was on the stability of the political scene. This would help us to build a better political scene long term and involve the voter, ultimately resulting in higher voting turnout at a fraction of the cost or social effort and would result in a better turnout. This would theoretically apply globally too, as in countries such as the US it could be used to show many things, not just the (lack of) confidence in either leader, but also other things. I don't know any hurdles that would stop this from being non viable. Implementation might be a challenge but it could easily be overcome and the benefits would well outweigh the costs and implementation efforts", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There are no good reasons to not wear a helmet while riding a bicycle + \n + As the title says, I can't find any valid reasons to not wearing a helmet while riding a bicycle. Here are a few of the many to wear one:\n\n**They reduce the extent of any injuries caused by a bike accident**\n\nBike helmets are proven to make any injuries obtained greatly decreased. The effectiveness of helmets are found to be 85-88% in preventing serious injury. About 70-80% of accidents involve some damage to the head. It is estimated that if children ages 5-15 were forced to wear a helmet, 39,000 to 45,000 head injuries would be avoided, along with 18,000-55,000 face and scalp injuries. I could go on and on with these, but I don't have that much time. If you want more proof, just google \"bike helmet facts\". I've also listed my sources below. \n\nSources: \n\nhttp://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/docs/b_helmetlaws.pdf\n\nhttps://sites.google.com/site/bicyclehelmetmythsandfacts/ (NSFW, for some reason there is a picture of a man and woman riding naked. Still good stuff on this page, though)\n\n**Helmets do not interfere with riding the bike.**\n\nHelmets, if they are the correct size, do not get in the way while riding the bike. The only thing they can do is possibly disturb the airflow, but special aerodynamic helmets are made for this, if that is that big of a deal to a person. \n\nCommon Counterarguments:\n\n**It messes up my hair!/It is uncomfortable!/It makes me look like a dork!**\n\nI always hear this, but, you know what, none of these are that big of a deal! I would much rather endure a little discomfort than get a possibly permanent injury to my head.\n\n**But I haven't fallen off my bike in, like, years!**\n\nThis one. I hate when people say this. Just because you haven't gotten in a crash in a while does not mean that you are exempt from ever crashing again. This is especially true when travelling on a main road when other cars are a factor.\n\n**They're so expensive!!**\n\nNo, just no. An average bike helmet will cost about 10 bucks or less. If you can afford a bike, then you can afford a helmet\n\nAlright, that's it for now. Please CMV! \n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Trigger warnings are ineffective and unnecessary. + \n + First, I am of course sympathetic to any and all people who have suffered trauma, and a trigger warning is a small step to helping them cope.  However, everyone has their problems.  Many people may have severe reactions to traumas that cannot be predicted.  Should we put trigger warnings on pictures/videos/descriptions of car accidents for victims of car accidents? Should we put warnings on descriptions of robberies for viewers effected by those crimes?  \nI feel it is too difficult to predict these sort of reactions and what sort of content may prove triggering.  At what point do the needs of the few who may be triggered necessaitate a trigger warning?  Isn't is possible, however unlikely, that *any* content could be triggering to *someone*?  If we start putting trigger warnings on everything, what is the point?  \nAlso, the reaction to people who don't put trigger warnings on their content is largely negative.  In an age where trigger warnings are becoming more and more prevalent, where is the line between non-triggering and triggering content, and should it be the responsibility of the content creator to warn their readers, or of the viewer to avoid triggering content?", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Once self driving cars become commonly used and as affordable as normal automobiles, it will be immoral to manually drive a car, and probably illegal. + \n + So self driving cars have become a popular topic recently. I believe that it will be immoral to manually drive in the distant future when they are common. Firstly, by manually driving, you are putting people in a lot more danger than you would while riding in an automatic vehicle. Your car would not be interfacing with the rest of the vehicles on the road, and you would be far more likely to cause an accident. If self driving cars become universal, then we could see the removal of streetlights and other road equipment meant to organize human driven traffic. Cars would be much more efficient, being able to stop and start and at the same time. There would be virtually no road deaths at all, and absolutely no reason to drive cars outside of events like motor sports or other things like that. Self driving cars would be safer, faster, more efficient, and eventually be the only road legal cars.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:I think the USA should split into different countries and other countries should merge. + \n + Ok so I went looking for this question in the archive but couldn't find anything, so forgive me if it's already been stated. \n\nI believe things would be better for Americans if America was to split into different countries. I just don't think having over 320 million people living under one federal government is particularly practical. I'm not one of the guys that say \"Americans have lived under the guise of freedom and democracy for so long they've forgotten what it means.\" All I'm saying is, it doesn't seem very practical. \nI mean really, if you though of all the people in the country that agree with you on at least ten key political issues, I think that would be enough people for a whole country. \n\nIf the US split, that would mean that the each individual citizen would have a lot more say so over their own country. In terms of just the logistics, it just seems better than having one huge department for so many people (e.g. IRA) and I find it bizarre how we talk about certain issues like gun control when different gun control laws would be better for their each individual region. \n\nIt would mean more democracy.\n\nAnd it's not just the US. I think most world borders seem outdated to their current population...possible Brazil.. and China and India would split into a lot more different states. (Yes, I know how ridiculously unlikely this sound, but it's just my opinion.)\n\nFurthermore, some countries seem to be so economically intertwined it seems like it would benefit them to fully merge together. Benelux, the Baltics, (I would say the Balkan but nobody likes Serbia apparently,) the Nordics, Central Asia, (not sure how the rest of the Caucasus feel about Azerbaijan)\n\nYou guys know what I mean.\nMy point is that yes, I know this is unrealistic and probably never gonna happen, but truth be told, I believe it would be better for the individual citizen and more democratic for each newly created country.\n \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Anti-theists and Westboro Baptist have just as much right to publicly express their views as anybody else does. + \n + I don't like this view, and I actually want someone to convince me otherwise. Basically, it seems to me that if you believe something is hurting people, you should have the right to tell everyone. If you believe that religion is actually destroying society, then you should have the right to tell everyone, and if you don't then you're a pretty bad person. The same thing for Westboro Baptist, if they really think that homosexuality means you'll burn in hell, then you're a pretty bad person if you don't let them know.\n\nI should say that being violent in the same way as Westboro Baptist is not what I'm talking about. Going to people's funerals and essentially dancing on their graves is wrong. What I'm talking about is people having the right and responsibility to tell people about what they believe is harmful in the world. I'm also strongly against the way that anti-theists talk about religion as if it's a disease, but it really seems to me that if they don't they're a bad person, so I really want to know if there is some reason that I'm overlooking.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Plus ones shouldn't always be invited to gatherings. + \n + Okay, so I'm starting to plan my 21st. And I wanted it to be small, no more than thirty people. Inviting plus ones adds about 10 extra people that I either a) I don't know b) I don't like or c) I'm not friends with.\n\nExcept I'm getting a lot of crap because my friends in relationships (I'm single) want to bring their partners who all fall into one of the three above categories. Why should I host people that I don't want to, and who, chances are, don't want to be there anyway?\n\nBut right now my views are more important than my problems.\n\nIs it a major etiquette fuckup if you don't invite plus ones? Should I just suck it up? Change my view!\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Although there are some differences between being transgender and transethnic, tansethnic people still deserve to have their identities respected. + \n + At first, I laughed at Rachel Dolezal when I heard about the whole thing.  But given some more time, I realized that it was hypocritical for me to expect others to respect my identity while just dismissing others off-hand.\n\nI made a post on /r/ainbow asking people to be more respectful of other identities, but I just got a lot of downvotes and \"lol, ur retarded\" type comments, which is unfortunate, because I always thought of that as a place that was generally respectful of people.  Hopefully, we can have a more respectful and nuanced conversation here. \n\nThere are some differences between identifying as a gender and as an ethnicity (which I'll talk about later), but I think more important than that is the similarity.  Gender and ethnicity are both identities and roles that are assigned to us based on the circumstances of our birth.  They're thrusted upon us without our choice in the matter.  Society expects us to just live in the identity that was given to us at birth and punishes people who decide to adopt a different one.  This is wrong, because people should have the right to choose which role they want to live in.  People's lot in life shouldn't be given out by the circumstances of our birth, but rather how we wish to live.  And each person should have the freedom to identify as they wish and have that identity respected and not seen as a lie.\n\nThere are a couple of differences, that people bring up, but I think both of them are not substantive:\n\n*  **Being transethnic is \"not a thing.\"**  By which, I guess people mean that they don't really hear of many people who are transethnic, or society does not really accept transethnicity.  Both of these are poor reasons to dismiss someone's identity.  A persons identity is made valid, by them identifying with it, not by society accepting it.  And that's true no matter how small of a minority they are.\n\n*  **There's no proof that transethnic people have the same brain structure as the ethnicity they identify as.**  First of all, there's no proof, because proof hasn't been found yet.  It's not that there's been proof that transethnic people have different brains than the ethnicity they live as.  Second, even if there was proof, it wouldn't prove that transethnic identities are invalid.  It's not the structure of your brain, but how you feel that defines your identity, and the role you want to live life as.  And having desires doesn't go away just because there's no physical reason for them. \n\nChange my view.\n\n\nHere's what will change my view:\n\n   *  Showing me that there is a difference between transgender and transethnic people that is meaningful enough to deny rights to one that you give to the other.\n\nHere's what will not change my view:\n\n  *  Copy-pasting anti-trans rhetoric, but replacing gendered words with racial words.\n  * Downvotes (seriously, act like an adult)\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Teaching personal finance in schools and encouraging saving would end badly + \n + Hello everybody! \n\nI was in a reddit thread earlier where someone was preaching the importantce of teaching personal finance in schools, encouraging people to start pension contributions as soon as they start earning, ect. ect. \n\nI'm an economics undergrad so I have a little (it is only a little) understanding of savings, but I believe that a drastic increase in savings would be a catastrophe for a few reasons:\n\n1) Intrest rates. The current interest is LOW, if not negative in real terms. This means that there arn't sufficient (safe) borrowers to allocate the funds to. Increasing the savings more risks entering a liquidity trap.\n\n2) Stagnation of demand. If you encourage people to save then they arn't spending (obviously). This is probably the worst thing that could happen right now (or in the next few years). \n\n3) Asset price bubbles. With lots of savings being depositied banks will be forced to 'do' something with that money.  Some of the things they will do is buy assets, or lend to buyers of assets: such as Bonds, stocks, property. ect. Rapid increases in the purchase of these has historically lead to their prices becoming speculative. It also prices out of the market the very people who you are teaching should save: Young people. \n\n\nSo thats why  I think encouraging, on mass, a new generation of young people to start savings to that degree would end badly.\n\nI want to understand why others think it shoudl be encouraged so I'm posting here. ", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Possession of child pornography should not be illegal if the subject, producer, and possessor of the work are all the same sole person. + \n + By now, I've seen several interesting news features on legal consequences faced by teenagers taking and sharing nude photographs.  In many jurisdictions it seems, it is possible for the state to prosecute these teenagers on child pornography charges to same extent that it could prosecute a paedophile pornographer taking pictures of a nude 10-year-old.  This seems absurd, but what I find especially egregious is the fact that *teenagers can be prosecuted for possessing nude photographs of themselves that they themselves took*.  Obviously, I object to this, and I have two bases for my objection:\n\n* Photography of one's body by oneself reasonable falls under bodily autonomy, and [minors, especially adolescents, have been found to have at least some right to bodily autonomy.](http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3805&context=dlj)\n\n* I believe that something being criminal necessitates an actual or potential injury to a third party, and the concept that the subject is the victim in child pornography does not apply here because the subject is a first party to the producer/possessor.  \n\nDistribution is another issue entirely, complicated by things like iCloud and the NSA, but I don't think that possession in all cases necessitates distribution.\n\nMuch of this just occurred to me now, and I realize that there's probably a hole in my logic or a point I'm missing somewhere, so please change my view.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Everyone else should just let White Males have reddit + \n + With all that is going on with Reddit lately I think the big thing that is being ignored is that this is largely a White male community. When it functioned in that way everything seemed to go more or less fine (of course there were others interspersed but that was the majority of viewpoints). As more and more groups began to be introduced there were shall we say competing interests. They correctly are asking for space within the community as well. However, the problem is White men had already kind of adopted this space as a place where they could discuss their problems without feeling guilty etc. For example, when people complain about false rape charges getting to the front page constantly or reverse discrimination cases etc etc. I think the SJW this and that we often see is just pushback from White Men feeling \"invaded\" for lack of a better word. I'm not saying this is right. I think this last ush of banning subs etc also has the same implications first FatPeopleHate is seen as appealing to women and feminists. Then Coontown seen as appealing to minorities. I think its reflective of White Men feeling like all other people get to have their spaces etc. but they never do. What I got from the threads is that people feel betrayed and I believe that feeling is genuine. \n\nSo here's the actual CMV. Why can't everyone just let White Guys have this one. Why can't we all just either accept that this is and will be a site that leans towards issues important to (straight) White Men and will be biased towards their opinions or leave and go to a different site. Its not like their aren't other hubs. And I'm not saying that there shouldn't be differences of opinion etc. (newsflash: not all White guys think the same). But just as anyone is welcome to watch Logo and comment on it etc no one would complain that the content is too gay or be upset if anti-gay things or things that appear to be anti-gay get the equivalent of downvoted (and no I'm not comparing experiences in any way). I also think that if people recognized this gping in there would be less abrasive push back from the trolls and \"dark side\" of reddit.\n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I should eat Lunchables every day + \n + As an adult man who counts calories daily, I'm always trying to find food that is cheap and either easy to prepare or possible to prepare all at once at the start of the week. I've tried several alternatives including salads and slow cooked meat, but they tended to be expensive and not necessarily keep or reheat as well as I'd like.\n\nFor that reason, I present lunchables, specifically the cheese pizza kind, as the best choice for me for dinner. They are cheap, costing between $1 and $2 each depending on sales and how far I'm willing to drive to buy them. They keep in the refrigerator all week with no issue. They have only 270 calories, allowing me to supplement the meal in a number of ways without going over my daily limit. They have 16g protein, which is not as good as meat dishes but is still quite a bit. You prepare them as you eat them, which slows down the process, allowing you to feel more full. But they also require no heating and the additional prep time is minimal compared to many other meals.\n\nWhat it would take to change my view:\n\n1. An example of a better meal with similar or greater protein content and less than 400 calories that isn't too expensive\n\n2. A specific reason why eating them every day would be unhealthy. Not just general concerns about processed food, but a specific ingredient or other factor.\n\n3. Something else I haven't thought of\n\nWhat won't change my view:\n\n1. Subjective arguments about taste or repetitiveness. I enjoy the taste and actually prefer to eat the same thing every weekday.\n\n2. Anything involving chicken. I already have chicken for lunch every day, and that actually would be too repetitive.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The Number of Sexual Partners Someone Has Had Does Not Affect Their Suitability For Relationships + \n + Many IRL and on reddit seem to hold the idea that dating someone with a high amount of previous sexual partners is a bad thing.  On the opposite spectrum, I also don't think it's a bad thing that a person has no previous sexual partners. As long as they've practiced safe sex and is not carrying a STD, which are important considerations regardless of their number of partners unless that number is 0, I don't see why it matters how many people they've had sex with and I'm curious why so many people seem concerned about that.  Perhaps as a result, I also don't see the issue with \"hookups\", casual sex, and similar behavior in the age of condoms, contraceptives, and assessable STD testing and think condemnation of such behavior is outdated.  CMV?", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV : /r/Funny is not Funny + \n + \"providing fun; causing amusement or laughter; amusing; comical:\"\n\nOut of most default subs that get up-voted on the front page /r/funny  is the the least amusing. It's the lowest common denominator type of stuff  , lowest of the low hanging fruit , so processed that most corporations could use material for marketing PR , it's like coffee without caffeine , 2Pac - Hit Em Up without insults..\n\nBasically it is not authentically amusing content. It  feels like  forcing you into  safe cute giggle rather than genuinely amuse you.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Sanders and his supporters are the ones who don't understand socialism. + \n + I make this CMV in response to the claim I see on reddit by Sanders supporters which basically states: \"Most Americans don't understand what socialism actually is.\" My argument is that Americans absolutely understand the meaning of the word and its Sanders and his supporters who either don't understand it, or are trying to change its meaning as it is currently accepted in the USA.\n\nFrom the dictionary: Socialism is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system. This is socialism in the traditional sense and what I believe most Americans think of when they hear the word. Now I understand that socialism is a broad term and can encompass many different ideas, however the core idea of the term is the same: Government control of the means of production. \n\nThe argument now becomes that just like we don't have a fully capitalist economic model, Sanders does not want a fully socialist economic model. To me this means that instead of having a capitalist system where the goal is to have as little government intervention as possible (within reason), Sanders and his supporters want a socialist system where the goal is to have as much government intervention as possible (again within reason). This is how I, and many other Americans view socialism. So while Sanders may not at any time be pushing for some sort socialist revolution, he is still pushing for a massive increase in government regulation of industry. \n\nThe problem I have with Sanders and his supporters is that this isn't socialism to them. They see seemingly every government service we provide is a form of socialism and that being against socialism also means being against firemen and public school teachers. This is nonsense. As I've stated above we don't have a fully capitalist society today and there are social services that we expect the government to provide and pay for through taxation. However, these services are something we've come to expect from the government and most Americans have never considered their existence a form of \"socialism\" before the Sanders crowd came along and claimed that they are. It seems like they are trying to change the definition of the word as it has been accepted by Americans for decades, if not longer.\n\nTo summarize, I believe that simply being for more government provided services such as universal healthcare does not make you a socialist.  I (and I'd argue most Americans) believe that being a socialist means that in your ideal state you would like to have the government in control most of if all means of production. I therefore state that Bernie Sanders is wrong when he claims that just because he wants higher taxes and more government spending that he is a socialist. I also state that the way most Americans view the word is closer to its actual meaning.\n\nCMV\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The theory of evolution and Christianity are incompatible + \n + A couple of quick notes: I am going to use the term \"believe in evolution\" simply for convenience. Evolutionary theory is generally not considered something that you believe in, but since some Christians deny evolutionary theory they effectively don't believe in it. Also, I am going to be using Christianity as my reference religion, but other Abrahamic religions that contain the genesis story are applicable as well.\n\n\nThe theory of evolution that gives an explanation as to our origins I believe is not compatible with Christianity. You cannot believe in evolution as well as the Christian genesis story because they directly contradict each other. The Christian genesis story states that god created man in his current form, while evolutionary theory explains that life took millions of years to evolve and that our species is descended from a common ancestor with the other primates.\n\nIf you are a Christian who believes in evolution as opposed to the genesis story and claim that the Christian genesis is just a metaphor, you open the door for the entire rest of the bible to be just a metaphor as well. Beyond that, if you claim that Christian genesis is just a metaphor because it isn't actually true in a literal sense, then you can further extend that the entire bible isn't true in a literal sense.\n\nIf someone were to claim that only the genesis story is a metaphor but the rest is literally true, then that person has effectively filtered the bible themselves. For a person to pick and choose what is real and what is not in a sacred book is to not hold the book sacred. Finally, for a person to not hold the bible sacred is to not be a Christian. Evolutionary theory and Christianity are not compatible. CMV!\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: \"Cultural appropriation\" is fine as long as it's not overtly racist or disparaging. People have a right to use the art, styles, etc. that they like, and those who are offended are overreacting. + \n + I think that people have a right to those artistic, cultural, and aesthetic forms that please them, and openly sharing and partaking of diverse ideas and styles makes the world a richer, more innovative, and better place. Saying that a particular style of dress, manner of speech, way of doing things, or cultural icon \"belongs\" to a particular group of people who have rights over who may use it and how is dogmatic and dictatorial. If a person wants to wear a kimono or headdress to imitate and mock Japanese people or Native Americans, that's obviously racist and offensive. But if someone wants to wear a kimono or headdress because they like the way they look, the usage of those forms is at worst benign and at best potentially a show of admiration for them and the cultures whence they come.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Andrew Jackson Should Not Be On The Twenty + \n + Regardless of the man's less ethical actions, Andrew Jackson was known as the \"bank breaker\" and would've despised anything like the Federal Reserve. The Fed basically put him on the twenty to mock him. While his atrocities toward Native Americans are nothing to be proud of, I don't think we should be taking potshots with our currency. It's not like Jackson was a universally bad president either - in fact, he frequently breaks the top ten among historians, to this day:\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States\n\nI'm totally fine with throwing Harriet Tubman on the twenty, by the way. Our currency could use some race and gender diversity. Why shouldn't we remove a president from currency, who would've hated to be there in the first place?\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Kids are expensive, they won't fulfill me in life. And I will regret having them. + \n + Hi guys! So, I'm planning on getting sterilized soon. The only reason I haven't started doctor shopping yet is because insurance hasn't kicked in. ACA currently covers all female sterilization. And I want to get it done for a variety of reasons. One being that I don't know for how long it will be covered. Especially once Obama is out of office. Since it's under the initiative he made. And also, I've wanted to get sterilized ever since I found out my mom got her tubes tied after my brother.\n\nShe was in a lot of pain since then, and blames the surgery. But. She's been feeling better lately ever since she's been treated for her depression. So who knows. Anyway, I've never liked the tubal ligation procedure, but found out about a year ago a whole world of options! Since I'm planning on making a permanent decision. I want to be, beyond a shadow of a doubt, someone can't logic me into kids.\n\nI am a very rational person, and only make emotional decisions when it comes to friends and romantic partnerships. But even then, there are logical undertones for choosing these people to enjoy in my life. The point is. Deciding to not have kids is a logical decision for me. I sucked at babysitting growing up. I like entertaining kids, just not taking care of them.\n\nI have never felt that \"maternal urge\". I was beyond relieved as a kid when I found out you didn't have to have kids! \n\nMy view: I don't like taking care of kids. Tried a few times, been awful at it. They are ridiculously expensive, and I will regret having them.\n\nChange my view!", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Immigrants should learn the primary language of the country they move to. + \n + A few points clarifying my view:\n\n* By primary language, I mean either *official* language (i.e. English or French in Canada) or the language most spoken by the people in that country (i.e. English in America)\n\n* I don't expect fluency. My mother has lived in Canada for almost twenty years now and she still has trouble sometimes. My view is that all immigrants should strive for at the very least an [intermediate](http://www.londonschool.com/level-scale/) mastery. \n\n* My one exception would be if an immigrant does not have the financial capability to pay for lessons in the language of the country they've moved to. However, in Canada at least, free English lessons are offered to new immigrants, so I wouldn't see any reason to not learn the language here. \n\nNot learning the primary language of the country they've moved to encourages segregation and often leads to racial or cultural tension. By refusing to learn the primary language to an acceptable extent, they're showing a blatant refusal to adapt even a little to their new country's culture. Even if you're living in an area where you could live your entire life speaking your mother tongue, it doesn't make sense to not at least do the bare minimum to adapt. What's the point of coming all the way to another country if you're not going to respect it? Multiculturalism is wonderful and should be valued, but refusing to learn the country's language and creating enclaves is *preventing* multiculturalism. \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: External validation matters a lot. + \n + The idea that the only one you have to please is yourself is not conducive to real word results.\n\nI could think I'm really attractive but get no dates.  I could think I'm really likeable but have no friends.  I could think my skills are very valuable yet make very little money.  And it would all be pointless.\n\nDo you have to please everybody? No.  Howard Stern has 10 million people who hate him but also 10 million people who like him, and that's why he's successful.\n\nYes I can have internal value but I'd just be in a solipsistic bubble of nothingness convincing myself otherwise.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I won't support financial abortion unless we also set up a social safety net to make up for it + \n + Financial abortion, aka legal paternal surrender, is a concept talked about among Men's Rights groups whereby they believe men should be allowed to opt out of paying child support. This process would occur sometime after the woman is aware she's pregnant and notifies the man, and then MRAs believe he should be able to sign himself out of being the father if he desires (losing all the other rights of fatherhood like visitation, of course).  \n\nMRAs state that this gives a right to men that they lack in comparison to women, namely that women can choose whether or not they want to be a parent either by carrying the fetus to term or having an abortion.  \n\nI'm not going to argue that point here, as that's been done a million times over. I'm going to say for the sake of this post that I'll agree that men should have this right, BUT:  \n\n*Only if we also create a social safety net to help cover the funds needed for the child to have a good life. Funds that would otherwise have been paid for by the father.*  \n\nAccording to the UN, children have specific rights that the state must see to. The state has to make choices in the best interest of the child. If we're depriving the child of an income source, then the state has to see to it that the child is taken care of.   \n\nThe best way the state can do that if the father opts out of paying is to make up for it themselves through welfare.  \n\n---  \n\nI'm going to anticipate some responses that I want to address. Yes, if a woman can't alone support a child financially, then knowing the father will opt out, she should not go through with having the child. However, it is her choice and her right to do so. I believe that people should be allowed to exercise control over their own body.  \n\nOnce the baby is born it *must* be taken care of. (Trying to convince me that we shouldn't care about babies and just let them die if the mother is irresponsible will not work, sorry, I can't be that heartless.)\n\nAlso, just telling the mother to get a second job or work even more and find more income is flawed in my view, because poor single mothers probably can't take on many more responsibilities with affecting the child's life in a detrimental way.  \n\n---  \n\nCMV: either the father pays child support or society pays", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Social Justice Warriors are obnoxious and harmful to the very cause that they champion. + \n + So, here's the thing.  I believe myself to be very liberal.  I am for the ideas of Social Justice, but I am really sick of reading about \"trigger warning\" this and \"safe space\" that.  I think that people who fall into the \"SJW\" stereotype tend to be flavor of the week armchair activists who like to yell and scream about social issues they aren't even remotely connected to, which really only gives fuel to the opposite view's fire.  Articles like [this one](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html?_r=0) really punctuate how absurd some of this has gotten.  It frustrates me, because I do think we need to have a dialogue about racial inequality, gender issues, etc, but it just seems to me that these people who [\"refuse to enact the labor\"](https://melissafong.wordpress.com/2014/04/04/why-suey_park-wont-enact-the-labour-women-of-colour-dont-owe-you-an-education/) of explaining why their debate opponent's viewpoint is allegedly invalid are just making people who actually care and actually need the change look a little silly.   \n\nAnyway, I would like to better understand these people so that I can engage with the ones in my sphere of influence and help guide their energy towards effective discourse that actually might affect change.   \n\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Hockey is the best sport to watch, according to my definition inside + \n + Best Sport: If a random person who was familiar with no sport was shown every sport on earth and given a month to appreciate each of them the sport they'd be most likely to choose as their favourite is the best sport.\n\n\n\nI think that hockey deserves this title because of a combination of factors. It moves at a ridiculous speed, but given time to watch it, it becomes obvious where the puck is. It has a significant amount of strategy, but not so much that an average person needs to understand the strategy to follow along. It has a good amount of violence with the hitting, and fighting is something else thrown in for more fun. Also, unlike other major team sports, the movement of your legs, that is, skating, is just as if not more important and difficult as your upper body and control of the puck.\n\n\nWhat will not change my view: Arguments against my definition of best sport or an argument that this is subjective, I get that, this is mostly hypothetical.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Philosophy is Not Distinct from the Scientific Method + \n + First, I'm not saying philosophy is useless. I'm claiming that everything of use in philosophy is included as an integral part of the scientific method.\n\nWhat we normally refer to as the distinction between philosophy and the scientific method is really a matter of degree and not of kind. A good philosopher takes observations about reality and tries to fit them into a logical scheme of explanation that is consistent with everything that has been observed in the past. That *is* the scientific method - or, more accurately, it is a part of the scientific method. The extra part is the empirical work of trying to validate the explanation (or hypothesis) by making further observations.\n\nI'm arguing that what makes us call something \"philosophy\" instead of \"science\" is the distance the conclusions are away from the observations being used. If we are musing about the theoretical possibilities of a probability density of quarks, then we're doing science. If we're musing about what kind of actions lead to living a content life, then we're doing philosophy. The only difference being to what degree our hypotheses have to rely on logic alone to extend their reach because available and confirmed observations for such complex subjects are still way beyond our reach. We're still doing science. We're just out on the ledge.\n\nI think the only reason this is even confused is because of a historical coincidence. We discovered philosophy first. It makes sense, because at the time the range of empirical observations we had available to us was tiny. I argue we discovered religious hypotheses first because they only need intuition to get off the ground. The next thing that would occur is the discovery of logic. We still can't build particle accelerators, but we can start to get serious about self-consistency in our arguments from intuition. This helped, but we still had another breakthrough to make. That was the scientific method. Where we finally realized that logic and intuition must be tempered by careful and exact measurements. Otherwise, it will all just collapse into my seemingly self-consistent logical framework versus your seemingly self-consistent logical framework - or as we usually refer to it: the Middle East conflict (it has many other names).\n\nAnd so because of the circumstances of history, we came to see the scientifc method as separate from the philosophical method. They even referred to science as \"natural philosophy\" at first. It soon became clear that this wasn't just another aspect of philosophical study. I think the situation was the exact opposite. Everything useful in philosophy is contained within the \"forming a hypothesis based on existing information\" part of the scientific method. In this sense, philosophy is distinct from biology. Biology is a specific application of the scientific method. Philosophy is a key part of the process, but it does not exceed the process.\n\nOr at least I think it doesn't. Change my view!", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is nothing wrong with incestuous relationships + \n + (I live in the UK so generalisations are based on UK attitudes)\n\nEveryone seems to have an \"eww\" attitude to incest without  giving any valid arguments why they're against it.\n\nI can use many apposite arguments for incest equally valid for gay-relationships.\n\n1. Gay (incestuous) relationships do not affect other relationships.\n\n2. Love is grounds for a relationship, regardless of sexual orientation (familial connection)\n\n3. Discrimination of gay relationships (incestuous relationships) is founded in bigotry.\n\nThe only argument I see as vaguely valid is that children born from incestuous relationships have a greater chance of developing genetic deformities. However, if the criteria for a relationship is the ability of a couple to conceive a healthy child then many people with genetic dispositions should not be able to have children either.\n\nIn conclusion I think\n\n1. Legally, there should be no ill-treatment of consenting adults wishing to engage in incestuous relationships\n\n2. Socially, we should stop viewing incestuous relationships as taboo\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Driving is terrifying, and serves no purpose to me. + \n + A little bit of background: I am 17 years old. I live in a small town where pretty much everything is in walking distance(given I have enough time). My friends all live on the same street as me, my school is only a couple of blocks away. I really have no purpose to drive, at least that's what I think. My parents think other wise. They are indirectly forcing me to drive by not allowing me to get rides from them anymore, unless I'm driving.\n\nI see driving as a pretty terrifying activity. You are in full control of a 2 ton hunk of metal, which can reach speeds up to a hundred miles an hour. Around you are strangers, also controlling 2 ton metal hunks. You have no clue who these people are, and probably will never see them again. But you have to trust them. Just a small accident could end the life of you, your passengers, and other people on the road. I can't live with that burden.\n\nFor the record, I have driven before. I got my permit when I was 16, and have only used it a few times. Each time I've used it, I've been stricken with fear.\n\nI feel like driving is essential to life nowadays, but I just can't get my head around. Please CMV!\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I feel like the Republicans are the 'bad guys' PLEASE CMV! + \n + I've drunk the koolaide. I'm becoming a biased partisan hack. I believe that one of the biggest problems with this country is the deep, seemingly irreconcilable animosity between the followers of the two parties, and I am part of that problem. \n\n\n\nYet as much as I try, I cannot bring myself to view the Republicans as anything but a regressive influence on the USA. On some deep level, I've accepted the stereotype that Republican voters are bible thumping, gun wielding, blindly patriotic semi-racists. I'm not talking so much about the elected officials but rather the voters. I feel that, from what I can gather through the 'liberal' media and my personal experience, Republican opinions are largely formed (at least more so than Democrats) on ignorance, xenophobia, religion, guns, and hatred for Obama. I know such a broad and negative stereotype can't really be true, but I still can't shake it. I don't pretend to understand much about economics so most of my feelings come from my revulsion with the party's stance on social issues. \n\n\n\nHere are a few bits of my limited understanding of the party's platform:\n\n\n\nSocial Issues: \n\n- Opposing gay marriage: I have tried to find a credible argument against gay marriage, but have repeatedly failed. Currently, their argument before the supreme court rests on gays being unfit to raise children/procreate and the floodgates opening for polygamy etc.  \n\n- Downplaying racial/gender discrimination as out of control political correctness: This seems like mostly suburban/rural white men being unable to empathize with groups of people they've never/rarely met. And some genuine racism.\n\n- Defensiveness over religion/guns: The gun debate is too muddied for me to have a strong opinion on, but I feel Republicans' fears over attacks on Christianity are largely unfounded and that, if anything, Christianity has too large an influence on our culture/government.\n\n- Immigration: I don't understand the positives/negatives of different approaches to immigration, but the Republican voter's opposition seems to come from xenophobia and trumped up fear about terrorists/freeloaders sneaking in.\n\n\n\nSecurity Issues:\n\n- Support for aggressive policing and invasive homeland security: I realize Rand and Co have been at the forefront of action against the NSA, but my personal experience has left me believing that most Republican voters are for strengthening national security and increasing military spending. I also feel that the strongest voices to come out in support of the recent police-on-black violence were conservatives.\n\n- Hawkish foreign policy: I feel that Republicans have an emotional and aggressive reaction to Russia, Iran, Syria, ISIS and would be more willing to intervene militarily without regard to whether or not such intervention would be beneficial. They seem willing to pursue cathartic violence and disinclined to examined our militaries checkered past.\n\n\n\nEconomic Issues:\n\n- Welfare Queens: Again, I really don't understand enough about economics to judge a good policy from a bad one, but I see the Republicans as using the idea of welfare queens to scare up opposition to social programs and further stigmatize the poor. They view Obamacare/Goverment assistance as handouts given to the undeserving.\n\n- Blame the poor: It feels like Republicans push the idea that, without regulations, people will be able to pull themselves out of poverty and that the only thing keeping them down is either the government or their own laziness.\n\n\n\nEnvironmental Issues:\n\n- Global warming skepticism: This seems motivated by the party's ties to fossil fuel, fear of change, hatred for anything Obama, and anti-intellectual disdain for 'nancy-pansy' green stuff.\n\n\n\n\n\nTL:DR - I feel like the Republican voting base is motivated primarily by religion, xenophobia, fear of change, hatred for Obama. Their positions are ignorant, contradict available evidence, short sighted, and selfish. \n\n\n\n\n\nWhat would change my mind?\n\n-Evidence of a largely liberal leaning media/culture that suppresses honest Republican voices and prevents me from seeing the other side of the picture.\n\n-Evidence that Republican news media (Fox, Breibart, Drudge, Talk Radio, etc) are reputable and not fear mongering propaganda barkers. \n\n-Strong arguments supporting the Republican platform and evidence that Republican voters share these views.\n\n-Surprise me!\n\n\n\nTHANK YOU and please please please help me shed this ugly bias!!!\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Governors of states have no business \"calling\" for the death penalty for the perpetrator of a crime. (At the moment, I'm looking at you, Nikki Haley.) + \n + Governors execute the laws that their legislatures pass, they respond to disasters, they act as a backstop to the judicial system if someone is harshly punished through pardoning people, they guide economic policy, they are chief cheerleader for their state. Basically, they have plenty to do, and plenty of places to show folks that they are leading through doing leadership things in a very leady way.\nThey shouldn't be inserting their opinion  into a system that has police, district attorneys, prosecutors, and judges who all have their own roles to play. It's bad enough that juries are already tainted by the media coverage of a story, but now your own governor is telling you what you ought to do.\nI feel like consoling the people by throwing despicable criminals under the bus is a cheap and dishonorable move.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: As a progressive, it is NOT in my best interest to vote for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary. + \n + Though my personal political views match those of Bernie Sanders much more than Hillary Clinton, I believe nominating Bernie could ultimately be very damaging for the progressive cause. My main concern with nominating Sanders is that he will alienate all voters except for the left and the end result will be a 48-state Reagan v. Mondale style steamrolling. A GOP presidency, possible supermajority in both houses and 1-3 supreme court nominations could be enough to nullify the limited progress we've had under Obama. \n\nA Clinton presidency would probably look very similar to Obama's, and come with a lot of disappointments. I do think it's possible that we might see progress towards things like a single-payer healthcare system that progressives have wanted all along. \n\nI like Bernie a lot, and would like to vote for him so please CMV. \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Guys with sexy women as their phone's background are socially awkward. + \n + I see a bunch of these posts on Reddit. Guys posting their cool new lockscreen or wallpaper of some half naked chick and it simply amazes. Odds are, you will have someone using your phone at some point. Maybe you're asking a stranger to take a picture. Maybe a friend's phone died and they need to borrow yours. Maybe your mom needs it for a second, for whatever reason. What could possibly go through someone's mind thinking that this is a normal thing to do? Every time I see someone starting one of those threads I automatically assume they are socially awkward and don't spend time with people. ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: if you eat meat you have no grounds to be upset about animals being tortured and abused in factory farms. + \n + Thats the fucking deal and either you know it or youre wilfully ignorant, and choose not to do a simple google search about the pain and suffering youre supporting.\n\nThey have to do regular mental health screenings on workers in normal abatoirs to make sure theyre not harbouring serial killers ffs can you even imagine the types of people who choose to work in *factory farms*? Can you even imagine how much torture and abuse flys under the radar and never makes it to the front page of reddit?\n\nIt comes with the territory that by eating meat you are supporting torture and abuse of animals in many different ways and severities, there is no way around it, and yet you people act shocked when a post about it reaches the front page and pretend it matters to you. If it fucking mattered to you wouldnt be contributing to it.\n\nAnd yes obviously it is possible to not consume factory farmed meat products but the amount of people who exclusively do that is so small that it doesnt really have any relevance to anything and its safe to assume almost everyone who will post in this thread eats mcdonalds and buys chicken from the supermarket.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is nothing wrong with the Confederate flag being flown near the South Carolinian state capitol. + \n + \nALSO.... looking at it from this perspective in no way condones slavery. I am simply giving a historical context for both situations. Just because it existed for 100 years prior to the civil war doesn't make it alright, it does however give you a frame of mind for some of these soldiers. Mix that with the fact they thought they were not being represented in the Federal Government, and yea they were a little ticked off. So please do not stoop so low as to call me a person who condones that...\n\n\nOriginal Post:\n\n\nI find it very annoying that in light of recent events this subject has gained traction. At the South Carolina capitol, a confederate flag flies and now that the shooting has happened, people are calling for it to be taken down. Not sure why people believe this is the cause of the shootings, the guy was a racist and a nut case. This flag flying had little to nothing to do with creating a culture of southern racism. \n\nTo set a few things straight:\n1. The flag cannot be taken down to half mast as it is a fixed flag (there is no string to pull it down, it simply sits on top of the poll.)\n2. The flag is attached to a Civil War Memorial, fitting in my opinion. It is not attached to the capitol, it is on the grounds of the capitol. \n\nBeyond this my argument is that the flag is a part of US history and specifically, Southern US history (and since South Carolina was the first to secede... it has a highly unique history there). Yes, the flag does hold some racist connotations because it was essentially hijacked by the KKK and Neo-Nazis. This does not change the fact that it was a battle flag that Americans fought over in one of the most devastating wars in US history. \n\nI understand there were confederate national flags and the one we see flown today is a battle flag. I still find it acceptable for those in the south to fly the flag as a reminder of Southern culture/pride and a memorial to those lost during the war. \n\nIf those who argue the flag represents those who wanted keep slavery I have two counter points. 1. The American flag represented those people for a much longer duration of time than the confederate flag, it is a dark part of our history and should never be forgotten. 2. It is estimated that 25%-33% of soldiers owned slaves, others fought because of vicious actions taken by the North and others to defend their homes (look up Sherman and Georgia).\n\nFurthermore lets not forget this war wasn't slave holders v.s. abolitionists. The war was certainly about slavery but it wasn't as black and white as some people suggest. The South was fighting to keep slavery as a state right separate from federal law, the North was fighting because they didn't want their country being split in half. \n\nLastly, flags are symbols that can be interpreted in multiple ways. There are those that see the American flag as a imperialistic, evil symbol. There are those that see the confederate flag as a stark reminder of our nation's dark history and cultural heritage. Just because a few people have championed it as their symbol for their hatred does not mean everyone who flies it agrees with this point of view. Furthermore, just because people find the flag offensive does not mean the flying of the flag was there to offend. \n\nTL;DR The flag flying in South Carolina has historic meaning and is attached to a memorial. It is not intended to offend or to represent racism. It is justified historically and by the first amendment to fly at the capitol. \n\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Raising your voice during arguments is fine (when there aren't, e.g. children around). + \n + I just had my dad tell me to lower my voice during an argument, but often I'm not even aware I'm raising it.\n\nI, personally, don't think raising your voice during an argument is a bad thing - when you're angry, you often can't talk calmly and it's fucking stupid to call someone out on something that's completely normal to do when they're upset, particularly in the way that my dad called me out, namely, \"Am I raising my voice? I'm talking to you in a normal voice\". I think it's a normal reaction, and it shouldn't be seen as something we need to tone down (unless we are in, say, a public place). When you're angry, you're by definition unable to be calm, and yet people treat it as some sort of heinous fault.\n\n\nI suppose this is as much a rant as a CMV, so sorry if this isn't in the right sub.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: He, she, they. That's all the pronouns you are getting. + \n + My proposition is that pronouns past the three most common ones are not necessary and are actively harmful. An example for some of the new pronouns that can be encountered in the wild is \"xe/xer/xerself\" or \"zi/zis/zimself\". My argument is as follows:\n\n1. Pronouns are always dealing with a spectrum. A \"he\" can be used to describe both masculine as well as feminine men and similarly for she and women. The singular they is also covering a spectrum, the spectrum of all people that do not identify with either gender or those that identify with both to differing degrees. Therefore they is sufficient to describe alternative gender identities.\n2. If we'd decide that new pronouns are necessary to describe or be inclusive to specific non-standard gender identities, we would very likely end up with a sheer infinite amount of pronouns. Since the argument for further pronouns would not be based on scientific facts but rather on feelings of individual people, the argument why some new pronouns are okay and others aren't would be a very difficult one to make. The result would be that we would have to allow anyone to pick or create their own pronouns.\n3. Since we'd have a large number of new pronouns people would very likely get confused, since they'd not only have to remember a name and a face but also the specific pronouns of a person AND incorporate those into everyday speech. The result would either be that people would start inadvertently giving offence or our speech patterns would change to rely far more on using names instead of pronouns. \n4. Having a wide range of new pronouns would actively harm the English language by making it less clear. Encountering unknown pronouns would confuse people and make it difficult to imagine what kind of character is being talked about.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Slipknot is bad. + \n + My boyfriend really likes Slipknot so I've been listening to it a lot recently. I think they are bad, all their songs sound similar, and they cater to an immature audience. It's the kind of music I would have listened to in 7th grade when I was feeling rebellious. I think if you are an adult listening to it then you probably are immature. I don't think it's quality music, I think the screaming and horror-esque nature of their music is a shtick that is way over played. I don't think any mature balanced adult would listen and enjoy their music. \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Planned Parenthood is not evil + \n + Not only are they not \"selling\" body parts, but they don't just do abortions, even if pro-life views lead you to see abortion as wrong. 97% of what they do is NOT abortions. STD and cancer screenings, contraception, and HIV counseling, to name a few. \n\nAlso, this baby part thing is a ridiculous. If a patient wishes to donate the unborn child to science, is that wrong? Is it wrong that Planned Parenthood gets paid for gas? Would Planned Parenthood haters rather the unborn babies be thrown in the trash? Provided you find abortion wrong, do two wrongs make a right?\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: A Statistics course should be required as standard high school education + \n + I believe that statistics is a far more useful mathematical tool than some of the other disciplines of math taught in our current (American) education system.\n\nThere are many reasons I believe this to be true, but the most convincing of all is the staggering amount of misuse of statistics that I witness here on reddit every day. People seem to get in the habit of picking a study that claims *\"X% of Y are Z\"* or that *\"There is a strong correlation between X and Y\"*and spit it out to strengthen whatever they're arguing. People often overlook the many factors that could be contributing to a correlation and construe the underlying truths to fit their case or story. To make matters worse, after someone has represented a false/poor statistic, the general public of reddit sees the numbers and mindlessly upvotes/supports a claim because they also don't know better. I believe that a simple bit of education on how 'confouning' works or what 'statistically significant' actually means could do a lot of good and correct people's intuition.\n\nI'm not sure what the standard/minimum math cirriculum for the entire US is, but my high school expected us to graduate with at least Pre-Calculus knowledge. IMO, the benefits of Statistics in the real world outweigh the benefits of Pre-Calculus. Pre-Calculus can't really be applicable to all career paths one might choose to follow after graduating high-school. If you're going into higher education, then you will usually be required to take a Calculus course anyway and will probably have to encounter Pre-Calculus there. But I'm concerned with the vast amount of people ([34.1%](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/26/business/fewer-us-high-school-graduates-opt-for-college.html)) who live their lives without college education (at least in their younger years). Most high-school requiring jobs won't find use in much of Pre-Calculus' or Geometry's curriculum. But Statistics is a tool that is universal to all people in our society -regardless of job- because it teaches you how to read data and be wary of what might be misrepresented in it. The average high-school grad won't ever go home at the end of the day and say: *\"Shit, I really need to use partial fraction decomposition on this fraction\"* or *\"I forget, is <(Sin(tanx))/(cosx)> the same thing as  <(2 cos(x) sin((sin(2 x))/(1+cos(2 x))))/(1+cos(2 x)> ?\"*\n\nHowever, the study of Statistics teaches people intuition with data, which is ubiquitous in our day and age regardless of your profession or background.\n\n\n\n\n**I'm talking about basic Statistics that's more conceptual than number-based. I took the AP course with [THIS BOOK](http://www.amazon.com/Practice-Statistics-Daren-S-Starnes/dp/142924559X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1438027231&sr=1-1&keywords=the+practice+of+statistics+david+moore&refinements=p_lbr_one_browse-bin%3ADavid+S.+Moore) and the class was very much doable without calculus and geared towards someone my age.** \n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Aside from the historical aesthetic, capitaliz|sation of sentences and *Proper Nouns* should be abandoned as redundant. + \n + The Thai people don't even use proper spacing or punctuation and they do fine.  It's basically just error control for human penstrokes, and it's simply unnecessary for that reason.  I'm not disparaging the use of *Capital Symbols* now that we have them, but the rigid structure we adhere them to seems outdated at best.  I think there are other context to convey that are worth more ruling, and that the few assigned to capitalization are easily inferred from context within today's hypertext society, and need less attention.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: No one should ever be denied a job because of a mental illness. + \n + I mean all jobs, such as police officers, military personnel, CIA operatives, security clearance applications, teachers, lawyers, and doctors. Some of these professions will outright ask on the application if the person has a mental illness. Some people will say that certain professions are so important, that a person with a mental illness should be denied. But people who advocate discrimination against the mentally ill are simply misinformed about the fact that mentally ill people have the same rights as everyone else. While the media portrays mentally ill people as violent, this is simply not true. Mentally ill people are no more violent than the average person.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: People who complain about the Yulin Dog Meat Festival, but gladly eat other animals are hypocritical and cannot see past their own cultural biases. + \n + Recently, I have noticed a mass amount of people campaigning to stop the Dog Meat Festival that occurs in Yulin, China.  While I can understand the uncomfortableness that arises from large amounts of dogs being slaughtered, I feel like it is no better or worse than the mass killings of other animals such as chicken or cow.  I feel most of the people who are against the festival are too enamored with their own cultural views on dogs to see why their hypocrisy.  If the people who are campaigning against the festival truly believe it is health issue, that is one thing, but it appears most people are just concerned about the fact that dogs are being slaughtered.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The Shining(movie) does a poor representation of the hotels true power, as opposed to the books intent. Spoiler + \n + First I will say I love both and like alternate versions of the same story. On the other hand I donnot understand the argument that the hotel is represented just as evil as it is in the book(not to be confused with the hotel is not evil in the movie).\n\n\n\nKubrick makes intended changes to the books plot seemingly to down play the true evil of the hotel. Take for instance the different endings. In the book the hotel is destroyed, and the movie it's left standing. If the hotel is as evil in the book as it is in the movie, the hotel should have been destroyed.\n\n\nTake the maze scene. Kubrick places this maze scene in where Danny is chased by the insane gone over the edge jack. Where as the book jack is possessed by the hotel and chases Danny through the halls, his voice and demeanor is extremely unfamiliar to Danny. Jack seemingly goes over the edge as opposed to being possessed by a the hotel. \n\n\n\nLast example is the hedges. The hotel can control the hedges and bring them to life. As Danny's shine gets stronger and fuels the hotels power the hedges go from just moving their positions, to being able to attack the occupants. This is left out seemingly to downplay the hotels capabilities. That's as good place to start as any so Change my views.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Tattoos are banal. + \n + There are multiple parts to my view:\n\n- Tattoos, as commonly seen in the US, are so trite and ordinary that their meanings have been eroded to the point where they have become empty fashion statements.\n\n- In most instances, one is putting the artwork of another on one's body, indelibly leaving the mark of strangers, cheapening the body.\n\n- Once a tattoo is obtained, a person has a choice to become embrace the culture, or reject it and cut losses. Most will embrace out of convenience, cost, or both, and this defines the remainder of that person's life. \n\nI don't say that *people* are cheap, or that people are somehow trashy with tattoos (though that is the case many times - /r/trashy), rather that their choices and reasons for those choices are banal. I've met lots of good people that have tattoos, and when they explain the reasons for them I've been left with the impression that their choices were impulsive, tired, and uncreative.\n\n*NOTE* A lot of the comments suggest I think tattoos are \"bad\" or that being banal is \"bad.\" I don't think it's that simple; badness is completely divorced from the concept of banality, and I don't think one implies the other.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: It is not Scar's fault the Pride Lands went to crap. + \n + In the Lion King, once Scar takes over the Pride Lands, the herds of prey animals move away and there is a severe scarcity in food and water. This causes Nala to leave to find food and help, which leads her to Simba.\n\nHowever, the scarcity of food and water is due to a drought and the blame is placed on Scar since he is now King, but it's not his fault since he can't control the weather.\n\nSimba is just lucky that it started to rain right after Scar was defeated. Had it not started to rain, he would have been in the same position Scar was.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Bernie Sanders would make a bad president, despite the fact that I agree with him often + \n + Although I agree with many of his political stances, and hist critiques of the current system, I'm not entirely sure that he'd make a good president.  The way I see it, the job of the president of the United States is to represent the populous of the United States, and many of his more extreme views might appeal widely to a crowd on reddit, but are hardly representative of the entire political sphere of USA.   Even if he were to somehow win a majority vote, he would be as unpopular in the south as Lincoln was.\n\nFurthermore, in order to get anything accomplished as a president, he needs to work fairly closely with Congress, and his current stance of \"attack anyone who receives donations from rich people\" would prevent him from being able to play nicely.   Finally, I think that as a president, his laser focus on the social problems of America would prevent him from focusing on the other issues that the president must contend with.  The way he presents himself currently, it seems as though he sees it as his mission to attack the current system, which is not the position that the president should occupy.    \n\nFinally, as a 74 year old man, who will be 75 at the time of the election, I think the same critiques that applied to John McCain also apply to him - there's a fairly good chance that if he were elected, he would die, or become quite ill while still in office.  For these reasons, I think he'd be better situated trying to solve these social/political problems in a different capacity.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The Prestige, the machine does not work. Spoiler alert. + \n + I will start by I have struggled with this concept since it has been brought to my attention. I know this movie extremely well, better than I should, and have previously debated just about every scene. Not to say the this conclusion is right but to say I do know the film and the characters well. \n\n\n\nMy basic theory stems from, The movie constantly allures to what and how magic is done, which has nothing to do with 'real magic' but with deceit. That's what the machine is deceit.  Will give  a summary of my theory now, leaving out the beginning and end, and details as my post will be too long for any interest. I will elaborate on the beginning and end , and details once the discussion begins.\n\n\n\nSo Borden does have a twin, tesla is real, angiers visits are fabricated from the diary and his ending speech being as such. Upon Angier capturing Fallon and receiving the key to Borden's diary(tesla) is where I will start. Angier visits Tesla finding out there is no answer to Borden's secret( Angiers original motive), and tesla has no \"magic\". So he begins to come up with away to frame Borden, not just kill him, but ruin his reputation and acquire custody of his daughter. He uses the fact Borden has sent him to tesla, to begin his frame up. He uses a useless tesla machine to add flair to an old trick, and spark interest in Borden. Angier also needs \"real magic\" to obtain a theater, no simple trick will do, as Borden hs already ruined his reputation. He uses a double to pull off his trick, with the illusion of being transported. He doesn't drown his double every night just the night of the murder. To ensure Borden will be confused he uses the element of mysterious tanks being transported from the theater every night, otherwise Borden will easily see he is using a double but with the mysterious tanks he sparks enough interest from Borden to want to see backstage, as this is vital for the frame up to work. \n\n\n\nAngier is the pledge and turn and root(or other double if you prefer) is the prestige, ie on the balcony. Angiers motive at this point is no longer magic or the applause it's simply to frame borden. Borden makes multiple appearances at the show wearing a disguise. Angier needs to spot and identify this disguise in order to carry on with the frame up, which is why he doesn't do the frame up the first night he enters the theater, and eventually Angier does discover Borden. Knowing his routine and the fact he will come again because he hasn't been picked to view the machine or backstage, he sets the frame up. Seeing Borden enter the theater he tells his assistant to pick Borden out of the crowd that night, also telling root he will be the pledge and turn for the transported man ( not the other tricks) on this night. As Borden is being picked from the crowd, Angier and root switch, the frame up plays out Angier flees the theater. This is the jist will elaborate further on the end scene and the like upon the discussion beginning.\n\n\n\nI will add a few of the questions about the machine working theory that I have, which can be answered by my theory. These questions could be preluded with \"if the machine works\"\n\n\n\nWhat is the tank Caine and Angier are pushing during the ending scene? If if the last clone is in the morgue, and the tank had been broken to extract the clone what tank are they pushing?\n\n\n\nWhy store the clones? What not rid of them every night?\n\n\nWhat is the air bubble at the end in the only visible tank.\n\n\n\nHow did Angier gain full control of both his legs while drowning? The movie goes through some length to show how damaged it is, why do this if it's not meant to be.a clue\n\n\n\nIf Borden sends angiers to tesla, it's his plan, why wait till he has  captured Fallon to give him Teslas name, why not give it to him when he gives Angier the diary?\n\n\n\nI have more of my theory to share, and more question to ask those who disagree it this is already too long. Looking for reasonable, logical, light hearted debate, so bring it on reddit change my views\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Addiction is a habit, not a disease. + \n + If addiction is a disease, why do most addictions end spontaneously, without treatment? Why did some 75% of heroin-addicted Vietnam vets kick the drug when they returned home? It\u2019s hard to picture a brain disease such as schizophrenia simply going away because someone decided not be schizophrenic anymore.\n\nImagine a schizophrenic telling you about his condition and you responding by, yeah, I know what you mean, I drink a lot. \n\nIt totally absolves any responsibility by calling it a disease and is offensive to anyone with a real disease that they can't fix by just doing less of something destructive.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Nicki Minaj's \"Anaconda\" wasn't nominated for Best Music Video at the VMAs because the video isn't very good, NOT because of a bias on MTV's part. + \n + **TL;DR: Nicki Minaj claimed that MTV was biased for not including her video for \"Anaconda\" in the Best Music Video nominees. But they're not sexist, nor racist, Nicki's dancers really aren't \"fat,\" and she hasn't been snubbed completely from the VMA's. Anaconda's been nominated for two other awards. Anaconda isn't that good of a music video, especially compared to the other nominees, and that's ultimately why it wasn't nominated.**\n\nFor those not in the know, there's been something of a [beef between Nicki Minaj and Taylor Swift](http://fortune.com/2015/07/23/vma-minaj-swift-twitter/) over nominations for Video of the Year awards at MTV's VMA's this year. You can read the article for a more in-depth summation of their beef, but basically Nicki Minaj argued that her video for Anaconda, despite being fairly well known and popular (amassing upward of 500 million views on YouTube), wasn't selected because she was black, she didn't feature \"women with very slim bodies,\" or because of the strong female sexuality portrayed. Taylor Swift took a tweet as a personal attack at her, and told her to stop \"pit[ting] women against each other.\"\n\nRegardless of whether or not she was aiming criticism at Swift or even Beyonc\u00e9 (both of whom are nominated for Video of the Year), Nicki Minaj believed she deserved the nomination over one of the other five music videos. [Here is a complete list of the VMA nominations this year.](http://www.mtv.com/news/2219077/2015-vma-nominations/) Here's each music video nominee:\n\n* [Beyonc\u00e9 - 7/11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4YRWT_Aldo)\n* [Ed Sheeran - Thinking Out Loud](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp-EO5I60KA)\n* [Taylor Swift ft. Kendrick Lamar - Bad Blood](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcIy9NiNbmo)\n* [Mark Ronson ft. Bruno Mars - Uptown Funk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPf0YbXqDm0) \n* [Kendrick Lamar - Alright](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-48u_uWMHY)\n\nNow here's [Anaconda.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDZX4ooRsWs)\n\nHere are the claims as to why she didn't get nominated for the award:\n\n1. **She's a black woman**: She forgets that Beyonc\u00e9 was nominated as well. One could argue that Beyonce's music video doesn't focus on black women, as her little entourage has much lighter skinned women than her, but so does the Anaconda music video. Kendrick lamar's music video features primarily minority groups, and the few roles reserved for white people are in the place of antagonists (murderous police, for example). Uptown Funk, though mostly men, has Bruno Mars and his minority backup dancers taking up most of the screentime. I think to say there's a racist or sexist bias in the music video selection is ignoring every other nomination.\n\n2. **She's not skinny**: [Nicki Minaj isn't skinny?](http://www.lovebscott.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/article-2707980-200CC11600000578-259_634x837.jpg) Tell me one man who would say she's not skinny. Sure, she doesn't have the frame of a clothing model, but she's far from \"fat.\" In her own words, \"*If your video celebrates women with very slim bodies, you will be nominated for vid of the year*.\" Kendrick Lamar's music video doesn't focus on women very much at all. Uptown Funk doesn't either. Ed Sheeran's music video only feature's one woman, and in a very monogamous way; if she's being celebrated for anything, it's the dexterity and elegance of her dancing. The women in Beyonc\u00e9's music video aren't exactly model frame either. In fact, they're pretty close in stature to Nicki's entourage. The only music video this must be applicable to is Taylor Swift's, but saying that some feature is the path to music video of the year, when only 1 out of the 5 music videos nominated might have it is absurd. I doubt that with skinnier dancers, Anaconda would get any closer to the nomination.\n\n3. **Her music video influenced a culture and MTV is purposefully ignoring its popularity**: This one is really based on a few different subjective factors, but I wouldn't say Anaconda \"influenced\" a culture, more or less [produced](http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/850/039/01d.png) [a](https://lolclt.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/nicki-minaj-rocket-launch-meme.jpg?w=500) [lot](http://ocdn.hiphopdx.com/nickiminaj-anaconda2.png) [of](http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/46504681373641436/6E722B950FC6B4E5FAB09AD36BBB256F24B103D6/?interpolation=lanczos-none&output-format=jpeg&output-quality=95&fit=inside%7C500:418&composite-to=*,*%7C500:418&background-color=black) [memes](http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/803/384/d6d.jpg) that poke fun at the absurdity of the music video and song. None of these things are \"influencing a culture,\" other than giving millions of people a new buzz-generating piece of controversial entertainment. And the music video is popular, and for a period of time, you would hear about it a lot. But at the end of the day, the video was published last August, almost a whole year ago, and has around 489 million views. In 2 months, Bad Blood has garnered over 362 million views. Kendrick's Alright has over 10 million views in 3 weeks. Thinking Out Loud has 662 million views. Uptown Funk reigns supreme with 867 million views. 7/11 is in the same ballpark as Anaconda, being published only 3 months after and only getting 241 million views. But even the most viewed music video on YouTube, Gangnam Style, didn't get nominated at the VMA's the year it came out, nor did the one before it, Justin Bieber's \"Baby.\" It's not like the VMA's are snubbing Nicki Minaj altogether; she's been nominated for Best Female Video and Best Hip-Hop Video, a category where she's the only woman represented.\n\nIn short, I think the decision to not include Nicki Minaj was on merit alone. MTV hasn't shown a bias against women or minorities, and they're not singling Nicki out on her own by pulling her completely out of the awards. The reason her music video maybe wasn't nominated for the Best Video could be anything. I personally don't think it's worth being called \"Best Music Video of 2015.\" Maybe they thought it was too frenetic, goofy, and slightly incoherent to warrant being called the BEST music video. And that's fair for them to do, as the ones who select the nominees.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Natural Light is a misunderstood beer and is the best representation of the American cheap lager + \n + I generally drink craft beers now that I am past college and do not need to buy a 30 pack for $15. However, I am not above drinking a bud light, PBR, or miller if my options are limited. I found that the everyday bud light drinker scuffs at the idea of nice cold Natty light, which I find odd. Natty is 95 calories (vs bud lights 105) of low ABV tasteless beer, which is exactly what every other American \"pilsner\" sets out  to do but Natty does it cheaper. Most blind taste people on youtube prove that people cant tell the difference between bud, miller, natty or coors. So why pay the higher price for a beer that is a bit heavier? \n\n\nBut it is impossible to separate the two. \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Statutory Rape/Standard Rape laws are sexist and should be completely redone to make the trial more equal. And statutory rape should be abolished all together. + \n + A topic that I have been aware of for a long time has been brought up to my attention again. [This](http://www.wnem.com/story/29722286/young-man-fooled-by-girl-on-hookup-app-wants-off-sex-offender-list#ixzz3i1vo9lzT) appeared on my news feed today and the main key that made me upset was this part of the article was this \"The 14-year-old girl in the case has admitted she lied about her age on the hookup app and said the encounter was consensual, but that's not a valid defense under current laws.\"  There is no reason why that shouldn't be a viable defense, I mean, that sentence alone should make any person automatically innocent and the only punishment that should be dealt, if any, should be against the person who lied about their age.\n\nI bring up that rape laws should also be redone. One example was that a youtuber I watch (He wouldn't lie about said things because his whole channel is about social issues and such, and hasn't lied about anything yet. MrRepzion is that guy). He was in a bad relationship and decided to end it. Now the girl was very upset, so upset that she decided to create a fake rape claim, and the only reason Repzion was found guilty, was that his ex mistakenly decided to tell him over text that she claimed a false one, so he had evidence that it was false. Another one was an old friend of mine (17) was dating a 15 year old from my school. He broke up with her, and then filed a false statutory rape case against him, with parental help. Which he plead guilty.\n\n~~I also bring up abolishing statutory rape laws because I see no use for them. If the sex is consensual, then there shouldn't be any punishment, because both parties wanted it, and with how they are set up, I guarantee that the guy will almost always be the one being punished, with the girl off scotch free. And if the sex wasn't consensual, then it should be considered just rape, rendering the statutory rape law useless.~~ Realized this would never be okay. Please refer to only the other parts of the post\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: All states should have strict voter ID laws + \n + It seems like if you don't require a photo ID, or at least *some* sort of ID at the ballot box, you can't ensure a fair election.  In the past century the US hasn't seen a voter turnout greater than 65%.  This means there are a lot of unclaimed votes to take advantage of.\n\nOf course, if you require photo ID to vote, then you must take steps to make sure it is easy for all citizens to obtain acceptable ID.  This may be difficult for citizens without birth certificates or social security cards, but I feel like there must be some way to more accurately keep track of citizens.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: \"Objectivism\" is the most optimal way to go through life. + \n + I have been a liberal (using the binary American political scale for simplicity) for my entire adult life.  I have advocated for the rights of homosexuals, women, and other groups; however, I do not feel like this stance has benefited me in the slightest.  In fact, given my regional location (the South or Southeast United States) it has probably hurt me personally more than anything.\n\nI have not read Ayn Rand, nor do I ever intend to, as I consider her philosophy to be frankly immoral.  Moral people should look out for their fellow humans.\n\nHowever, I believe that I would be better served by pursuing my own rational self-interest rather than spending even an ounce of my resources on the betterment of others who will just attribute my good deed to their god anyway most likely.  Donating to charity might prevent a child from dying from cancer, but I am not a child and I don't have cancer, so that extra dollar from my pocket is better spent being used as tax on my latest board game purchase.  This could be extended to other people that I consider friends, but I think it is a better use of my resources for me to aid my own comfort than to save a stranger's life.  \n\nThings that will not change my view:  \n\n* \"You aren't really describing objectivism! It really is a more nuanced...\" \n\n  I don't care.  I am not here to argue the definition of objectivism.  \n\n* \"My wife/child/other family member was saved by...\"  \nAre you related to me?  Probably not as I have never had these sorts of problems, so I don't care.  It is good that your family member didn't die, but that has nothing to do with me.\n\n* \"What if you needed help?\"  \nI probably wouldn't get it unless I was able to provide it for myself.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The U.S. Constitution isn't nearly as great a document as it's made out to be, especially in the modern day. Making it as hard as it is to amend is a spectacularly disastrous oversight by the Founding Fathers. + \n + The U.S. Constitution is an old document. At the time it was written, it made a lot of sense, and it was a large jump ahead for democracy, politics, and the human condition as a whole.\n\nUnfortunately, failure to foresee that conditions in the future might warrant a radically different document means that the Constitution enshrines certain rights that make no sense in the modern day, and can indeed be harmful to the fabric of society, while ignoring others that are now far more relevant. The Constitution depends on there being nearly no nuance in the rights it affords, something that may have worked better in a simpler, less complex, and crucially, less populous nation. \n\nThe problem is compounded by the fact that making substantial changes to the document is difficult, if not to say nearly impossible in any but the best of circumstances.\n\nThose combined factors mean that the U.S. may, slowly but surely, become backward compared to other countries with modern founding documents and laws. The solutions are apparent, and in some cases have been tested successfully in other countries, but the Constitution makes change insubstantial  and insufficient if changes come at all.\n\n\n\n\n[First Amendment as it relates to corporate personhood and lobbying.](http://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-companies-become-people-excavating-the-legal-evolution)\n\n[Second Amendment as it relates to gun deaths in the U.S.](http://www.businessinsider.com/americas-gun-problem-explained-2013-4?op=1)\n\n[Fourth Amendment as it relates to privacy, specifically digital privacy](http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/04/nsa_reforms_obama_s_playing_a_fourth_amendment_shell_game.html)\n\n[Tenth Amendment as it relates to federalized health services.](http://www.businessinsider.com/best-healthcare-systems-in-the-world-2012-6?op=1)\n\nThose are my favorite problematic Amendments.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I don\u2019t believe that heterosexuality is \u201cdefault\u201d or \u201cnormal\u201d. + \n + \n\nThe answer seems to be hiding in probabilities so if anyone can expand on that more I'm willing to give deltas. \n\nAlso, if you have a problem with my reasoning, please leave an explanation with your downvote so I can understand why it's off. \n\n---\n\nI struggle to believe that most human beings are naturally supposed to only be attracted to the opposite sex and are inherently repulsed by same sex characteristics. I think most people identify as straight out of convenience and having never needed to question what was assumed for them. I\u2019m not denying that heterosexuality is a legitimate orientation but I have not found convincing evidence against, for example, the possibility that most humans could be predisposed to bisexuality and simply develop a preference of one or none from there. \n\nThe only arguments I\u2019ve read for heterosexuality being default is the biological urge to have children, which I believe is neither universal nor exclusive to heterosexuality and the (imo fallacious) \u201cmost people are straight so there ***must*** be a biological mechanism that supports this phenomenon\u201d path of reasoning. \n\nI'm willing to give a delta to any argument that can demonstrate why heterosexuality might be more advantageous  or likely than bisexuality. \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Studio Ghibli is overrated and their films more often than not require an adaptation in the western film adjusted viewer's watching habits in order to be perceived as enjoyable + \n + I'm posting this hoping that someone will point out what I might be missing or that I can begin to understand why Spirited Away, for example, sits so high in top movie list rankings. I am a westerner who has had exposure mainly to western film but also enjoys many other film types and cultures including Japanese and anime film.\n\nHowever, I don't much care for Studio Ghibli stuff. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I don't like it. Except for Hisaishi's music, which I think is beautiful. I don't know why everyone seems to like these films so much. \n\nIt bothers me as lots of my other views in life are congruent with the norm, or I can see why they vary.\n\nI've watched lots of Ghibli films in order to give them a chance. I've already heard lots of people arguing that the artwork is great (and I do agree it is) and that's what makes the film great, but that doesn't cut it for me; the same people who argue in this way don't seem to apply that logic to the other films they watch and so must be adapting their viewing style for Ghibli or just repeating something they heard somewhere else, not responding as they normally would (perhaps with reference to direction, plot, acting, action, scripting, etc) when asked why they like a film.\n\nAny comments or thoughts (outside of 'the artwork is so good') would be appreciated.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I really do not see what the problem is with trump? + \n + I watched the republican debate, and by no means am I republican, I identify as a democrat on most things. I listened to Donald Trump, and he was honestly the most honest candidate there, in a world where the mass population of people are sheep, and just follow the status quo  he stood out, even when he knew he would get booed he still said what was on his mind, and that's honestly admirable. When confronted about his remarks regarding woman, he owned up to it, that never happens 99.9% of politicians would avoid the question or play around it. His policies do seem farfetch'd I don't think Mexico will pay for this wall, I do think its possible, but I don't see it happening, it's honestly not a bad idea in my opinion. I am genuinely convinced all of his hatred comes from the fact he is not politically correct, and that reminds me of reddit in a sense, that people who act against the status quo are down-voted not because of their opinions but because they hold the 'wrong' opinions. I do not see what is wrong with this man, being politically incorrect does not mean shit when it comes to policy, and I do think a business man whose made billions can help fix the economy.\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:I feel uncomfortable with my hypothetical girlfriend wearing revealing clothing outdoors + \n + I've been born and raised in Turkey and last 2 years of my high school in Dubai. Although not strictly regulated on islamic laws, the culture of these places are far from north american culture. You're expected to not reveal too much when dressing. I completely understand that everyone has the right to dress how they want to but I just don't feel like if you are giving yourself to your SO then you shouldn't let others see your body.\n\n To me it is just a very special thing between two people to let the other person see and explore each other that no one else has. Too much cleavage or wearing no bras with thin shirts that let you clearly see the nipple and then she hugs other people makes me feel very uncomfortable. I would love to change my view, as I stand by the right that anyone can wear whatever they want, but this idea is just so integrated in my head after all my life living in it that I can't seem to shut it off", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe that for people who are averse to sleeping with transgender people, the onus is on them to declare their aversions to their potential partners. + \n + Many times I've read statements from people who argue that transgender people should out themselves to potential partners who demonstrate an attraction to them, and if they don't they are somehow committing an offense against that person up to and including coercive rape. I feel that this position justifies prejudice and hostility towards transgender individuals. A very common reactionary comment is \"If I brought a girl home and it turned out it was a guy/she had a penis, I'd beat the shit out of them\", usually delivered with more provocative/offensive language. In my opinion, trans people shouldn't be obligated to out themselves to people who are transphobic, as that puts them at risk of harm. \n\nFrom my perspective, trans people exist. Trans people are also capable of being attractive to others, and being desired by others. I further believe that arguing that trans people have a duty to out themselves is predicated on a stereotype that no one would willingly choose to have sex with a trans person if they knew the person was trans. To me, that seems observably false (I've seen people in happy relationships with trans people) and contradictory in a way that suggests transphobic beliefs (if you can be attracted to a person right up until the point where you find out they are trans, then the argument that you aren't attracted to trans people is demonstrably false; after all, you demonstrated your attraction to them in the first place). \n\nI feel like the most honest position to take is to recognize that sometimes you may be attracted to trans people, rather than to refuse to acknowledge any attraction to trans people - because you can be! The situation of wanting to have a sexual relationship with someone, and then finding that they're trans demonstrates that you are perfectly capable of being attracted to trans people. In my opinion, if you don't want to have sex with trans people, then you are obligated to either tell your potential partners that you don't want to have sex with trans people, or you are obligated to ask them whether or not they are trans before initiating a sexual encounter. That way, trans people can decline a sexual encounter with you before it begins, without being forced to out themselves and open themselves up to the risk of violence.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe when older comedians complain the younger generation is too politically correct, it\u2019s more that they don\u2019t understand our comedic sensibilities than that we really can\u2019t take a \u2018politically incorrect\u2019 joke. + \n + In the last year or so I\u2019ve seen at least three major comedians complain that the younger generations are politically correct to the point of stifling humor: Jerry Seinfeld, John Cleese, and Bill Maher. I think there are other people who were every bit as incorrect as those men but understood better what young people want from their comedy, and that indicates the problem is with the jokes, not the incorrectness.\n\nIn Jerry Seinfeld\u2019s recent complaint, he used the example of comparing people\u2019s use of cell phones to a gay French king (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/10/jerry-seinfeld-political-correctness_n_7552132.html). Maybe people hearing that joke would look particularly sour when he brought the homosexual stereotype into it, but I think that\u2019s because there wasn\u2019t really any humor there to justify it in the first place - talking about cell phone culture and people not seeming connected to each other is an incredibly stale topic, and I seriously doubt he would have gotten more of a laugh if he took the \u2018gay\u2019 part out of it.\n\nJohn Cleese appeared on Bill Maher\u2019s show (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCj6YNIpqmA) and complained that he could do jokes about some ethnicities/nationalities and not others - citing the example that he could say \u201cWhy are Australians so well-balanced? Because they have a chip on each shoulder\u201d but couldn\u2019t tell a Mexican joke. Again I think a lot of the issue there is that laughter at the Australian joke was already bordering on a sympathy laugh - it literally sounds more like something you\u2019d get out of a joke book than what you\u2019d expect from one of the lead members of Monty Python.\n\nAnd Maher is one of the worst - on a weekly basis, he delivers a monologue at the start of his show and inevitably makes a politically incorrect joke and complains that the audience doesn\u2019t laugh - but a lot of the rest of the monologue isn\u2019t that enthralling either, it\u2019s just that the audience is willing to be good sports as long as no one\u2019s being shit on.\n\nMeanwhile, there are other sources of comedy that I\u2019ve never seen someone in my generation take issue with, despite them completely ignoring political correctness. George Carlin would have been nearly eighty this year, and made points about abortion, religion, family, and government that were incredibly politically incorrect - but no one complained about it, because his points were novel, clever, and generally punched upward. Same thing with Dave Chappelle - he\u2019s in his forties, but his comedy is still fresh and hilarious to young people because he was saying things they hadn\u2019t heard before and was clearly doing it out of love. Danny DeVito is over seventy, and appears on the show Always Sunny in Philedelphia, which is horribly \u2018incorrect\u2019 - they\u2019ve made jokes regarding women, homosexuals, transexuals, Jews, Catholics, Muslims, the poor, the homeless, the mentally ill - and yet I\u2019ve never seen anyone from my generation take the slightest offense because the material is handled with a genuinely warm and ludicrous humor. Other shows like Weeds, Workaholics, South Park, and almost anything Seth MacFarlane worked on (a little overdone now, but we laughed when his shows were new) couldn\u2019t get through an episode without being wildly incorrect, yet it was rarely our generation that was taking issue with them.\n\nSo, if you feel the younger generation (say 30 and below) really has a problem seeing humor in the politically incorrect, now\u2019s your chance to argue for that.\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Life is shit + \n + o* \nLife is shit. We're all going to die. Most of us are forced to work a 9-5 job we don't enjoy in order to put bread on the table. Over 40% of people in the UK will suffer cancer at some point. 900 million starving people in the world (but thanks to huge inequality and pure dumb luck you're not one of them). Studies have found that most of us would rate ourselves as \"happy\" or \"very happy\", but we're engineered to be overly-optimistic about our lives because an optimistic organism has better inclusive fitness; it is more inclined to \"try, try and try again\" until it breeds. Studies have found people tend to over-estimate the quality of their lives. Most people - even those living in poverty - must lie to themselves and others that their lives are worth living because the alternative would be to either face the cognitive dissonance that arises from continuing a life they believe is not worth continuing, or to kill themselves.\nOur lives are devoid of meaning. Most people recognise that life objectively has no meaning, but go down the existentialist route of inventing some subjective bullshit reason to delude themselves that their lives are significant in some way. Some particularly introspective people will eventually come up against the Absurd - recognising the paradox of their being as an individual that desires meaning but finding themselves in a world devoid of any. Zapffe states we try to avoid dealing with this by \"artificially limiting the contents of our consciousness\" using the psychological defensive techniques of distraction, anchoring, isolation and sublimation. Our brains are constantly trying to bullshit ourselves, and for many people it works most of the time, but at times it fails.\n\"What about the happiness in life?\" What about it? According to Schopenhauer, what we call \"happiness\" is a \"negative\" (i.e. derivative) quantity, a label we attribute to the relative absence of suffering, which is the \"positive\" (i.e. real) element of existence. This is why the pleasures you experience are always less pleasurable than you expect, and the pains always considerably more painful.\nBesides, even if you somehow find a true source of happiness, it wouldn't last. If there's one certainty in life beside death, it's the impermanence of all things. This is a truth recognised not only by Schopenhauer but in Buddhism as one of its core principles. It has a special name for the kind of suffering associated with our recognition of this impermanence of the state of affairs: Viparinama-dukkha. You enjoy your life now? In the best case, you're going to grow old and decrepid, and then die. Your significant other is going to die. Your pet cats and dogs are going to die. You'll get sick. You'll get hit by a car. You'll end unemployed. The economy will turn. So the takeaway is that happiness in a world like ours is fleeting at best, non-existent at worst. \"In a world where all is unstable, and nought can endure, but is swept onwards at once in the hurrying whirlpool of change; where a man, if he is to keep erect at all, must always be advancing and moving, like an acrobat on a rope \u2014 in such a world, happiness in inconceivable. How can it dwell where, as Plato says, continual Becoming and never Being is the sole form of existence? In the first place, a man never is happy, but spends his whole life in striving after something which he thinks will make him so; he seldom attains his goal, and when he does, it is only to be disappointed; he is mostly shipwrecked in the end, and comes into harbor with masts and rigging gone. And then, it is all one whether he has been happy or miserable; for his life was never anything more than a present moment always vanishing; and now it is over.\"\nAnd then we have Professor David Benatar, who explains in Better Never to Have Been that \"a life filled with good and containing only the most minute quantity of bad\u2014a life of utter bliss adulterated only by the pain of a single pin-prick\u2014is worse than no life at all\". He demonstrates that, due to an asymmetry that exists between the values of suffering and happiness when comparing situations that entail a transition from a state of non-existence to existence, every single one of us was overall harmed by being born.\nWhy do we exist? We're biological machines put together by our constituent genes to serve their interests by acting as vessels through which they can proliferate while having a measure of protection from their environment and the machines of competitor genes. We're engineered, like all life, to survive and breed effectively within our environments. It in the interest of these genes to wire our brains to believe our lives are meaningful and worth continuing however bullshit this might be because pessimists and nihilists tend to be far less inclined to survive and reproduce.\n\"Wretched, ephemeral race, children of chance and tribulation, why do you force me to tell you the very thing which it would be most profitable for you not to hear? The very best thing is utterly beyond your reach: not to have been born, not to be, to be nothing. However, the second best thing for you is: to die soon.\" -- Aristotle, The Wisdom of Silenus", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There's a contradiction between people being born transgender and the genders being the same + \n + * Gender does not determine behavior, preference, or inclinations.\n* Transgender people are born that way.\n\nI consider myself fairly liberal. I'm in the middle, politically. These two views are actually ones I tend to agree with, but I find them to be in contradiction.\n\nTo elaborate:\n\n* Gender does not determine behavior, preference, or inclinations.\n\nI believe that a woman, for instance, was not born to want to nurture. Girls play with barbies because that's what is given to them. And females' roles in society is not ingrained in them. Males aren't all made to hunt, compete, and fight, either.\n\nAnd I hands down believe that transgender people are born the way they are. Their urges to be the opposite of their birth sex is not something that chose or could choose to ignore. Yet, that can manifest itself in things like wanting to dress up in dresses or grow a beard. And once they transition, many transgender people I see take on traditional, stereotypical roles of their new genders.\n\nSo can these two ideas co-exist? I feel they can't, yet I still believe them both equally.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Hunters who hunt for pleasure are no worse than anyone who eats meat (I am not a vegetarian) + \n + With the big witch hunt going on for the hunter who killed Cecil the lion, people are in an uproar over this guy because he likes to hunt animals for pleasure. Morally, I don't see this as any different from anyone who eats meat. Nobody needs to eat meat and it isn't healthier, it's something people do just for pleasure. Even though you aren't doing the act yourself, by eating meat you are contributing to far greater suffering than a hunter ever could, with the horrible conditions throughout modern livestock through far greater numbers of animals. Just because you aren't pulling the trigger doesn't remove the responsibility, you are still causing the exploitation and death of hundreds of animals.\n\nAgain, I do eat meat, but I'm just pointing out that these two situations are moral equivalents.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Subreddit moderators should be unable to ban a user who has sufficient positive comment karma in that subreddit. + \n + First, let me state that this is no kind of a legal view.  I understand that Reddit is a private business that can do what it wants and subreddit moderators are agents of Reddit and can do whatever Reddit grants them the authority to do.  This view is more of a \"that's the way things ought to be\".  Also, I'm not going to worry about setting a specific limit for what constitutes \"sufficient\" positive karma; at this point, I'm simply arguing that there should be some reasonable level.\n\nSubreddits are dedicated to specific topics and users can choose whether or not they want to participate in those topic discussions.  Positive comment karma is obtained by contributing to the conversation (theoretically) or contributing discussion points that people agree with (reality).  Subreddits *should* \"belong\" (not literally) to their users.  If the users of a subreddit appreciation the contributions that a particular user makes (which would be demonstrated with positive comment karma), a moderator shouldn't be able to trump or veto the opinions of thousands of other users simply because they personally don't appreciate the user's contributions.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: So-called \"fat taxes\" should not be on junk food, they should be on pants. + \n + As more and more people in the developed world are becoming obese, many governments have begun to tax various foods they deem unhealthy because they are allegedly contributing to this epidemic.  While pigovian (no pun intended) taxes of this kind may have been effective for things like alcohol or tobacco, I believe they only work when the tax makes up the majority of the price of the product.  An extra ten cents on his morning can of gravy isn't going to make fatso switch to Slimfast.  \n\nUnfortunately doubling or tripling the price of junk food would completely destroy the market for these things and put manufacturers out of business almost immediately.  This is because there are easy untaxed alternatives to junk food, unlike booze and cigarettes.  Granted you could grow your own tobacco and brew your own beer, but that takes months, while making junk food from tax-free ingredients takes minutes.  Plus if a steak cost the same as a bag of chips people would simply become obese on sirloin rather than Doritos.  \nRaising the price of food like this would also be harmful to the poor, especially considering junk food often provides the most calories for your dollar, and is thus essential for many poor people to meet their daily nutritional requirements.  Say what you want about a diet high in fat and sugar, it's still healthier than starvation.\n\nIn addition it's grossly unfair to punish everybody when it's only the obese that need to cut back.  Even alcohol and tobacco would be relatively harmless in moderation, but in practice it would be too difficult for a vendor to tell if someone is an alcoholic chain-smoker or if they have self-control.  On the other hand, much to their chagrin, nobody has ever mistaken an obese person for slim, no matter how strong the elastic in their girdle.\n\nUnfortunately if such a system were implemented many fatties would cheat it by having skinny friends or relatives buy their junk food for them.  The only viable solution as I see it would be not to tax food, but rather pants, say by $5-10 per inch the waistline is larger than the inseam.  This would ensure that only the fat would have to pay fat taxes.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The Confederate Flag Doesn't Represent Slavery + \n + This post is referring to [this flag](http://thatoregonlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/rebel-flag-silk.jpg). It is colloquially referred to as the Rebel Flag/Confederate Flag. The flag is derived from The Stainless Banner. It was used to distinguish the Confederate soldiers from the Union soldiers in battle. It was created for a battalion in Northern Virginia. For this post, I will refer to the flag in question by the term \"Rebel Flag\".\n\n \n\n**Slavery is wrong. I am not condoning slavery or supporting those who do.**\n\n \n\n1. The Flag was not created to represent a political party. It was to represent **a territory of people**. The Confederacy was a territory, not a political party. It was created due to political differences, but the Confederacy was a group of states, not a political party.\n\n2. The flag was not created to represent an idea or philosophy. Again, it was to distinguish a territory of people.\n\n3. The comparison to the Nazi flag is not a strong argument. The Nazi's were a political party, not a territory of people. Germany has had a separate national flag since 1919.\n\n4. Just because a flag represents a territory which has horrific parts in it's history does not diminish the regions culutural identification. the American Flag should be tainted by the Trail of Tears and other events such as the Japanese American Internment. We still fly this flag as it represents the country and it's people.\n\n5. The KKK may use the Rebel Flag but has also used the [American Flag](http://core0.staticworld.net/images/article/2015/06/kkk-carrying-american-flag-100593178-orig.jpg) in many events/rallies throughout history. A group using a flag they did not create does not change it's origin.\n\n6. The Confederacy lost the war. This does not mean people decended from those people cannot continue to recognize their region using the Rebel Flag.\n\n7. Many people in the Confederacy supported slavery, but this was not true of every citizen. The flag represents a people who were not unanimous on the political ideas of those in power. Those in power make political actions. Racism was prevalent on both sides of the war. Both sides were wrongly raising inequality amongst people. *But people still lived outside of the war and held life experiences worth regarding and celebrating.*\n\n8. Most people defending the flag are defending their people's history and culture, not slavery. Their peoples history includes music, food, and art which was and is distinguishable from Northern culture.\n\n \n\nThe flag is recognized and shown as a symbol of the southern area and all aspects of its culture.\n\n \n\n\nUpdate: I appreciate the time everyone has taken to respond to the subject. I know the issue is highly debated and very much escalated due to recent media attention. It's because of this media attention that I'm seeking to understand the situation better. As the rules state, I am open to change. I do feel strongly about my perspective being raised in the South, however. I have seen this flag my entire life and was raised in a way that developed the perspective I currently hold. I also see this flag daily and amongst people of multiple races hence my interest in the discussion.\n\nUpdate 2: Reddit, you know that downvote button isn't a disagree button. Use it for irrelevant comments and spam, not posts that don't coincide with your perspective.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: A diploma is basically a receipt from the university. + \n + I believe that you can find educational options that are nearly as good as what you find at the university if you know where to look. There's Coursera, Harvard has some free class options, and of course there's always Youtube. That means a bachelor's degree that you have to pay for is overrated. (I refer to the U.S. system where student debt is becoming a hot topic because of high tuition costs.) I know that having an actual diploma opens up more opportunities if you chose the right major, but if you can pass a knowledge test as part of an interview process because you took all the courses on Coursera that are equivalent to what you would have learned at a university, you should be considered equally qualified for the job.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: It's more likely that there's a God rather than extraterrestrial life + \n + So my CMV is basically inspired by this article: http://qz.com/452452/where-are-all-the-aliens/.\n\nI've noticed this a lot: a self-proclaimed atheist starts talking about the \"probable\" existence of extraterrestrial life, the billions of starts and trillions of planets, and how it's inevitable that life must've evolved somewhere else in the universe (enter the Drake Equation). I believe that we can, just as easily, take the same route and show that it's much more probable that (a being we would perceive as) God exists. Consider the potentially infinite number of dimensions that may exist (string theory [already proposes at least 10](http://www.universetoday.com/48619/a-universe-of-10-dimensions/)). Even if we're not string theorists, we're still stuck with a potentially infinitely-large multiverse where it seems probable that we would find some otherworldly and massively powerful and intelligent being that might even watch over our own universe.\n\nIn fact, given the possibility of infinite dimensions and a potentially-infinite multiverse, it's much more probable that God exists, rather than life in our own universe.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I don't find Whose Line is it Anyway funny, and believe Reddit only pretends to enjoy it because of its unpopularity in the general public and cult status. + \n + Improv, as an art form, is a medium almost exclusively to be enjoyed live. SNL, while having improvised elements, does not fall in this category because most skits are rehearsed (regardless of your current feelings on the show, it has worked to some degree of success in the past). \n\nWhich brings me to Whose Line. The show, while being very  clever and featuring undoubtedly skilled performers, just does not translate through television. This is where my argument will get a little murky, because I'm not entirely sure why it doesn't translate. It would seem to follow that something that's funny in person would also be funny through television. I just know that when experienced live, improv has such a bigger effect on its audience than when seen on television. \n\nThe show, as a result suffered, ratings began to falter, and it was subsequently cancelled. In the aftermath, redditors began praising the show for its genius, claiming how it was unjustly cancelled, etc, etc, Colin Mochrie, etc. Reddit simply pretends to like it because of its unpopularity and cancellation, because that then elevates that redditor above the general public. \"Normal people just don't 'get it.' But I do,\" kind of thing. \n\nI know this is entirely subjective, and you may think I'm completely off base, but I'd really like to get genuine responses of why you enjoy the show, why you believe it is actually funny, and whether or not there is any truth to my assumption of reddit's reasons for liking it.\n\nChange my view.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I see no rational argument in favor of the Consumer Product Safety Commission's ban on magnets + \n + In 2009, a company began producing a desktop novelty called Buckyballs, that consisted of a bunch of small spherical magnets. Users could use these magnets to create shapes by pulling the magnets apart and rearranging them in different ways.\n\nOver the first few years, some of the magnets fell into the hands of children who swallowed them. Doctors found that if a child swallowed more than one at different times, the magnets would be attracted to each other and cause a myriad of internal injuries. According to a 2012 article on [Huffington Post](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eliyahu-federman/banning-buckyball-magnets_b_1711110.html), 22 children were injured, but no fatalities were reported.\n\nIn July of 2012, the CPSC filed a lawsuit against one company. Their demands were as follows (paraphrased for brevity):\n\n1. Cease Importation and Distribution of the product.\n2. Notify all persons that handle the product to cease immediately distribution of the product.\n3. Notify state and local public health of the dangers.\n4. Notify the public, any third party sellers, on radio, television, in English and other languages about the dangers of the product.\n5. Notify every distributor and every person who knows such a product was delivered or sold.\n6. Refund all money to purchasers.\n7. Refund all expenses of retailers associated with the recall.\n8. Report and keep records of all of the above for five years and report to the commission monthly on the progress.\n\nIn my view, this is irrational and an obscene waste of resources. Not to mention a clear and deliberate attempt to utterly destroy a legally operating business. The only justification is that swallowing the items can hurt you (which could be said for literally millions of other commercially produced items)\n\nThe final ruling bans **ALL** magnets that fit into the CPSC small parts cylinder sold for entertainment as part of a set or as a set and has a magnetic flux of 50 kG2 mm2 or stronger. \n\nWhat possible societal benefit could result from this that outweighs the cost associated with this action?\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:Our current generation will be the last drivers. My 6 month old nephew will never need to learn how to operate a car. + \n + With the advent of self-driving vehicles, the unavoidable will become clear: people are terrible drivers, and operating your own car is unacceptably reckless if a better alternative exists.  I see the coming timeline like this: (copied from a reply to another post)  \n\n4-6 years: The first round of legal cases involving driverless cars is settled, producing a precedent that makes driving your own car very risky. A collision between two vehicles, one self driving the other not, almost always results in fault to the driver. Causing an accident while operating a car with unused self-driving capability makes drivers extremely vulnerable to being sued.  \n5-10 years: Safety studies, overwhelmingly favorable to self-driving cars, lead to the option becoming mandatory on all new vehicles. insurance companies, burned by litigation, offer premium rates to those who never switch off the driverless option, while increasing rates on drivers who elect to operate their cars manually. Soon the difference between these rates becomes enormous.  \n10-15 years: Commercial driving is entirely automated. Cabs, buses, trucks, trains, \"driver\" becomes an obsolete profession. The savings in both wages and liability is simply too tremendous to allow any non-automated fleet to remain competitive.  \n15-20 years: Studies conclusively show that the only traffic casualties that still occur are exclusively due to human operator error. It becomes evident that driving your own car is unthinkably dangerous, like drunk driving at night with no headlights or seatbelts. Safety laws are passed that effectively outlaw operating your own vehicle.   \n  \nBy the time my nephew is 15-16, controlling a car will be something that only hobbyists do, and never on public roads.  Very few cars will be privately owned, rather they will be operated by private or municipal transportation services.    \nThe age of the personal automobile is ending. CMV.  \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:Marriage equality is a silly concept that reaffirms oppression by societal norms. + \n + So I've been reading a bit of Foucault lately (certainly not a lot, so I don't claim to be an expert). As such, he has influenced my views on gay marriage... and issue is used to support. I now see the gay community's fight for marriage rights as simply fighting for justice and rights as defined by the very people that oppressed them. Therefore I see marriage itself as a tool of social oppression and normalization.\n\nI would compare it to the end of slavery in the United States. \"Marriage equality\" as we have it now would be like if at the end of the Civil War, instead of abolishing slavery, Congress simply passed an amendment that said that \"black people can now ALSO own slaves.\"\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I Think Men are a Detriment to Societal Cohesion + \n + For whatever reason men commit about 80-90% of crimes in every society that they exist in. The numbers get a little more equitable when we account for property crimes where men only outnumber women 2:1. However, white collar crimes, blue collar crimes, violent crimes, sexual crimes, etc. are so vastly male-centric that the numbers increase that much. They are both the overwhelming amount of perpetrators and victimized, though women are victimized significantly, as you'd expect, in intimate crimes and sex-related offenses. \n\nAside from criminality, men are also more likely to be impulsive and aggressive which is likely to eliminate cohesion and cause undue caution due to the erratic, unpredictably violent and harmful action of this sub-group. \n\nWhy does this persist? Why are men so much more criminal and violent? Does this have a tangibly negative effect on society?\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The death of privacy is a good thing + \n + With the Ashley Madison leak and the NSA revelations, I've come to the conclusion that the death of privacy is good for society.  While I might have some minor embarrassments that come out, it's worth it because the scumbags of the world will have their deeds outed.  Most of the elite have much more to lose than I do.  I'm willing to sacrifice some temporary shame to see tax dodgers, cheaters, liars, murderers and sociopaths either put in jail, or lose their positions of power and influence.  My shames will be mitigated by the fact that every regular person has them, but the crimes of the 1%ers will end their era of influence.  From here on out, only those with integrity and honesty will be able to rise to power, as all of our deeds are laid bare for all to see.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think hardcore (punk) music is boring. + \n + It all sound the same to me. And to be clear, I know this is what people tend to say about any music they don't \"get.\" People say this about rap -- it's just noise, etc. But I like rap, and I think you can make a pretty good argument that there's a ton of variety in rap. From voice to lyrics to production to rhythm, there's really no reason to say Aesop Rock sounds like Mobb Deep, or a track off Illmatic sounds like a Drake mixtape.\n\nI like a lot of types of popular music but don't like punk/hardcore. I looked up hardcore on wikipedia and it seemed like the songs had to fall within a pretty narrow range of genre conventions: short length, driving bass rhythm, simple chords, heavy distortion, shouted lyrics.\n\nSo my question is: what does a punk/hardcore fan listen for? What kind of stuff makes a good punk song if the songs are very similar in key respects, or am I missing the boat and there's a lot of variety out there? \n\nAnyway, I am not trying to be a hater, I'm just out of the loop on this music and its appeal. Thanks.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: GMOs are necessary, efficient, and safe. Monsanto is not an \"evil\" corporation, despite the Agent Orange days. + \n + I used to be very pro-organic when I was a younger lad, but when I saw an episode of Penn & Teller's show, \"Bullshit!\", debunking the myths about GMOs, I couldn't help but look more into it and reform my views towards the ones that conform more with the scientific consensus of being pro-GMO. I have no issues with others, or even me, eating organic; And I'm even open to food labeling. But what I want to get out of this are legitimate, fact-based arguments detailing the ills of the biotech-industry and their relevant GMO-related products (such as crops, Bt toxin plants, Glyphosate, etc). I am already aware of the eradication of milkweeds due to Glyphosate, thus plunging the Monarch population, but there are solutions being made around the issue that won't hinder biotechnology, while benefiting the butterflies. If you have arguments akin to that, I hope you can provide a hypothetical solution that would substantiate your argument. I don't predict my views to change significantly, but I am open to it being so. If anything, I anticipate at most getting to some gray-scale, though it may just be me greatly underestimating the organic-movement.\n\nPlease no Natural News, Infowars, Mind Unleashed, GreenMedInfo, etc. If you do use those kinds of websites as a source, please justify why you are, because as far as I'm concerned, they are potent fact-manipulators who don't care about the truth, but cognitive dissonance.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: MRAs are right to claim that there are men's issues. However, the way they're trying to address them is ineffective and quite possibly makes things worse. + \n + The fact that men are disadvantaged in child custody cases is appalling. So is that fact that men who call the police to report domestic violence against them are more likely to be arrested than the ACTUAL PERPETRATOR. That's disgusting, and obviously I could list many other real problems.\n\nBut the MRM is not the best solution to these problems, and often gives men's issues such bad press that it's toxic to defend them. In other words, it's not the MRM's fault that these problems exist, but it's actively damaging to the cause, quite possibly more than it has helped.\n\nDistancing itself from feminism breaks the gender equality world into \"men's activists\" and \"women's activists.\" This causes us to ignore that gender inequality is bad for everyone. No one wins when a man is arrested for being assaulted by a woman. This is not a victory for women's rights. Everyone loses, because a criminal walks free while an innocent person sits in jail. Sure, there are extremists who will claim to hate all men and think this is fine, but there are also crazy atheists who claim to hate all religious people. This isn't \"no true Scotsman,\" this is pointing out that it's unreasonable to define a group by its crazies, because if we did, no group would be reasonable. \n\nPitting MRAs against feminists undermines the notion of actual gender equality and makes it a \"men vs. women\" debate, which we all lose. \n\nIt would seem, to me, that a better strategy to promote men's issues would be to do it within the feminist movement. The feminist movement has existed for a long time and (relative to the MRM) is reasonably positively regarded. People get behind feminist issues. MRAs often complain that no feminists care about men's issues, but a) this doesn't seem to be entirely true unless we're yelling about strawmen and extremists and b) this would be even less true if people stopped leaving feminism/gender egalitarianism for the MRM. It looks like people are ditching feminism for the MRM and then complaining that feminists don't care about men's issues, which is only true because anyone who did left. Why can't we all just work together? I get that there are people who identify with all of the above, but it seems like EVERYONE who considers themselves ANY of the above should care about all of the above. I really can't think of an intellectually honest reason to care only about men's issues or women's issues. They're both real. So why are we treating them as opposing forces? It's not like we have to ban abortions because we start listening to male victims of violence. This isn't a zero sum game, why is it being treated as one? Everyone seems to think it is, and it just doesn't make sense to me.\n\nSome things I anticipate people saying:\n\n\"What about gender egalitarians?\"\n\nI think rebranding feminism as gender egalitarianism would probably be the best solution, but that's going to take a hell of a lot of time. One thing that would help is if feminists started acting like gender egalitarians and actually cared about all gender issues, and MRAs joining up with them would only speed up the process. As for people who consider themselves \"feminists and gender egalitarians,\" I see no issue. \"Feminist, MRA, and gender egalitarian\" is fine too, although I've never encountered one who phrased it like that. Those who consider themselves anti-feminists but gender egalitarians... Eh. I really don't know, but I feel like shitting on feminism in general is not helpful to the gender equality discussion. (this is as opposed to legitimate critiquing, which is fair game. I'm not saying anything anyone labelled \"feminist\" does is above reproach, nor anything the movement does. I'm saying condemning all of modern feminism and trying to start from scratch is really unhelpful, especially when a huge part of the world is still incredibly patriarchal; see countries where getting raped is still a crime--if you're female). \n\n\"Feminists aren't open to men's issues. I hear what you're saying, but that's not possible.\"\n\nBecome a feminist open to men's issues. You're listening to one right now. Make that two and we're one step closer.\n\n\"It's right for men's and women's issues to have different advocates because they are different. You might as well be saying that feminism should just merge with the LGBTQ rights movement.\"\n\nI don't think that's true. Men's and women's issues differ, but they are rooted in the same fundamental ideas. The reason men are arrested when they are the victim of domestic violence by women is that we live in a society that sees women differently from men. It's benevolently sexist to say that a woman simply couldn't hurt a man except in self-defense. It's also hostile sexist against men to say that men are simply violent people. Men's and women's issues are intrinsically linked, because stereotypes and perceptions of gender roles are the root of both. Essentially, I think men's and women's issues are symptoms of the same problem, so they can be addressed together.\n\n\"Is your problem with anti-feminists, or MRAs? You seem to move between the two.\"\n\nBoth, to some degree. I don't think it's fair to treat those two entirely separately, given the links. MRAs who are anti-feminist are the ones I disagree with most. People who identify as MRAs but also feminists I'm largely okay with, but the MRM in general is not terribly kind to feminists and borders on actively anti-feminist, which is the problem I'm talking about here.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: variable tax is immoral, or at least bad. + \n + Variable tax, or at least they way the US does it, is poorly done, inasmuch as it often discourages extra labour from people who may very well need the extra cash in the form of extra taxation. I know that personally, my paychecks are taxed between 25 and 30%, depending on overtime and the like, and it makes it feel so much more that instead of extra cash in my pocket, for going above the 40 hour work week standard, it's cash in the government's pocket.\n\nOf course, this might also be influenced by my somewhat libertarian leanings, in that I consider taxation in general an... unnecessary evil. It's a fact of life I'll admit, but I don't think that it should be. Ultimately though, this post is concerned with the justification of a variable tax rate, inasmuch as how there is a justification for the government to take a larger percentage of your money because you earn more.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think Donald Trump would make a good president + \n + Two weeks ago, I thought Donald Trump had the biggest joke of a campaign. I didn't think anyone could take him seriously. I assumed if there were people at his campaign speeches it is because they were paid to be there. I was solidly behind Bernie Sanders. \n\nNow I am not so sure. To be clear, I still think the most important issues are the ones Bernie Sanders talks about but I think Donald Trump will be better at solving these issues. \n\nHere are the issues that I think are important to this country: \n\n1. Growing rift between the rich and the poor and the weakening middle class\n\n2. Political corruption - politicians make decisions based on who pays for their campaign rather than for the good of the voters\n\n3. National security threats like ISIS\n\n4. Imprisonment of victimless crimes like possession of marijuana\n\n5. The trillion dollar national debt\n\nI used to think gay rights and healthcare were big concerns but I think President Obama has done a good job of solving these. \n\n1. Of these five issues, I think the weakening middle class is the biggest issue and this is where I think Donald Trump beats Bernie Sanders. I think the middle class has been shrinking not because people aren't working but because there aren't high paying jobs. Yes, part of this is because the CEO's of these companies are making 300x what the lowest paid employee makes and this is where I see Bernie Sanders being effective. However, I think the much greater issue is the fact that a lot of our high paying jobs have went overseas because of bad trade deals. For example, Donald Trump mentioned Ford building a 2 billion dollar manufacturing plant in Mexico right now. If we had higher taxes on imported cars then Ford would be forced to build that factory here. Everyone knows most of our manufacturing happens overseas and this needs to happen here. When manufacturing happened in the U.S. that is when the middle class was strongest. I remember one TIL saying that the average salary for a household in today's wages in the 1950s was $55,000. And that was with one individual in the household working, whereas today normally both people have to work. I think Donald Trump would be an incredible negotiator and make deals for the United States that help bring back high paying jobs. \n\n2. Political corruption - Bernie Sander's record is flawless and I think because of Donald Trump's great wealth, no one could pay him off. Also, while most politicians make money from the increased attention they receive from campaigning, Donald Trump has already lost money from his campaign due to sponsorship deals like Macy's falling through and NBC's Miss America Pageant being canceled. \n\n3. National Security - I have not heard an effective strategy for dealing with ISIS until I heard something Donald Trump said. He wants to deprive them of their wealth. ISIS is making a killing from selling oil. Donald Trump said he would bomb the oil fields then make a protective ring around the oil and have companies rebuild the oil fields. Now, this is pretty aggressive behavior. Not too much different than what Putin did with Crimea. However, it's a great deal for the American people. We get cheap oil, we are not nation building, and ISIS gets drained of money and can't buy weapons, can't pay soldiers, and can't continue their operations. I hate seeing these wars in Afghanistan and Iraq from a selfish perspective because they cost trillions of dollars. We send billions of dollars removing a horrific dictator, yet we get no thanks. Many Iraqis hate us and they are not paying back any of the money it cost us to help them. I think Donald Trump will make us more secure and could save us billions on national security. \n\n4. Imprisonment of victimless crimes - without a doubt Bernie Sanders would be better at this. I don't see Donald Trump removing harsh sentences anytime soon. \n\n5. The national debt - Yes, a lot of this is owed to American citizens and the government gets a deal because interest payments are less than inflation. Still, I think it is a problem. Bernie Sanders would solve this issue by raising taxes on the wealthy which would be effective. Donald Trump would do this by bringing more taxable money into the country via better trade deals. \n\nFinally, one last issue I see with Bernie Sanders is that even though I think higher taxes will solve a lot of problems, I still don't trust the government with its money management. I think Donald Trump would bring much more money back into the country from better trade deals. I don't like Trump's position on Edward Snowden (called him a traitor). I don't think creating more government jobs like Greece did is a solution but it is something I think Bernie Sanders will do. \n\nI think Barack Obama has done a great job so far. Unemployment is down and healthcare coverage is up. Unfortunately we still have troops all over the world and Russia is growing in size despite economic sanctions. Our Iran deal wasn't that great (we didn't get our hostages back and we had to give Israel free weapons to placate them) and NSA spying seems to have continued although I am not sure after that recent court ruling. Civil rights have improved. \n\nI know I have mentioned a lot of different issues. The most important one to me is the shrinking wealth of the middle class. I believe the healthiest societies are one where there is small difference between rich and poor. In summary, I think Bernie Sanders treats the symptoms of the problem rather than the root. I think Donald Trump solves the root of the problem by bringing more jobs back to this country. \n\nI will also mention this because I know it will be brought up - Donald Trump has went into bankruptcy four times. To my understanding, he declared bankruptcy on certain assets and then retained those assets at the lower valuation. I don't know the in's and out's. \n\nFinally, Donald Trump has a big ego and says idiotic things like 'most of the mexicans crossing the border are rapists.' I know illegal immigrants are a vital part to our country's economy and I didn't like that he said this. However I think what needs to be reformed are laws so that people who want to work can get in more easily. That doesn't mean they should just be able to walk in. I don't care if they do, but I think from a national security standpoint, we should be able to regulate what comes into our borders. Obama has done a great job at making it easier for illegals to get documentation. That said, there are problems that are caused by an unsecured border. The drug traffic is terrible for both the US even worse for Mexico. A secured border would fix this.\n\nI know this has been a lot to read. I take my voting decision very seriously and I want to have good information. Thank you.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Telling a person you love them just for sex is rape/sexual abuse. + \n + Is this rape?\n\nMy ex-girlfriend got with a dude and he told her he loved her after a month and claims she thought she was in love with him, but really she was in love with me and trying to get over me. A month later she had sex with him twice because he told her he loved her.  After they had sex twice, he left her and completely stopped talking to her. She came crying to me saying she felt as if she was raped/sexually abused. I still care about her and I feel as if maybe that is a form of rape, but maybe not. It's not as if she was physically taken over, but mentally taken over. She was used for sex, but she consented to it, so I don't understand. Change my view.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Talking about race, racism, and racial issues along with racial preference programs actually makes any existing problems worse, creates new problems, and divides people rather than unifying them. In my opinion \"not seeing color\" IS the attitude we should cultivate. + \n + In this post I am going to be very blunt. This is because I want to show exactly how all this impacted the thinking of myself and the people around me. I was born here in the US but I am of Chinese and Thai descent. As a child I grew up not really caring at all about race, I just sort of assumed humans came is all different colors and shapes and that was normal. I didn't even know there were names for the different races and ethnicities. The only thing I was really aware of was if people actually came from a different country.\n\nAs I grew older, my classmates and I were bombarded with racial messages during school and everywhere else. We were taught that white people were somehow inherently racist. We were taught that everyone else was perfect and every bad thing they did throughout history was somehow righteous and justified. I started to see lines forming. White kids were told that they were somehow responsible for everything some people in the past did. Black kids were taught that they were owed something. I noticed kids start self-segregating. It wasn't anything dramatic, no one attributed this to the things we were being taught, but people knew they were different now. \n\nI grew older still. I started paying attention to the news and the internet,. Race was discussed alot. I learned about affirmative action and it made my blood boil. If you didn't know, Asians are hurt the most by affirmative action. I would need a MUCH higher SAT score and GPA than a black person to get into the schools of my choice. I started to resent black people for this. Why was I being hurt because an entire race was apparently performing poorly and my entire race wasn't? And if discrimination was the reason, well my race was discriminated against in the past too! This was opinion shared by my friends. It led us to think that if this was the case, black people didn't try very much and were lazy in school. Otherwise why would they need help? I was infuriated to learn that a black girl who took all level classes and wasn't even close to the top of the class was accepted into my first choice college while I was not, despite my excellent grades and test scores. When I went to college, I made sure to avoid going to black doctors and other black professionals for fear than they got their position due to unfair preferences.\n\nI learned about the black crime rate, and prison population. I started to become scared when I saw a black person on the streets. All the commentary about how this was racist merely solidified my opinion. I saw how violent black neighborhoods are, I was catcalled constantly by black men in the streets, I worked in a leasing office and saw black tenants who lived entirely off the government and complained about everything. If I hadn't heard about race my entire life I would have written all these off as \"Man those specific people suck\" rather than lump the entire race together. People address these issues as if everyone else is to blame for these peoples actions, instead of saying hey, those are just bad people. Instead they make it a race thing where those bad people are actually VICTIMS. I heard about the police shootings and the publicity around them. I heard about the riots, and the more people talked about how the senseless destruction was justified the more I distanced myself and the more scared I became. I started to involuntarily see black people as a threat. My friends all secretly talked about how they wished all these people would go back to Africa so we could all live in peace. In the past couple years after all the discussion about race I have seen SOO many non-black people become essentially racist, and so many wonderful black people become entitled and vitriolic.\n\nSo basically, I feel like if we brought our kids up to not see color and talk about Americans as Americans, rather than african-american, asian american, etc, racism would soon become a thing of the past. If we keep bringing up race in EVERYTHING, kids start drawing lines and lumping people together as their race, rather than as Americans. They start noticing and being hyper-aware of differences between races. Crying racism in every situation just annoys people and defeats the goal of ending racism. Racial and diversity programs make people resentful, and make the benefitting parties feel entitled. People should be chosen on merit alone. \"Not seeing color\" is treated as ignorant and is laughed at, but I feel that this is the best way to operate if we are ever going to solve our problems.\n\nI'd like other opinions on this because the way I see the world right now truly sickens me. I don't want to keep feeling like I am different because I am Asian, I want to feel American and be okay with the way people talk about race. I want to feel okay with the way we as Americans are dealing with these issues. I also want to understand why \"not seeing color\" is ridiculed.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Using the box when you're making a puzzle is cheating and defeats the purpose of the puzzle. + \n + In a perfect world, puzzles would come in boxes with no pictures on them, maybe a word description of what you'd be putting together. But alas, it doesn't work that way, for the pretty good trade off reason of people want to know that they're getting a quality puzzle, which makes sense to me. But I can't stand when you're making a puzzle with people and they want to check the box. The point is to enjoy the slight but time-passing pleasure of discovery a picture by putting it together. When you're looking at the box every minute or so, you remove all the joy of creating the picture as well as most of the challenge of pairing the colors and shapes. How can someone justify using the box in a puzzle unless they are truly stumped beyond a doubt and have no other option, after guess-and-checking every remaining piece?\n\nCMV, ladies and gents.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV Religious people have no right to disagree with climate change in the same way that atheists should not argue religion with people who hold those beliefs. + \n + OK, so this is kind of stemming from my country (Australia's) issue with our current prime minister: Tony Abbot. Mr Abbot is a devout christian however he refuses to acknowledge climate change as an issue and will not input any prevention of damage to the environment for fear of loosing some of the millions of dollars he racks in each month (in case you could not tell, i really hate the guy.)\n\nthis got me thinking however: Christians, or other religions, expect Atheists and people of different beliefs to be respectful of their personal beliefs and presumably act in this way to other people of different religions (if they are decent people that is.) In this way, should the belief of climate change be considered a \"religious belief\" and therefore be treated with the same respect as any other religion?\n\nthis is important as Mr. Abbott spends lots of money supporting religious groups (especially christian) and i believe has just introduced tax dodges for many churches, if his belief is aloud this kind of support why should mine not be afforded the same courtesy? please  give any feedback or discussion you feel contributes to this discussion.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Abortion is morally equivalent to murder. + \n + I am non-religious, I hold liberal beliefs in most social issues, and I firmly believe that abortion is morally equivalent to murder.\n\n\nTo begin, I want to address the ongoing argument of whether or not an unborn fetus is a person. This discussion, while minorly relevant to the issue of abortion, is not a productive topic to argue over. I believe a fetus is a person in the same way an egg is a chicken. In some regards it is, but in others it isn\u2019t. Regardless, the arguments for my beliefs still hold even if we accept that, no, a fetus is not, in any sense of the word, a person. \n\n\nHowever, even if a fetus is not a person, I believe that the *value* of a fetus is equivalent to the *value* of a person. To show this, we must examine why we attribute value to human life at all. I believe that the value of human life is in its potential. A human life has the potential to do good in the world, have positive experiences, and, in some way, be a source of value.The reason that we hold death as such a misfortune is because it robs a person of all possible future good. The experiences, relationships, activities, and choices of the future are, overall, tremendously valuable and the source of much happiness. Murder is such a reprehensible crime because it deprives it victim of so much value. \n\nA human fetus has an equally, if not greater, amount of potential for future experiences and pleasure in comparison to a person. Thus, is should follow that to deny the potential of a fetus would be morally akin to doing so for a born person.\n\nFor a far more in-depth argument, Don Marquis's paper \"Why Abortion is Immoral\" offers some very compelling arguments. While I take issue with a few points, the paper is mostly in line with my beliefs in the matter. [Here is a link, if you are interested.](http://bama.ua.edu/~jklocksiem/221/marquis_wai.pdf ) '\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Motivational \u2018mantras\u2019 and similar psychological self-help techniques are bogus. + \n + I\u2019m a pretty analytical person who favours fact over opinion. I\u2019ve been exposed to a lot of self-help techniques through my family which I have always been quite disparaging of it. Recently I have been advised by a \u2018career coach\u2019 to create mantras for myself and to write these down and repeat them every day with the idea that it would help me realise my goals (and ultimately get a job.)\n\n\nI want to believe in it, I think, but at its core it feels like the opposite of the fact-based view I hold about life. An example shown to me of a mantra is \u201cI am positive thinking in everything I think and do.\u201d  By repeating this every day one is supposed to have this quality ingrained into themselves until it becomes self-fulfilling. My immediate reaction to it is that it\u2019s lying to yourself. Instead of trying to trick yourself into believing something that isn\u2019t true you should be realistic and think about why you don\u2019t think positively and how you can resolve this.\n\n\nWhen explaining my hesitations my career coach raised a point about pro sports players. Psychology is what separates the great from the good and a lot of that is in self-belief which I totally get and agree with. He then said \u201cIf it\u2019s good enough for Mohammed Ali, its good enough for me.\u201d This helped a bit though I\u2019m still not thoroughly convinced.\n\n\nI still find the idea of the repeating one of these mantras so corny and I don\u2019t think I could do it wholeheartedly with belief in it which would be needed for it to help.\n\n\nHelp me change my view.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: People shouldn't make fun of Madonna for being old. + \n + She can't control the fact that she gets older.  To me, she's an artist continuing her career and doing what she loves.  People make fun of her because they're used to seeing 20-year-old singers and young artists, but being a musician should be just like other careers; nobody would make fun of a 56-year-old lawyer, but when Madonna continues singing into her old age she gets made fun of for being a \"dinosaur\" and gets criticism for \"Trying to stay relevant\" by collaborating with Nicki Minaj.  **Of course she's trying to stay relevant.  All artists try to stay relevant.** It's how they make their living.  I just don't see anything wrong with Madonna continuing to perform into her 50s.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: We Should Keep the Nipple Contained + \n + I believe supporters of the \"Free the Nipple\" (FTN) campaign are miss guided. The movement's aim is to increase gender equality by ignoring our differences and allowing woman to show body parts everyone one in OUR society acknowledges as sexual. I believe that people should have the right not to be exposed, with-in reason, to sexual content in public. The human race is advanced enough to be able to acknowledge and celebrate our differences and create laws that address the real nature of things, as a society I believe we can have true equality and acknowledge we are all different. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFrom an ethical point of view the FTN campaign beliefs are too simplistic, they don\u2019t go into the real ethics behind the issue. FTN looks at the issue like this: Men are allowed to show their chest, to be equal women need to be allowed show their chest. But if we allow one group to show sexual parts of their body, which most people don\u2019t want to be exposed to without consent, are we more equal? Or less? Would men be able to show their testicles under FTN\u2019s reasoning? If women can show their sexual parts that people don\u2019t wanna see can men show their sexual parts that people don\u2019t wanna see.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWe should accept our differences and create deeper laws that fit all, with true equality. Right now I think the laws we have are fair, there\u2019s no \u201cwomen can\u2019t show their breasts statute\u201d there are public decency laws. I think public decency laws are extremely fair they generally aren\u2019t specific, they let the society choose what is indecent and what isn\u2019t, I think the greater society should choose. If breasts weren\u2019t sexualised as much as they are in our society the laws we have now wouldn\u2019t prosecute free nipples. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAlthough in most instances I believe the \"We shouldn't focus on this issue because there are bigger issues\" argument is wrong\u2026  we really should be tackling real gender inequality where there are actual principles being violated like the pay gap and female under representation in government. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n Let\u2019s take the golden approach \u2013 try find absurdities,\n\n\n\n\n\n\nYou wouldn\u2019t want a man or woman to flash their respective vagina/ penis a you or your kids, I think shown breasts are as sexually thought of as a vagina. If a man flashes his penis at someone it\u2019s quite fairly considered sexual assault. \nIf we take the simplistic approach that the FTP movement does, men and women should be treated exactly the same, woman wear G strings on the beach, then men can wear G Strings on the beach, if men wore G strings their testicles would show, try telling the mothers that their kids have to exposed to deez nuts to have an equal society \u2013 bullshit.\nCMV! Goodluck  \n\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Only registered members of a political party should be permitted to seek and obtain that party's nomination for elected office. + \n + The 2016 US presidential primary race is well underway, and the large pool of candidates in both major political parties is exposing a significant gap in the nominating process. Some of the leading candidates are of questionable party affiliation (e.g. Donald  Trump is now a registered Republican but has faced criticism for switching parties throughout his lifetime; Lincoln Chafee was a Republican while serving as a Mayor, Senator, and Governor, and only became a Democrat in 2013) or are unabashedly independent of any party affiliation (Bernie Sanders is not a registered Democrat but still running for the Democratic nomination).  \n\nThis has led to a lot of controversy on both sides about throwing the weight of the party behind someone whose allegiance to the party is questionable, and with good reason. For the following reasons, I believe that by law only registered members of a political party should be able to seek and obtain that party's nomination for elected office. \n\n1) Parties spend a substantial amount of resources to try to elect their nominees. These resources often come from contributions (in terms of money, activism, work hours etc) governed by election law made by party members or supporters to support fellow party members. It is inappropriate to allocate these resources to someone who, despite achieving the nomination, is not even a member of the party in the first place.\n\n2) Many third parties with access to general election ballots often nominate the same person, which causes that individual to appear on the ballot several times for the same position. This duplication is unfair to candidates from other parties (especially third parties) who may only appear on the ballot once. For the purposes of the official ballot, parties should only be allowed to formally nominate their own members, or no one at all. \n\n3) The members of a political party's presidential ticket are the de facto leaders of their national party during and (if elected) after the election. The same principle applies for nominees for Governor at the state-level, Mayor at the municipality-level, etc. Nominees' political positions are often absorbed into the general party platform, which can impact elections and party voter turnout elsewhere. It is nonsensical, and unfair to party members, for their de facto leaders to be from another party or no party at all, especially given that nominations are mostly a function of popular vote. (Tangentially, I am also opposed to \"open primaries\" where voters who aren't registered members of a political party can still vote in that party's primary election, but I suppose that's a topic for another CMV post. And of course, it should continue to be against election rules to be a registered member of more than one political party.)\n\n4) There is nothing wrong with or prohibitive about running for office as an independent. Ross Perot staged a pretty successful third party run for president in 1992. Sanders is the longest serving independent in the Senate. Many other people have been elected to political office at various levels of government without obtaining a major party nomination. Our political system does not preclude independents from winning elections, so any argument that an independent's only real chance of winning is to seek the nomination of a party with which (s)he does not formally affiliate is historically and demonstrably invalid. \n\nCMV.\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is no problem with teaching the American Civil War as being primarily about States' rights + \n + I am an American High School student who was taught 2 different versions of the Civil war throughout my schooling career.\n\nIn elementary school we first learned about the civil war in fourth grade. In that unit, we were taught the very bare details of the war: The south seceded when they couldn't keep their slaves, and declared war on the north in doing so, Lincoln was a great guy who freed all the slaves with the emancipation proclamation, and then the north won.\n\nIn 8th grade I was taught more details to the story. The south seceded because the right of the states to decide on whether they keep slaves was being questioned, as well as there being the beginning of unequal representation of slave-nonslave states. The south secedes, war begins. I was taught this more comprehensive view in more detail in my junior year of High School, with emphasis on the economic and cultural dichotomy of the north and south: The north was a manufacturing powerhouse that didn't need slaves, and the South was largely agricultural and couldn't afford to *not* use slaves.\n\nI, as a student, preferred being taught the States' rights version of the civil war, as it shows that the South was not comprised of nothing but slave-owning bigots, but that both sides were trying to preserve their way of life. This also allows for a better understanding of the reasoning behind how Reconstruction and Civil rights' issues were handled in the south.\n\nI want to understand why people are against this form of teaching the civil war, so please, CMV\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Iran will not attemp to build a nuclear weapon in the near future because the imputus for a nuclear deterrent - a threatened attack by the US - no longer exists. + \n + Back in the early 2000's, Iran had a good reason to want a nuclear weapon. They had been named as one of the three members of the \"Axis of Evil\" by president Bush. One of the other members was invaded and occupied by the US, leaving a massive military presence directly next door. Top level Republicans openly discussed the possibility of invading Iran. The President publicly refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in a war or aggression against Iran. If anybody had a good reason to want a nuclear weapon, it was Iran. The third Axis member, North Korea, actually had one, and was not considered a realistic invasion target for that reason.     \n  \nTheir fears of foreign invasion were real, and not abstract. Little more than 20 years before, Iran suffered hundreds of thousands killed, and over $600 billion in economic losses defending themselves from a US backed Iraqi invasion, which eventually involved offensive operations against Iran by the US navy, including the downing of an Iranian airliner, killing the 290 people aboard. During that conflict, 100,000 iranian soldiers, and an unknown number of civilians, were killed or wounded by iraqi chemical weapons. Iran did not deploy chemical weapons in the conflict. Any iranian over 30 is old enough to rember what total war is like. \n  \nNow that the US has made a comprehensive deal with Iran, they no longer have any motivation to acquire a nuclear weapon. They are capable of defending themselves against local adversaries, and face no serious threats against which nuclear weapons would be necessary.    \n  \nIf you actually want to change my mind, please don't bring up the fictional narrative of Iran as a suicidal state that would gladly see its 3000 year old civilization and 80 million citizens vaporized in an effort to destroy Israel. ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think the letters X, Q and C should be removed from the alphabet + \n + C, X and Q are certainly week used letters, but they are kind of redundant. C is the combination of K and S. It makes the same sounds, and thus is not necessary. \n\nQ is more complicated. If you think about is, Q makes the sound of a K and a W. Quh is no different than Kwuh. This would make words longer - Kwuestion - but it would simpify the English language.\n\nAnd now X. I must mention that I love using X as a variable in math, but it had to go as a letter. All it does is masher the Z sound, occasionally, and the Eks sound. \n\nIf you think that other languages would get frustrated or angry, ask I can say is \u00f1.\n\nThe last thing is why. English is a relatively difficult language to learn. If we removed complex grammer concepts like C and S, hopefully more people would be motivated to learn English.\n\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Transgender people should compete in the sports league of their biological gender. + \n + The way I see it is this:\n\n* 'Competitions', as such, should not be categorised by gender by default.\n\n* There ar, roughly, two valid reasons to create gender-divided leagues.\n\n * One gender has an unfair physical advantage (think tennis/rugby/etc.)\n\n * Genders are objectively equal, but one gender is still underrepresented (think chess/igo/etc.). Separate leagues are created to tamper the deterring effect inherent to an existing prejudice, with a long-term plan of joining the two leagues.\n\nA transsexual woman (man to woman) retains most of her physical advantage (even if it is somewhat decreased by the decrease in testosterone), so if she's competing in a sport that falls in the first group, she should compete as a man. Even if she lives/feels/looks like a woman, or is considered to be a woman in other respects.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Human labor will become as redundant as horse labor + \n + Yesterday, there was this post in /r/futurology titled **[Technology has created more jobs than it has destroyed, says 140 years of data](http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/17/technology-created-more-jobs-than-destroyed-140-years-data-census)**. In the comments, a lot of people concluded that this means that in the future, technology will keep creating more jobs than it destroys. **I disagree**. \n\nAt the moment, a five year old kid can beat a computer in a lot of things. For example, having a conversation is very hard for AI. So there are still lots of simple jobs that cannot be done by technology. \n\nAs long as our civilization does not collapse, technology and AI will keep getting better. In the near future, self-driving cars will replace a lot of jobs. This kind of stuff will keep happening until mechanical brains outperform human brains, at a similar or lower cost. When that happens, human labor will become as redundant as horse labor. **Change my view!**\n\n**[Obligatory \"Humans Need Not Apply link\"](https://youtu.be/7Pq-S557XQU?t=3m31s)**", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Marriage is an unreasonable expectation of relationships. + \n + New here, so please correct me if I am doing anything wrong.\n\nBefore I begin I want to point out that this is strictly opinionated and based off of personal observations. Also my grammar isn't the best so please forgive any errors.\n \nThe main issue I have with marriage is the consequences of ending it. I do understand that this can be avoided to a degree with prenuptial agreements however, they are generally frowned upon. The idea of penalizing someone for ending a failing relationship seems counterproductive to me. This creates a sense of security to those who have refrained from showing or disclosing certain habits or personality traits to their spouse. It also encourages many to \"let themselves go.\" By that I mean things such as weight gain, poor hygiene, addictions, etc. \n\nSecondly, I have seen in many cases where there is just no repairing the relationship, yet the couple remains together due to the financial repercussions of ending their failed marriage. This ultimately leads to a very uncomfortable situation at home, especially for children. It also in many cases leads to infidelity which brings a plethora of problems itself.\n\nAll of that said, my opinion is probably a bit biased due to my now divorced parents' marriage, but I am open to hear other arguments on the issue.\n\n\n1. By penalizing I wasn't just referring to spousal support and alimony but the legal fees as well.\n\n2. The argument I made was not meant to necessarily knock the institution of marriage because I do think it can work but there does exist many problems with how a failed marriage is dealt with...at least here in the US. My issue is mainly with society's expectation that long term relationships must eventually lead to marriage when it is not for everyone.\n\nLastly, a few of you pointed out the issues that arise when one spouse stays at home with the children and the other wants out of the marriage down the line. I do now see more of a purpose for it when the intention is to start a family. ", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The amount the American government spends on warfare is not as bad as it's critics say. + \n + I see this all the time on reddit, and I kind of grow annoyed with it, mostly because I am going through the ROTC program now and will be commissioning into the US Navy in 1 year's time - \"We are overspending on military, money could be better spent somewhere else.\"  The reason I decided to join the military was mostly due to growing up and listening to the news about \"car-bomb\" goes off here, or \"6 killed in gunfight\" over there, but when I looked out my window, all I saw was my neighborhood friends playing in the street.  This country seemed special to me. It seemed like one of the safest places to live, and before *really* living in it, I wanted to give back some of the years of my life in order to keep it safe for the next kid to grow up in.  I am not democratic or republican, I just believe that our safety is #1, and I would rather be over-kill than under when it comes to it.\n\nI think one of the reasons the US is so well protected, so much so that we will never have another war on our homeland, so much so that we could deter almost all biological, chemical, ballistic, nuclear what-have-you threats against us, so much so that if there were to be an all-out free for all war across the entire globe, we would be the last ones standing, is because of our over powering military.  We are unparalleled in any nation in technology, even the stuff the gov't allows us to see is spectacular, and we are the ones selling new tech to our allies, not the other way around. I believe it is this \"untouchableness\" that keeps us safe, no country on the planet would feel good going into a fight with us, and it's due to the national defense budget.\n\nAs a democratic nation, we have elected the people we found best suited for the job to run our country, so why would we not empower them to make bills supporting the military? It is these peoples *jobs* to figure out what we need to remain the top global superpower, we elected these people, and yet we have citizens who would prefer more spending in infrastructure so they can get to work faster.\n\nI am on track to become a naval pilot with hopes to obtain a masters degree and move on to work for NASA after my 5 year commitment, so I will be the first to understand that there are programs out there that could do crazy amazing things with even 5% of the military budget, but I still remain that I would put space exploration on the back burner to national safety.\n\nYes, perhaps we are going a little overkill on military spending, but it is in fact that overkill that keeps us untouchable in the global theater, and I would prefer to keep it that way than attempt to start divvying the military budget to everybody and their mother that seems to *need* that money until not much is left. \n\nAdditional pro-military-budget notes not related to US defense:\nWe are often called out for policing the world, but when there is bloodshed and conflict somewhere on the globe that needs to be cooled off, who do they call first?  Not to mention with our vast naval fleet, we are nearly always the first to respond and provide medicine and relief efforts to earthquakes, tsunamis, you name it.  Our military works to our allies' advantage as well, if a 9/11 incident were to occur in Britain you can be sure their Osama Bin Laden would be hunted down if not killed by our soldiers.\n\n\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: A refrigerator should be a required condition of habitability, not just an amenity. + \n + Just moved to California starting look for an apartment. much to my dismay 9/10 apartments I viewed do not include refrigerators in the lease. I'm from Detroit - where every single apartment I viewed had a fridge included. The first apartment I went to I was like - WHAT? NO FRIDGE????\n\n\n[In California, a refrigerator is not a habitable condition. It's an amenity.] (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/08/business/la-fi-rent-20120108)\nI found out via r/personalfinance that in Texas  - an air conditioning unit is a habitable condition - meaning the landlord must provide and repair it. In fact, when your A/C unit breaks (and its not tenants' fault), you might not owe rent for days its broken because the unit is only livable while the A/C is working per Texas law.  \n\n\nThere are several reasons state law should change to make a fridge a habitable condition. \n\n*  *I believe every other state requires this as a habitable condition, correct me if I'm wrong.* In my personal opinion an apartment without a fridge in not habitable, wouldn't you agree? but more importantly.... \n\n* *There's a lot of illegal bait-and-switch going on in the apartment rental market.* I'm shopping for an apartment now and I would say about half the listings that say \"fridge included\" are just outright lies. I caught a landlord in this lie just yesterday. He said \"oh well I must have made a mistake online...\" This also happens with dishwashers and with rent prices. You're not fooling any damn body, you listed imaginary apartment with fake pictures, just to get people to show up so you can start throwing sales shit at them.  Sometimes, in areas where the market is really hot (such as West Hollywood), people sign for apartments without having seen the inside first (because the unit is already leased by the time previous tenants move out). Making a fridge an optional amenity gives landlords the ability to LIE and say the unit comes with a fridge and then when they move in, they find out that the fridge belonged to the previous tenants. \nYou might say \"well they should read the lease before they sign\" but that logic only holds up in theory. In reality you know there are people getting screwed over on this issue. Such as people from other states who it never occurred to them that a fridge might not be included. \n\n* *California law should mimc Texas law* When a habitable condition appliance breaks, the landlord is losing rent money every day it sits broken. In Michigan, when a unit is unlivable, a tenant can break a lease with no penalty and no notice. That gives them very strong incentive to hurry up and fix it already. \nIf Texas does this with air conditioners, why cant California do this with a damn refrigerator? \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Any life other than one of poverty is unethical. + \n + Lets start by looking at a situation:\n\nImagine you are walking by a shallow river on your way to a ball when you see a child drowning. You're wearing some pretty expensive clothes (lets say 500 pounds) that will no doubt be ruined if you jump into the river. Saving this child doesn't put you in danger as you can stand in this river while the child being smaller cannot. Do you jump into that river to save that child? \n\nLet's say you encounter that same river with a different child in it the next day while wearing your rolex watch. Do you jump into that river to save the child? \n\nNow lets look at the real world. More than 1.3 billion people live in extreme poverty (less than 80p a day) and 7.6 million children are estimated to have died before their 5th birthday in 2010. Many of these are from poverty, preventable diseases and illnesses. Money can help provide infrastructure for schools, hospitals, sanitation facilities, vaccinations etc which no doubt will help reduce child mortality rates. Once you look at the world through this lens then it is easy enough to look at the world in terms of opportunity cost. This iphone or 100 life saving vaccinations. An expensive house or cheap government housing and a new well providing water for a village. One may argue that there is a difference between the example and this and that is distance. These children are much further away but I don't see how that dilutes your moral responsibility to them. Therefore, it seems that any money that you keep must be worth a child's life, education etc or be allocated to some other duty such as child rearing where you have a responsibility to give time and money (for schools, healthcare etc) to make sure that your child grows up to be a socially productive member of society. I know that sounds like a very cold perspective on what parenting is about but i couldn't think of another way to phrase it haha.\n\nI will assume that most people think that you should save the child but this specifically is why I would save the child. I'm looking at this from the stance of virtue ethics (Aquinas) and I believe that by allowing this child to die shows a lack of charity and isn't positively building character. I can't justify losing a life in exchange for 500 pounds.\n\nBut,  I think even taken from the stance of consequentialism (believing that consequences should inform your moral thinking) or deontological ethics (believing that laws inform your moral stance) you would still reach the eventual conclusion that you must jump into that river:\n\nConsequentialism (i.e. Utilitarianism):\nYou would have to argue that having 500 pounds will lead to greater pleasure/happiness than that life and I don't think you can justify that.\n\nDeontological ethics (i.e. Kant):\nI only really understand Kant so he's the one that I will briefly (very briefly) talk about but allowing that child to die breaks the categorical imperative as if you allowed that act to become universal you would be devaluing human life by saying that it has a price tag.\n\nI've only briefly talked about why I think the child should be saved as I take it as a assumption that most people would save the child but I will be willing to discuss my ethical stance more thoroughly if anyone asks me about it but i didn't want my post to only appeal to those who have studied philosophy.\n\nThanks for your answers!\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think the upcoming policy change is a positive direction for reddit. + \n + Reddit is a website, a business, it is the \"front page of the internet\".\n\nThis front page doesn't have to house hate speech or hostile ideologies. I think removing these will only make reddit a more positive and progressive place to be. \n\nI think free speech can flourish without hate speech. I think we can recognize accurately the INTENTION of certain subreddits. Some can be gross, negative or downright morbid but don't have ill intentions but I think its the intention that matters and I feel from the [announcement](https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3dautm/content_policy_update_ama_thursday_july_16th_1pm/) that those subreddits with vile intetions will be removed while other \"alternative\" subreddits will be just fine.\n\nI think certain viruses have an intention to spread through the body and I think some subreddits here can be likened to viruses so I can only see a positive outcome when extracting these viruses out of the community. \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Funerals are a display of hypocrisy and egotism + \n + Christian funerals have no place in a secularized society.\nWe are doing them mainly because it's a custom and tradition.\nThe funeral ceremony is a display of hypocrisy and egotism. But let me explain:\n\nGrief is a display of egoism. To have grief is to put ones own concerns first. \n\"She is dead and now I am alone.\"\n\nThe hypocrisy of the funeral is that people mourn no matter if the person was good or evil.\n\nInstead, the proper way to have a funeral is celebration. The deceased should be the center of attention. It should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person. A presentation that shows the whole life of the person in all its grandeur. Sing and dance to cherish the beauty of life that has come full circle. In case the person was evil, it should be a celebration that the person is dead.\n\ntl;dr: Funerals should be a celebration of the wonder called life!\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Politicians should be able to make 'Unbreakable Promises' in the election season + \n + Dutch politician [Mark Rutte](http://www.bnr.nl/incoming/678218-1312/rutte/ALTERNATES/i/rutte) promised voters that not one extra penny would go to Greece. Voters liked that and Rutte's party became the biggest party in parliament, and Rutte became prime minister of the Netherlands. \n\nRutte broke his promise and kept sending billions of Euros to Greece. \n\nLying politicians are a problem in many countries. I think there's an easy solution: let them make Unbreakable Promises.\n\nAn Unbreakable Promise would be some kind of legal contract that describes what a politician certainly will or will not do when he is elected. For that politician, the Unbreakable Promise would be like some kind of extra constitution. He cannot break it when he is elected. \n\nThese Unbreakable Promise should be fully available online for all candidates. \n\nI think this is a great idea, and I'd love to know if there are any significant downsides to these kind of promises. ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:The true purpose of EU project is to defend the neoliberal financial order at the expense of the rights of people. + \n + The case of Greece makes the true purpose of the EU extremely obvious. The troika (EU, ECB and IMF) have done everything they can to prove that their goal is to defend capital over people. They have continued to punish the Greek people, even in ways that hurt themselves, in defense of banking interests. Greek bonds were mostly held by French and German banks and that debt was transferred from the banks to the European governments in a deal that was very much in favor of the banks. this entire Grexit situation is a repeat of the American bailout, banks win, people lose.\n\nThe destructive austerity they are forcing on the Greeks is criminal. and they are doing it just to prove a point (Wolfgang Schaeuble has been practically cursing out the Greeks at every turn for months).\n\nThe venom with which they attack the Greek attempt to let the people decide their own future is a blunt expression for their contempt for democracy. This contempt for democracy was also the evident when the French rejected the EU in a referendum, and were forced to eat it anyway.\n\nThis article by Perry Anderson is the best I've ever seen describing the nature of the EU (yes, a bit old):\nhttp://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n18/perry-anderson/depicting-europe\n\nanyway, this is a dangerous topic because it is so big. So I'm obviously trying to focus on the Greek situation and the banking case. But I'm open to other issues. change my view by proving that the EU is more than an imperialist project to defend the neoliberal financial order.\n\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The \"Bathroom Lock\" analogy against Government collection of data is flawed. + \n + First lets make a couple of things clear: I do not necessarily believe that government spying on its own citizens is ok, and thats not what this post is about. This post is about the following:\n\nOften times someone might make the argument \"if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about\" defending government collection of data. To counter people will bring up the \"bathroom lock\" analogy: We all lock the door when we go to the bathroom even though what we're doing is not inherently wrong.\n\nMy problem with this is that it is actually arguable that bathroom locks are an analogy in FAVOUR of \"government back doors\". Most bathroom locks are not designed to keep intruders out - they are designed to make sure someone doesn't accidentally walk in on you. But in fact it is common to see in bathroom locks a very simple unlocking mechanism - one that can be unlocked simply by pressing a bobby pin in the hole. This is put in place with safety in mind - if something happens to you while you're in the bathroom someone can get in and save you without breaking down the door. I don't know about you, but this is something that comforts me.\n\nIn the same way that no one wants to see me shit and would only actually use this \"backdoor\" through the bathroom lock in emergencies, the government doesn't care about my email to my mom about my sisters birthday, and only actually use collected data when it might be of some help fighting terrorism.\n\n\nWhen I noticed this I couldn't think about any reason why what I have said above is wrong, so please, CMV.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The United States is broken beyond repair, and it is only a matter of time before a total collapse of the nation + \n + I don't want to live in the USA anymore. I never really did. Only thing here for me is friends and what tiny family I have. If I had the resources and the guts to leave everything behind, I would leave at the first chance I am given. Here's a list of reasons why I believe the United States is unfixable, and the only thing left to do is jump ship:\n\n* **Education** is based on test scores and Scantron test bubbles, not how well any given student is learning. Privatized education is stealing from public education funding, resulting in crumbling public schools and a wealthy elite private school system.\n\n* **There is no living wage**, minimum wage is a joke ($7.25/hr) and some places even get away with customers paying for a worker's wages (tipping at restaurants, hotel valets, etc). [Corporate profits are at an all time high](http://ycharts.com/indicators/corporate_profits) while [worker's wages are stagnant](http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/wages) and barely increasing, if not decreasing.\n\n* **Student Loans** are out of control, absurdly inflated while students are having a harder and harder time finding work. Textbooks are overpriced and updated minimally for easy revenue when the latest version is required with little content improvement.\n\n* **Media** reports on nonsense until a tragedy, violence or a corporate agenda is at hand.\n\n* **Police Force** is over-militarized and over-protected. Police unions make sure officers are treated with impunity, even with sufficient evidence and contradictory eyewitness reports. Police brutality is not going away.\n\n* **Drug War** is a war on the people. Addiction and abuse is punished criminally instead of treated as a mental illness/condition. Tax money is lost on illegal drugs traded by armed criminals, promoting cartels and black markets.\n\n* **Prisons** are over crowded with non-violent offenders and poor Americans who couldn't pay ridiculous fines or fees. For-profit and private prison systems are an atrocity, some even enslave prisoners for manual labor. Guantanamo Bay is a violation of human rights.\n\n* **Politics** are corrupted and solely motivated by money. Lobbying is out of control. Campaign donations are essentially legal bribes, and corporations and mega-companies have to much political influence.\n\n* **Military** has an immense budget while producing useless, unneeded weaponry and equipment. United States fights unnecessary wars and infiltrates and overthrows peaceful governments.\n\n* **Gun Control** needs reform. Mental evaluation and criminal background checks need to be performed thoroughly before any firearm can be purchased or acquired.\n\n* **NSA spying** and the surveillance state need to be dismantled. Huge swaths of data is being collected, stored waiting to be misused. Spying on its own citizens and allies violates human rights. The TSA needs reform, right now it's a useless taxpayer void, where useless machines and invasive procedures are becoming more and more prevalent.\n\n* **Copyrights and patents** are creating turmoil for startups and new ideas. Large companies consistently and deliberately misuse and even change copyright laws to benefit themselves, while stifling innovation and hurting people's rights to free information.\n\n* **Net Neutrality, free trade and personal privacy** is daily being eroded and constantly in danger: SOPA, CISPA, Trans Pacific Partnership, PATRIOT Act, PIPA, [Special 301 Reports](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_301_Report))\n\n* **Social Security** has been abused and taken advantage of by the Baby Boomer generation. The retirement age is ever increasing beyond what should be considered normal due to technology and computers, taking up jobs from younger people looking for work. Saving for retirement is becoming increasingly difficult.\n\n* **Wall Street and the Big Banks** steal/lose/launder trillions while facing little to no punishment, in the way of fines or breaking up the companies. Instead, these banks are bailed out by the government using government loans, causing inflation, devaluing the dollar, and increasing the national debt. Don't get started on predatory interest rates and payday loan schemes.\n\nThe list could probably be longer, but I've run out of will power to describe my nation's flaws. They depress me and remind me every day that it's harder and harder to leave as soon as I can. If you need sources on any of the points I've provided, feel free to Google them unless I've already provided the link. I'm willing to change my view. But just look at all this mess. I feel so helpless being a lower-middle class, average joe kind of guy with the facade of the American dream vanishing further and further every day. I don't want to live like this forever. I want to be happy and support a nation that isn't corrupt and cares about it's citizens. So Reddit, can you change my view?\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The U.S. government is completely untrustworthy and giving in more power is insane. + \n + Now in the spirit of fairness - I believe this to be true for all governments, but in this case I'll touch upon the U.S. gov.\n\nFirst of all [Lusatania](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania#Undeclared_war_munitions) the U.S. government deliberately loaded a civilian ship with munitions, so that the German can sink it and the population be dragged into a war they wanted nothing to do with.\n\nSecond - [Gulf of Tonkin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident#Later_statements_about_the_incident) where the government lied about  engaging enemy targets, in order to stimulate the population into supporting the Vietnam War. \n\nThird - [Nayirah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah) testified before congress to encourage U.S. into entering the Gulf War\n\nForth - [MKUltra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra) is a thing.\n\nAfter this, how can anyone trust the government in any way? It's insane to give it more power.   ", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Certain social welfare programs, not including Food Stamps and the like, are detrimental to the United States compared to programs that grant people with jobs, education, and training. + \n + This is purely from anecdotal, self researched and experiential  knowledge, so feel free to correct me if there are any glaring issues in my position. I believe that some of the social welfare programs in the United States could be reformed to give jobs, education, and training to low-to-none income individuals and families as opposed to handing out checks. I believe that this would be beneficial because:\n\n1. Living off a free welfare check sometimes decreases an individual's drive to work and better themselves; and by extension to increase their standard of living\n\n2. Providing job training and/or an education to underprivileged individuals allows for the betterment of the individual - increasing ambition, social ability, financial stability, and other benefits\n\n3. Providing job training and/or an education to underprivileged individuals allows for the betterment of the society - increasing the education of American society as a whole, decreasing unemployment and crime rates\n\n4. I believe that there is enough money (read: safety net programs budget in the US; http://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go) that will be freed up in order to allow this reform\n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Wanting to be a different gender is no different than wanting to be a different race or age + \n + If I was to say that I always relate more to women, and in my heart feel that I should have been born a woman, how is that any different than saying that I feel like a Mexican stuck in a white man's body?  Or a 65 year old stuck in a 32 year old's body?\n\nIf I started wearing a poncho and sombrero and asking people to call me Pedro, I'd be laughed at and ignored (or beat up).  If told people that I feel 65 (or even went as far as having surgery to make me look 65), AARP still wouldn't accept me. It wouldn't matter if, deep in my heart, I truly wanted to be a 65 year-old Mexican. Why would my desire to be a woman be respected?\n\nI don't mean to come across offensive or callous, and I have no problem with people dressing as another gender (or even having surgery to make them more closely resemble another gender).  I just don't think that the government should classify somebody based on their desires, but rather on the presence or absence of a Y chromosome. \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The SAT should not include trigonometry in their math section. + \n + Most colleges do not require trigonometry for admissions, and do not require students to take a trigonometry course. It seems unfair that the SAT would include this in the math section. Some will argue that it makes sure students are \"well rounded,\" but it's incredibly unfair to use this to test a student's aptitude for college. When I was in high school, I had an 89% overall GPA. I got mid-range scores on the reading and writing sections of the SAT, but did very poorly on the math section. Because of this, I was denied admission to many colleges which I applied to. I understand that my scores in reading and writing were average, but it was the low math score which really hurt my chances of admission. This might seem like a personal argument, but the fact remains that I'm sure many students would agree with me. I understand including algebra and geometry, but I don't see why they include trigonometry. This is a person's future which they are dealing with.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe in biological determinism. + \n + Given that our brain chemistry is purely a result of genetics and that our impulses are simply a function of chemical reactions, how could I possibly believe that I have free will in making life choices? How can I legitimately think that I have the ability to change on my own intent if everything I do is a result of reactions out of my control?\n\nBesides just knowing some logical responses to this argument, I would like to think I have some control over the outcomes of my life or that my accomplishments have had something to do with my own autonomous choices; please CMV! :) \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Prisoners shouldn't be able to have any kind of intimate relationships with opposite gender while locked up. + \n + Please leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post. Thank you!\n\nin light of the recent new york prison break, i don't get why prisoners should have the perks of being able to have sexual relationships with anyone whether employees or visitors let alone talk to them, espcially murderers and rapists. yet i hear many get married and give birth to children which is wtf to me. i can't think how healthy this would be for the children's childhood and support. these guys are in prison for a reason and to get punished by isolating them from the outside world, and they don't deserve these outside relationships with the exception of the occasional prison visits behind a glass window. i have no sympathy for them, would this be wrong?\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I am right in having less respect for beer drinkers. + \n + I have less respect for beer drinkers than for non-beer drinkers - that's my view. This comes from the fact that beer drinkers don't have any reason to drink beer other than to, essentially, weaken their consciousness to make socializing easier. What other reason could there be? \n\nFacts about beer:\n\n* Way more expensive than other drinks\n\n* Unhealthy and very fatty\n\n* Puts you at risk of stupidity (drunk driving, people taking advantage of you, losing your belongings, etc.)\n\n* Tastes bad __*__\n\n__*__ I believe that objectively beer is less tasty than other drinks like orange juice, bubble tea, or a soft drink. Do you really think someone that has been drinking those drinks their whole life would taste that strong bitterness of beer and say that they like it, let alone saying that they like it more than coke? Almost impossible. I think those people are very rare. \n\nBeer is an *acquired taste*, and when I say acquired, I mean that it needs to be associated with the socializing that it begets for a long time before someone would like it - and they'd only be liking it because of that conditioning - not because of beer's actual taste. \n\nSo what is the problem with doing it for social reasons? People are essentially saying \"I don't trust my own consciousness to socialize and instead of working on improving I will socialize the easy and guaranteed way that requires artificially altering my personality.\" Unless people have some kind of mental illness causing them to have very high social inhibitions, I do not believe beer is a good way to solve their problem of having difficulty to interact with others. I think it is just a way to avoid the problem - one that's definitely possible to solve. I'm saying this as someone that used to be extremely shy and underwent major changes in the past few years. \n\nI will concede that beer can possibly help someone work on their social issues, as in, having a little bit of beer just to get into the social environment when they're not used to it yet, kind of like with floaty tubes when learning to swim. The ultimate goal will be to *not* rely on beer anymore, so I don't consider these people to be \"beer drinkers\". \n\nTell me, what makes beer as a social-enhancer any better than steroids as a muscle-enhancer? Is it just the degree to which it affects your body or is there anything else to it? \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is virtually zero risk of human extinction from human causes (i.e. nuclear war). + \n + While there are many ways for humans to devastate our own cities, technologies, and civilizations, I feel that exterminating the entirety of the human race is beyond our collective ability.\n\nThere are so many people spread so thinly across so much area, that all of our nuclear weapons can not reach all of them. All major and minor cities may be destroyed, and the fallout and nuclear winter would be horrific, and any survivors may effectively be in the bronze age technology wise, but at least a few groups of humans in some hidden corner of the world would survive the destruction and aftermath.\n\nSame goes for biological weapons, climate change, and all other human-caused sources of destruction. Of course, I'm not talking about natural catastrophes like large meteor impacts, which I believe could end our species.\n\nIf I am wrong, I would love to be convinced!\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Everyone should drive an AWD + \n + Pretty simple view, I see no reason why everyone shouldn't drive an all wheel drive vehicle day to day. Slight biases: I have a 1991 Subaru Legacy as my daily driver, have driven many different new vehicles in the past year, and I drive for 10 hours a day so I see a lot of things on the road.\n\nThe increase in traction provided by an AWD is immesurably valuable. Driving in the rain constantly, hitting black ice, and on rare occasion driving in snow, under no normal driving circumstances has my car come close to losing control. My tires, even when bald, have refused to spin, except under an excessive ammount of throttle while on wet pavement. No RWD I've driven has come close to maintaining as much control in any circumstance as my AWD, running on technology 20+ years older.\n\nThe only cons I see are lower gas milage and increased cost, but do not believe these are significant enough to negate the benefits. \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: A police officer shouldn't be punished for dancing with civilians at a LGBT pride parade + \n + I'm sure we've all seen and heard of police officers who were aggressive and violent while on duty, but much less frequently do we hear of officers who have friendly interactions with civilians when there is no clear or present danger present. I've seen a few videos on the internet of cops dancing at block parties or playing a short round of cards in a park but none have gone viral like [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl972jf8cs4) of an NYPD officer dancing at the NYC LGBT pride parade this past weekend. The general consensus is polarized; some people like myself are perfectly fine, even happy, that some officers are finding enjoyment and positive interactions with civilians in their day-to-day work rather than hostility and aggression; others feel that this interaction was completely unprofessional and that the officer should be fired or at least punished.\n\nI believe that the officer shouldn't face any punishment for simply dancing with a civilian for less than 20 seconds at a parade with clearly no imminent threat or danger present. My logic behind this is that many officers won't be punished for using excessive force or even wrongfully killing someone, so why should an officer be punished for taking 20 seconds to dance with a friendly civilian at a parade. Even if we lived in a world where excessively violent officers were rightfully punished, I would still be angry if this cop were to be punished for dancing at a parade.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: White Supremacy cannot be defeated by the Black Community + \n + I believe that the only group of people capable of bringing an end to White Supremacy are white people themselves.  When minority groups bring up their concerns regarding White Supremacy there is often times push back from members of the white community who feel that they are being attacked.  This causes the conversation to shift focus from the issues that are being brought forth by those minorities, to a conversation involving race baiting and reverse racism.  \nI believe that in order for a meaningful conversation to take place it must be spearheaded by members of the white community who are aware of their privilege and are willing to work against it.  This idea is in large part why the civil rights movement of the 60s was successful.  African Americans marched, rallied, and protested for many years, but when white americans who had been sitting on the fence, or sitting by silently started to make themselves known the movement moved to another level.\n\nBlack America will never be free from the grips of this oppressive institution unless good, decent, and conscious white people get involved and start to lead the conversation and challenge members of their own community \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think having a preference against promiscuous people is as valid as having a height or weight preference nor does it constitute \"slut-shaming\". + \n + I don't know if it is skewed on Reddit or not, but anytime I see a comment about not being attracted to a \"slut\" the poster gets railed for it. I also don't think it is strictly the language being used. Regardless of the label, not wanting your partner to have been with 5+ people is 100% defensible. If we, as a society, can tell people that being tall is attractive or that being fat is unattractive, we can tell being that sleeping around is unattractive.     \n\nAnother logically invalid argument is that the person with the preference, must not be promiscuous themselves. I think this is as non-nonsensical as telling a man he can only be attracted to men, otherwise he's hypocritical. My choice in partner is independent of my partner's choice in me, we can like different things. Many physically fit men are \"chubby-chasers\" and man slutty men are virginal chasers. \n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Saying that America is too politically correct is being used as an excuse for hateful and disrespectful speech that would otherwise be shunned. + \n + This CMV was sparked by the reaction to Donald Trump from the right in the recent GOP Candidate Debate but extends to everyone who intentionally used political incorrectness for personal or political gain. \n\nDonald Trump, who was once considered a joke candidate is now leading most polls for the GOP nomination, mostly due to his unapologetic opinions  about things and his willingness to be open about his policies and ideas. He has also said that \u201cI think the big problem this country has is being politically correct,\u201d and to some extent I agree; political correctness has gone too far in this country and people need to be less offended by things. However, he has used \"political incorrectness\"  as an excuse for his awful behavior and comments such as the mexican rapists invading our border and how Rosie O'Donell is a \"fat slob\" and instead of facing criticism for his opinions is being championed as some sort of visionary for people who's opinions don't align with the mainstream instead of the jackass that he is.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Transgender people who have had sex reassignment surgery are morally obligated to disclose their medical history to potential lovers. + \n + \n\n\n\n\nI was browsing the internet reading some articles discussing trans-sexuality when I stumbled upon an article debating whether or not trans people (specifically ones who had surgery to alter their sexual organs) should be morally, or even legally, obligated to disclose their biological sex to their potential partners before any sexual activity took place.\n\nI thought this over for awhile and came to the conclusion that they absolutely should. I now believe that it is incredibly insensitive, bordering on criminal, not to disclose this information.\n\nImagine you're a Male-to-Female trans whose had sex-surgery. It's late on a friday night and you're really hitting it off with a guy at the bar. One thing leads to another and you end up at his place where you start to get intimate. At this point you must know that it is an almost statistical certainty that you are dealing with a straight male (Roughly a 96% chance). You also must know that he is almost certainly under the impression that you are a female in both name and biology. However, you know that the latter is not true. No matter how you slice it, you are not a biological female but a male who has had sex-reassignment surgery.\n\nLet's stop right there for a moment.\n\nWhere I come from if you are participating in a social transaction and are aware that the other party has been given a false-impression of what the transaction entails, it would be wrong to progress until you rectify their misunderstanding.\n\nImagine this:\n\nI'm walking down a downtown street and see a homeless man laying on the sidewalk. I walk up to this man and pull out a seemingly ordinary quarter.\n\nI say to the man laying down: \"Ya' know I have an amazing ability to predict whether or not a coin will land heads or tails when flipped?\"\n\nHe replies: \"No I did not but perhaps I could put that coin to better use than just flipping it?\"\n\nI reply: \" How about a little wager. If I correctly guess what side this quarter lands on 10 times in a row you owe me $10. If I guess incorrectly even once you win $10 plus the quarter.\" \n\nThe man agrees to the wager figuring it's unlikely I could correctly guess a coin flip 10 times in a row.\n\nI then reveal that the quarter I hold is actually double headed. Obviously I win the bet and take what little cash the man had with me.\n\nWas I morally bankrupt? Of course I was. I violated the man's trust. I intentionally went out of my way to deceive him into an unwinnable wager with a play on words and subtle suggestions. According to the logic of some in the trans community however, it wasn't my responsibility to correct the misconceptions he had even though I specifically set it up in such a way so that it was more likely for those misunderstandings to arise.\n\nBut I digress, let's get back to our individuals from the bar shall we?\n\nBy now you're both completely naked and the man sees that you have what appear to be real breasts and a real vagina. He has almost no reason in the world to believe that you are not a women. Again, however, you know that his assumptions are incorrect. You are a biological male who has altered their body to look and operate SIMILAR to a female's.\n\nFinally you have sex and the next morning you inform the man that you are actually trans. The man immediately regrets having sex with you. Not only because he is not sexually attracted to transsexuals but also because he believes you abused his trust.\n\nNow there are some who would still argue that if the man had such a problem with having sex with a transsexual he should have mentioned it beforehand. To which I counter with:\n\n1: A man is naturally 5 foot 5 inches tall. He decides to go overseas to receive height-enhancement surgery to increase his height by 4 inches thereby making him 5'9. He returns to the US and a few months later he goes to a sperm bank to donate sperm. The form he has to fill out asks him to accurately state his height. He lists it at 5'9. \n\nWhile that man did not lie, he gave information that he knew was misleading. This information could greatly affect the choices of a women looking for a surrogate father. He argues that if the sperm bank really cared about his natural height, they would have explicitly stated as such.\n\n2: One day a man returns home from work to find his fiancee having sex with their neighbor. He freaks out and asks why she would do something so terrible to him to which she simply replies \"You never specifically told me I couldn't screw other guys. If it meant so much to you, you should have mentioned it\".\n\nObviously that logic is ridiculous. In America, when you enter a serious relationship with someone you are agreeing to an unwritten, unspoken social contract. One of the default conditions of that contract preclude having sex with anyone that is not your significant-other. If you are seeking a relationship that does not operate within this social contract then YOU are the one that needs to speak up and inform your partner beforehand.\n\n(I want to make it clear that I do not hate transsexuals. I do not find them evil or unclean. I do believe something is wrong when you know an individual in a serious situation is being misled and do nothing to inform them of it. Especially when you know that the information you give them could drastically alter their course of action.)", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Reading fiction is a waste of time compared to reading nonfiction + \n + After the number of fictional books and nonfictional books I've read, I've come to the conclusion that fiction is always more of a waste of time than nonfiction. I've read more fiction than nonfiction so let me give some examples. \n\nIn the fiction category, I've read stephen king's \"the long walk\", \"needful things,\" and \"the shining\"; i've read pretty much all of crichton's books, and almost all of dan brown books. All are  quite popular books. \n\nFor comparison, the last 3 nonfictions I've read are [skunk works](http://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-Lockheed/dp/0316743003/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1433822539&sr=1-1&keywords=skunk+works&pebp=1433822538925&perid=1EH2CEACB9PWNS9GT84H),\" \"[the code book](http://www.amazon.com/The-Code-Book-Science-Cryptography/dp/0385495323)\", and \"[Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea](http://www.amazon.com/Nothing-Envy-Ordinary-Lives-North/dp/0385523912/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1433822683&sr=1-1&keywords=north+korea&pebp=1433822683392&perid=11JG0BF3QCH819XQN6N9) \"\n\nSee, my view isn't that fiction is boring. However, in the limited span of time I have, I'd rather read 1000 pages worth of Introductory Chemistry, than 1000 pages worth of Needful Things; I'd have learned a lot more in The Code Book about cryptography than anything I would have learned from reading Jurassic Park (some basics about DNA and molecular engineering). \n\nBecause it's such a time sink, the amount of enjoyment from reading fiction is not worth the time it takes to read it. (1000 pages would take 1-2 days to read; I'd rather spend those 1-2 days watching movies or doing other time-sinking things that provides a much greater amount of pleasure). On the other hand, reading 1000 pages of nonfiction, while it would take even longer time, but it would let me get more out of it to be worth my time.\n\nCMV that reading fiction is somehow worth the time that it takes. \n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe that in vitro fertilization is unethical because of discarding the unwanted/redundant embryos + \n + Generally I think in vitro fertilization is a good idea since it helps people struggling with having children to finally have offspring but since the only sensible (as in: costs in the range of a regular family) way to go about it is to discard the unwanted and/or redundant embryous, it seems to be morally wrong since you're generally discarding human beings. \n\nI know that an ebryo doesn't have the full nervous system of a human being but the debate over when something becomes a human being is still unresolved and, as such, in vitro fertilization seems morally questionable at best.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV Gender Identity and Gender Roles are the same thing... And they are both social constructs. + \n + Hello. I would like to make the argument that Gender Identity and Gender Roles are one in the same and socially constructed. Many people argue that there are three ways to look at gender.\n\n1. Sex- This is based on physical attributes and is usually binary. This is simply the physical attributes of male, female, and intergender. These are obviously not social constructs.\n\n2. Gender Identity- This is often seen what gender people \"feel\" that they are. For example, a physical male may identify as a female, and therefore their Gender Identity is female.\n\n3. Gender Role- These are simply the societal expectations for each gender to act (i.e. Men don't wear high heels, women are more sensitive and emotional, blah blah blah)\n\nI argue that Gender Identity CAN NOT exist without Gender Roles, and identity is simply based off of perceived Gender Roles... therefore, they are also social constructs. What it means to be a women is not something that we are born with. We are taught what it means to be a man and we are taught what it means to be a women. If someone was never exposed to the social constructs, these identities would not have a foundation to stand on... a socially constructed foundation.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I Should Always Pick Friends Over Money + \n + So tomorrow I have the opportunity to work 4 easy hours for 60 bucks in cash to help throw a party. It is also the same day my friend is celebrating his 21st early that day because he has summer school in the following morning. I feel like I should always pick my friends over money but I still feel tempted. The job is so easy and I doubt I would ever make as much money doing practically nothing ever again. I am moving shortly next week so this is also one of the last chances we would have to hang out before I left. Reddit, Change my view!\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Wit is dead, and Reddit killed it. + \n + Corollary: It's become impossible to find any content of worth in threads not marked 'serious.'\n\nWit is now completely clich\u00e9. You can't go two posts down a comment thread without hitting some example of this. It's the reason so many subs have to adopt a 'serious' tag for posts. Everyone wants to show everyone else how delightfully clever they are. Everyone's got the next best 2\u00a2 joke and can't resist the urge to vomit it out. A zombie mob of narcissistic jesters all trying to elbow their way into the thinnest sliver of limelight. The problem is that there is so much of it now that it all just melts together and you slowly start to realize that maybe wit has had its day. Maybe it's that whole postmodern attitude that's going stale. It's ubiquitous. There's no new ground to be tread. The age of wit and snark is over, or in its twilight. Change my view.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:Dwight Schrute from the Office has some kind of autism and it's wrong to make fun of him. + \n + I have started binge watching The Office yesterday and it feels kinda wrong the way they treat Dwight. To me it seems he has some kinda of autism or psychological problem (I don't really know so correct me if I'm wrong) and it seems really wrong to keep provoking him and taking advantage of his lack of understanding of interactions. He's an asshole most of the times but I'm not sure if he can really be blamed for it.\n\nI find it funny but I'm always left with a sense of guilt for laughing over it.\n\nMaybe I'm being too sensitive to it? I mean Michael Scott makes fun of everyone in very wrong ways but Dwight seems to be picked on by everyone, not just Michael.  \n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Warwick Davis shouldn't have had kids with his wife + \n + Referencing to [this article](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2590573/Losing-two-babies-stronger-Warwick-Davis-opens-tragic-effects-dwarfism.html), he had two miscarriages with his wife, Samantha, before having two more children with the same defects he and his wife shares. Isn't it completely ethically wrong to seek out a spouse that has similar genetic defects and reproduce with them? Why is he trying to preserve an illness?\n\nIt even states in the article, \"Their condition means constant operations and medication\". The kids' quality of life isn't that great. They purposely brought genetically defected children into the world. They even quote Samantha saying, \"I always said I wanted one tall child and one with achondroplasia, like me\". She wants deformed children.\n\nThey laugh at the condition, saying that dwarfism isn't debilitating and they're proud to be hindered. But these are serious medical conditions that shouldn't be given to children on purpose. Just like how we like to shame \"fat logic\" or \"fat pride\", why are we not shaming this? They shouldn't be reproducing together. They know it's a risky business trying to make children with their gene pool. They've made at least three failed children (one died at 9 days old, one stillborn and one miscarriage according to the article) and two deformed ones.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is not enough evidence of the safety/efficacy of vaccines, especially in the face of controversy and conspiracy + \n + Both my parents are heavily anti-vax and none of their 3 kids have been vaccinated. After leaving the nest I realized just how uncommon this was, however after years of being in the main stream, I'm still not convinced that vaccines are all they are cracked up to be. \n\nBetween whistle blowers (William Thomson, Scott Cooper, Andrew Wakefield etc) and corruption within the vaccine industry, it seems like something sinister is afoot. There are countless horror stories and it seems like everyone just shuts up about these things and keeps thumping that vaccines are the greatest.\n\nNow I'm not antivaccine (although I haven't been immunized yet) I'm just not pro vaccine. I haven't seen enough to discredit this dark side of things and show undoubtedly that vaccinations are the way to go.\n\nPlease change my view.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Access to restrooms is a basic human right, and it is wrong for tax-funded spaces to charge money for them, if not all businesses. + \n + I recently was in Europe, and all of their public transportation stations (bus and all of EU rail) made you pay 50c - 1\u20ac to access their restroom. I believe that access to a restroom is a basic human right because of its universality. All people use and need a restroom, regardless of gender, race, or income. They provide a healthy and private space compared to say, a bush or alley. I am not joking - for many people this is a choice they have to make. Public urination is a big problem in urban areas. Being forced to defecate in public is not just unsightly and unhealthy to others, but it also adds personal insult to the injury of homelessness. I saw several people loitering near these payable restrooms asking for 50c to use them, which I don't believe is something one should have to do. To restrict restrooms to those able to pay is morally wrong, and cannot be allowed, especially in places funded by taxpayers.\n\nThere are several benefits to opening up public restrooms. People use restrooms to clean themselves as well, so opening them up would increase overall cleanliness. Arrests for public urination would decrease, reducing police and jail costs as well as street cleaning costs. I don't know if respect for the homeless would *increase*, but I think disrespect would decrease as people stop sneering at those asking for money to use the restroom.\n\nSome may say that opening the restrooms to all would make them dirty. About half of these payable restrooms I saw had a person standing there to collect money, who could in the free case just be another janitor (they already have to clean them, no matter how exclusive their restrooms are). I have no sources or math for this, but I don't believe that the minor influx of people into these restrooms would dirty them at a rate faster than the added janitor person could clean with the rest of the janitors.\n\nA lot of touristy places had payable restrooms as well. I can see how one could make the case for a business reserving the restrooms to their customers, but many of these places were just a privatized version of what I described above, selling just water and restroom access.\n\nTo summarize, I believe that the small cost in maintaining a free restroom is outweighed solely in possible financial gains, and completely blown away when considering human rights in addition. Still, I imagine that I cannot be the first person to think of this, so there must be some reason why public spaces were allowed to begin this practice in the first place, so I would like to hear what you think on the matter. CMV please.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Nonwhite people should be grateful for the accomplishments that whites have made. African Americans should be thankful that they do not still live in Africa and nonwhite countries should view colonialism in a positive light. + \n + In spite of the imperfections of the USA and Europe, it still remains a truth that pretty much all of the most desirable places in the world are run by Caucasian Westerners. The quality of life for all people, even nonwhites, is generally correlated with the percent of white Westerners in leadership; Black Canadians have better lives than black Americans who have better lives than Jamaicans who have better lives than Congolese. This is true on a global scale; lily-white cities and countries generally report the best quality of life and highest GDP per capita. [The most developed countries in the world are almost all white-run or dependent on white-run countries](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index); even Japan is dependent on white Westerners for trade, military, disaster relief, and [entertainment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H\u0101fu), and in spite of attempting to [Charles Atlas](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharlesAtlasSuperpower) its way to development with superhuman feats of education and work ethic, Japan's GDP per capita still lags that of France. South Korea is the same way, with an even more endemic academic cheating culture. The problem is that nonwhites look at the few atrocities that whites have committed as representative of the entire white race, when even [Chris Rock](http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/418164-if-you-re-black-you-got-to-look-at-america-a) acknowledges that white rule has had its share of pluses for the African American community.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Planned Parenthood should spin off it's abortion business and then re-brand it's health services business lines + \n + Planned Parenthood is a non-profit, but it is still a business.  Businesses spin off business lines all the time for any variety of reasons.\n\nSince their abortion business line receives no taxpayer funds, there shouldn't be any financial loss from spinning it off into a new business.  Then all the other health services that Planned Parenthood provides could be conducted free from the stigma of being provided by \"America's largest abortion provider\".\n\nSuch a move would direct any criticism and protests to the new \"abortion only\" business and away from the health services businesses.  They would no longer face threats of cuts to their federal funding.  I wouldn't be surprised if they were actually able to increase their funding with such a move.\n\nThe biggest challenge I can think of that would be faced would be the need for additional locations since all existing locations would have to be designated as either \"abortion services\" or \"health services\" locations.  But I don't think that would be a HUGE obstacle.\n\nMany of the existing locations could likely be split into two separate, but side-by-side, facilities.  Many are in buildings that could easily be divided for multiple tenants already, so that's exactly what would be happening.  Opening new \"free health clinics\" should be fairly easy from a local regulatory standpoint.  Who wouldn't want more free health clinics in their neighborhood?  \n\nAnd if the total square footage needed for both abortion and healthcare services shouldn't change much (maybe a little more space for 2 reception desks and waiting rooms), so the long-term increase in rental or real estate costs shouldn't be significant.  I think it would more than offset by increased revenue from greater public support, and reduced costs related to security and dealing with protests.\n\nThe only other caveat of this view is that I'm taking Planned Parenthood's contention that no federal funds are used in the abortion business at face value.  I have no reason not to believe that.  But if that isn't true, it would present additional challenges to any spinoff.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Specifically choosing to select a woman for the face of a US dollar isn't empowering for women. + \n + Choosing a face for the dollar shouldn't be an act to satisfy any given group. Inevitably, a woman's face would've ended up on a dollar eventually, by more natural means, such as an open vote in which a woman won, and in my opinion, that was going to be coming very soon! But now, it's going to go down in history as an act of pandering, in an attempt to 'empower' women. \n\nWomen are not a hive mind, so putting someone who owns a set of ovaries on currency, they are not all affected by it, or given strength by it. Women do not assimilate respect and admiration and add it to the collective, like the Borg.\n Yes, if we grew as a nation during a time that was *not* racist, sexist, and generally terrible towards so many people, a woman could've been president, and easily been on US currency long ago.\n*Yes*, women have been oppressed throughout history, but that's not something that you can make up for by suddenly going out of your way to put a woman in the spotlight every so often. It shouldn't be such a monumental deal. \nTo me, it's like approaching a black fellow and whilst shaking his hand, saying \"Hello good fellow, I am not racist, and I hardly even noticed that you are of a darker complexion. I am glad to make your acquaintance, fellow valuable person.\"\nI don't think you should go out of your way to be NOT exclusive, by being SUPER *in*clusive.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe that socialism is fundamentally better than capitalism + \n + For the purpose of this post, I am defining \"capitalism\" as a relatively free market system, with private ownership of the means of production. \"Socialism\" is defined as a system in which the government owns the means of production, and distributes all things necessary for decent quality of life (food, water, shelter, education, health care, etc) for free to all minors and any adult either working, seeking work, or enrolled in school. I understand that this definition is more specific than the true definition of socialism, but I want to preempt any arguments suggesting that people won't look for work if everything is provided for them anyway; they won't be provided for unless they contribute. Also, please note that I am not advocating any specific system of governance; I don't want a debate about the merits of direct democracy. Assume that the system of governance is something effective and relatively democratic, unless there is a compelling reason why my definition of socialism ensures ineffective government.\n\nWith that out of the way, here is my justification. I believe that capitalism ensures exploitation of the lower-classes. The winners in a capitalist system are nearly always those who were born into relative wealth already. Even the rags-to-riches stories of our time, such as Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, they were all born into at least lower-middle class. Those trapped in poverty are normal people, who usually work much harder than the people at the top, and get nothing for it. I don't mean to put down high-ranking executives, or other wealthy individuals, but I think that if capitalism is designed to benefit those who work hard, it's doing a shoddy job. Look at all the people in America, one of the world's wealthiest countries, who have to work two or three jobs to stay afloat, through no mistake or irresponsibility of their own. It's just not fair.\n\nAnd that's the real problem with capitalism; it isn't fair. Global capitalism causes enormous waste, while billions starve. Cyclical poverty disproportionately affects minority citizens within the US, and non-European cultures around the world, proving the system is not only oppressive of impoverished people, but also a system of racial oppression.\n\nNot only is it bad for people, but I believe capitalism is also bad for the environment. The reason for this is that there is no real profit motivation for companies to try to help the environment. Sure, a corporation can get a few extra sales by slapping a \"Green!\" or \"Eco-Friendly\" sticker on their product, but there is no incentive for corporations to do anything but the very minimum for the environment. Government regulations help, but they only go so far, and are difficult to enforce when companies can simply relocate their factories to places with less stringent regulations (and often less worker-protection, to boot). \n\nSo, with those reasons put out for why capitalism is bad, here's why I think socialism is better. Socialism prevents needless death and suffering by ensuring that everyone who contributes gets everything they need for a healthy life. Socialism ends cyclical poverty by giving everyone a chance at education, without worries about putting food on the table. Socialism is better for rewarding the hard-workers and punishing the slackers, because without unfair head starts going to rich kids entering the workforce, the real cream will rise to the top (there would be variable wages and such; the government employers could offer raises and promotions to their best workers). Socialism is better for the environment, because the government could have direct control, and would have much more incentive to manage the environment in sustainable ways than short-term-minded corporations.\n\nI guess I can go further in depth in my replies, if needed. I'm looking for a good debate, and maybe a change of heart. Change my view!\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: It's okay for Lizzie Grant to call herself Lana Del Rey. + \n + A lot of people are angry at Lana for the cultural appropriation of 2 things: the legitimately insensitive [war bonnet](http://i.imgur.com/cm3tI.png), and her Latin-inspired stage-name. They say it's insensitive because many Cubans face discrimination and deportation for their foreign-sounding names.  I honestly don't see how that's relevant.  She picked the name because she wanted to sound like A \"cuban gansta Nancy Sinatra\".  Could someone explain to me what's wrong with choosing the stage name \"Lana Del Rey\"?\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I am morally opposed to having my OWN kids. + \n + Now this might sound weird. Now I don't mean I am morally opposed to someone else having their own kids, but for me that is something I could never do. I believe in this because instead of having my own biological children, I could save another from a life of foster homes, and terrible conditions. I just do not think that it is okay for me to do that when the opportunity to help someone else is possible. This is something that I hold very strongly, but I am open to changing it. Thanks.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Making the decision to have children is ethically unjustifiable. + \n + Making the decision to have children is ethically unjustifiable.\n\nBringing a child into this world cannot be justified due to a human beings capacity to experience suffering. If you bring a child into this world, it is pretty much a given that it will suffer in some way - and many times, this suffering can be catastrophic. Put simply, there is no way to justify this suffering when it can be so easily avoided by simply not having babies.\n\nBy \"suffering\" I mean anything and everything - from something as simple as a cold, to anxiety about money, suffering from severe illness, becoming homeless, stress and any number of other things that can cause suffering in a person's life.\n\nBringing a child into this world makes you responsible for all the suffering throughout a child's life - had you not taken the decision to have a child, the child would not have suffered, because he would not exist.\n\nThis is exacerbated by the fact that the \"default position\" for humanity is suffering. By this I mean that if you do *absolutely nothing*, you will suffer. You have to exert a great deal of effort not to suffer - you need to constantly provide yourself with food, shelter and protection - if you don't you will starve, get cold, etc. This means that by bringing a child into the world, you are forcing them to exert effort to prevent themselves from suffering.\n\nThis may be justifiable if we were given the option to \"opt out\", but we are not. People will do *everything in their power* to prevent people from opting-out (and by this I mean taking one's own life). Examples: even on a forum as open as Reddit, we are still forbidden to discuss opting out. Anyone who has taken the decision to opt out and wants to find out how to do so quickly and painlessly will find themselves unable to do so. Medicines that give this option are strictly controlled, with harsh penalties for breaking the laws. Jumping spots are patrolled or fenced off. Anyone attempting to discuss opting out openly risks being detained in a medical institution against their will and possibly even forcibly medicated.\n\nA common response to this argument is, \"Look at all the joy and beauty that can be experienced in life\". My counter-response is that such joy is not a given, as suffering is. Additionally, if one wishes to experience many of the good things in life, they have to exert *even more* effort than they do simply to hold off their suffering. The probability of experiencing suffering, and the amount of suffering likely to be experienced is also greater than that of the probability of experiencing joy, given that suffering is the \"default state\".\n\nAnother argument against that is that anyone deciding *not* to have children simply cannot be held responsible for depriving a person of joy - since such a person does not exist.\n\nThere is also no good reason to bring children into this world in despite of suffering. The future of humanity is often bought up, but none of us have any reasonable interest in the future of mankind since none of us will be alive to experience it. It's a moot point. Nobody will suffer if humanity comes to an end due to people not having babies.\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Except for the anti-government, anti-feminist ideas, I don't see anything wrong with the tenants of MGTOW + \n + I don't sympathize with the idea of avoiding the paying of taxes (unless they really go off-the-grid) nor with the idea of doing without family courts and all other institutions they think \"favour women\".\n\nBut I think the idea of some men just forgoing the pursuit of romantic, sexual or social relationships with women isn't bad. Nor I think the idea of just focusing the energy and time one would employ in social activities into improving oneself in another way is bad neither.\n\nI think there's a group of men who simply aren't going to do well with women in general, so it's a waste of their time to try to \"improve\" in that area. It's also harmful that unwanted men just go out there and try to sympathize with people who look down on them, looking for pity. I also think that no one will disagree with the fact that it's not as though as a few less men in the social spheres is going to change anything. In fact, it may even benefit women and other men, since they don't have to deal with people they don't like or who they look down on.\n\nIt's beneficial for those men who are considered losers, who are looked down on, to focus on improving their lives elsehow. It allows them to improve their self-esteem, their happiness, without having to deal with people who despise them or having to crawl down to their knees asking for pity. All that with the additional benefit that it doesn't bother the people who despise them at all: it even manages to eliminate them from their social circles. So, it's a win-win situation for all people involved.\n\nI think it's a more than valid and beneficial option for men who are bound to be looked down on by the majority of women in terms of romantic and sexual relationships for things out of their control (ugly men, short men, small penis men). \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Minimum wage jobs should not be viewed as strictly jobs for teenagers or unskilled workers and instead should be viewed as legitimate careers + \n + \n* job - Any position where both employer and employee know, or should know, that the position is long-term temporary at best and that at some point the employee will move on.   \n* career - your chosen life's work.  If you work fast food your whole life, that is your career\n* minimum wage job - Any job, usually in the service industry, that generally requires little to no formal education, and generally pays between the federal minimum wage up to and including $15.00/hr.  \n\nMinimum wage is a hot topic of debate these days, and I'm sure a lot of visitors to this sub are tired of talking about raising, lowering, or eliminating the minimum wage but that isn't what this is about.  I did a search and couldn't find anything else that was similar to my stance so I'm hoping it will foster some new discussions.\n\nDuring every debate concerning minimum wage someone will always say something to the effect that \"minimum wage jobs aren't meant to support a family/are meant for teenagers and unskilled workers\" and I think that this line of thinking is just outright wrong.  \n\nThroughout the past 50 years, people took minimum wage service industry jobs when they were young/inexperienced in order to gain the experience that was required in order to land a production career.  That was the viewpoint, you got a minimum wage \"job\" in order to get the experience to start a \"career\" in the production world (whether directly producing something, or supporting those who do ie office staff, vendors, logistics, etc.).  \n\nAlso over that time, the economy in the US has gone from production based to service based.  This has caused a severe drop in production \"careers\" leaving nothing but the service industry left.  The service industry is now the career simply due to lack of other options.\n\n I joined the military when I was 20 years old because after working in the service industry at minimum wage for 5 years I finally landed a production job on an assembly line (this was in 1998). The money was better than anything I'd made previously, but not good enough to get ahead.  I ended up getting my girlfriend at the time pregnant and I saw the future that my current position offered and I wanted more so I enlisted. I spent 10 years working as an Aviation Electronics Technician before getting out to accept a position as a Federal Law Enforcement Officer with the US Forest Service. I worked at that position for 5 years before losing my job through no fault of my own. So there I was, a very highly skilled electronics tech, with 5 years of law enforcement experience, living in an area where 80% of the available jobs are minimum wage service industry and I needed a job. I applied everywhere....I mean everywhere. I filled out applications for Taco Bell, McDonald's, Walmart, etc. I got exactly 4 callbacks and 2 interviews during my job search where I was filling out 5-10 job applications per week...for 3 years before giving up. I couldn't get hired...why? Because for 15 years I made between $28-75k/year and every employer knows that there is no way I can support my family on minimum wage...and why would they pay me more when they can just pay someone else the minimum. I have been effectively unemployable in my current location since 2011 due in large part to the fact that everyone (including employers) knows minimum wage doesn't pay enough to support a single person, much less a family of six.\n\nI think the mentality that \"minimum wage jobs aren't careers and shouldn't pay enough to support a family\" is more destructive than it is beneficial.  \n\nTL;DR: Minimum wage jobs are no longer the sole realm of teenagers and the unskilled because the US doesn't produce anything anymore so those are the only careers available to most people. \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: \"Bulbous\" is a far grosser word than \"moist.\" + \n + (disclaimer: there is probably going to be some grody text below, so beware)\n\nYou've all probably heard it: \"moist\" is the grossest word in the English language. People responding to a [New Yorker Twitter poll](http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/words-came-in-marked-for-death) about the worst word in English overwhelmingly selected \"moist.\" [Buzzfeed](http://www.buzzfeed.com/hunterschwarz/why-moist-is-the-worst-word-ever-6zgv) talked about it in a full-on image-and-text bonanza. There's even [scientific research from Oberlin University and Trinity University (San Antonio)](http://mentalfloss.com/article/64984/science-behind-why-people-hate-word-moist) on why we hate the word so much. It's pretty well-documented: we don't like the word.\n\nHowever, I'd like to propose that \"moist\" is definitely not the worst word in the English language. There are plenty of words that are \"worse,\" but I'd like to focus on \"bulbous\" for the purpose of this CMV.\n\nThink about it in terms of the ratio of possible positive uses of the word vs possible negative uses. \"Moist\" has a lot of positive connotations. You might describe a delicious chocolate cake as \"moist,\" for example. You might also use moisturizer if your hands are feeling dry. (I mean, we're still selling things with that name! You'd think we'd switch from \"moisturizer\" if it were truly despicable.)\n\nCompare this with \"bulbous.\" I cannot think of a single positive connotation associated with the word. It's a word you'd use to describe something like a wart on a foot or a disgusting growth on a six-month-old container of yogurt. Using this metric, \"bulbous\" is a far grosser word.\n\nThe other argument I'll make here is that the mouth shape you make to say \"bulbous\" is way worse than that of \"moist.\" You have to twist it all sorts of disheartening ways - closed to open to squished close again to open again to a gross final-s sound. Comparatively, \"moist\" is a walk in the park - one quick flare of the mouth and you're done.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: In a fantasy world where the dead can rise, burial wouldn't be common + \n + That occurred to me when I played witcher 3. In that game, the dead not only can rise in the form of drowners and wraiths but can also be food for other types of dangerous monsters like ghouls. In fact, most cemeteries are very dangerous places for that reason and yet, still, every village has one.\n\nIn other fantasy worlds where zombies are also commonplace people still bury bodies just to have them rise a few days/months latter.\n\nIn any society that experienced supernatural phenomena related to the dead, I believe the dead would almost certainly be burned. Maybe a very few selection of people (kings and the elite) could have the \"burial\" privileges but that would be very few. The vast majority of the common folk would not do that.\n\nAs a matter of fact, even in our world when there is danger due to corpses (like in a big plague) mass burnings start. If the corpse would rise for brains I can't possibly see how anyone would just bury someone.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I don't think the BlackLivesMatter protester should have interrupted Sanders' rally. However, it makes sense to choose Sanders as the candidate to interrupt, rather than anyone else + \n + I know Sanders is probably the best candidate for BLM policies (though O'Malley is good as well), and that his supporters are probably the most likely to support BLM. This is exactly why I think he's the right choice.\n\nFirst, I think it means you get less backlash against the movement in general. If she were to interrupt another candidate, more people would use that as evidence against the BlackLivesMatter movement in general. That means more people would use the incident to negatively paint the entire BLM movement since they are less familiar with it, while the Sanders supporters who would be upset would be the least likely to do this.\n\nSecond, it forces Bernie to make a bigger deal out of racial injustice in his campaign. Even if he doesn't support the people who interrupt him, he has to at least issue some statement that says \"Why'd you pick on me? Here's everything I'm doing to help . . .\" and suddenly, it's a major part of his campaign.\n\nSanders *does* have a solid [page on racial injustice](https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice) on his site, but it is a little weak in terms of actual policy prescriptions. Compared to [O'Malley's page](https://martinomalley.com/policy/criminal-justice/), Sanders has a lot of work to do. Interestingly enough, O'Malley began to better flush out his policy on criminal just after he was interrupted by BLM protesters.\n\nForcing his hand in making his stances on racial justice more public and more thorough is the best way to make it a bigger campaign issue, and is the best possible result for the BLM movement at large.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: it makes no sense that the US government allows cars to go so fast + \n + Most governments (incl. the US) control the most minute details of cars allowed on their roads (turn signal color, seat belt configuration, fuel efficiency, structural specifications, etc). The vast majority of cars go something less than 90 mph at essentially all times, the only exception being criminals (severe and not so severe) and race car drivers. \n\nThere's no coherent reason that all 100 million light vehicles in the US should be physically capable of driving faster than 90 mph. This useless capability is clearly a risk to everyone on the road and plenty of people near the road, with no obvious benefit to anyone.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is nothing morally wrong with police revenue raising. + \n + When police introduce a new form of speed prevention through easier distribution of tickets or they crack down on speeders, the motivation behind it doesn't actually make a difference. Whether they are doing it to decrease chances of accidents or they are revenue raising, the power still lies completely in the hand of the person behind the wheel.\n\nEven if the police had the intention of revenue raising, that money still goes toward hiring more officers, putting more police cars on the road and getting better technology to combat road accidents. They aren't making anyone speed, they are just making the best of the fact that people are going to speed, so they might as well bring some revenue in from it.\n\n\n\nI now see that the motivations behind revenue raising contradict the motivations that the police service is created to have. If revenue raising was the goal, the Police service would not only be out for the wrong reasons, but the entire outcome of what they would achieve would be counterproductive to society as a whole. Due to this, revenue raising cannot be seen as morally sound.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I feel homophobia is a symptom of more deeply entrenched personal traits, and feel uncomfortable around ex-homophobes due to assuming these traits still exist. + \n + As a gay man, I can be extremely wary of other people for my own protection. I've always felt that homophobia is mainly a symptom of the willingness to hate other groups of people they have never met or gotten to know. Thus when I hear someone say \"I used to be homophobic until [insert \"my son came out,\" or \"my friend came out\" or etc.]\" I assume they still are willing to hate groups of people they haven't met, it's just now that they know a gay person \"gay people\" no longer fall under that category.\n\nWhile I am outwardly supportive when I run into these folks, inwardly I am uncomfortable to the point of being repulsed. Obviously it wouldn't be good to push for gay rights and then effectively punish homophobes for changing their minds towards being supportive, but it's hard to think in any way besides \"these people are still severely prejudiced or hateful, just not specifically towards me anymore, avoid avoid avoid!\" Please CMV!\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:The popular reaction toward the Cecil lion incident was emotional and hypocritical + \n + First, I make the assumption that there is a very large intersection between people complaining about Cecil the lion's death, and people who eat meat.  Given the prevalence of meat consumption in the U.S., and the popularity of the outrage toward the incident, I think this is a reasonable assumption.  Keeping that in mind, here are my arguments, in order of importance.  \n\n**1)** Cecil was 13 years old.  Males rarely even live to this age in the wild, so it was very likely that he would have soon been killed by another lion, had he been left alone.  Therefore, the damage done to the species is negligible.  \n\n**2)** Meat production necessitates production of methane, which is [**25 times more more potent**](http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html) than CO2 at warming the earth.  Beef and lamb (and other ruminants) are **very** high producers of methane, and animal agriculture is responsible for 26% of methane emissions in the U.S.  \n\nRuminant meat production (beef, lamb, bison, goat, etc.) also emits [an extremely large amount of CO2](http://www.theecologist.org/siteimage/scale/0/0/286401.jpg), which is the most familiar greenhouse gas in popular discourse.  Even pork and chicken emit 6 and 3 times, respectively, as much CO2 as vegetarian protein options.  \n\nMeat is unnecessary for a healthy diet, and there's a lot of evidence that cutting out red meat (the meats which make up the lion's share, pun intended, of greenhouse gas emissions) is actually beneficial to human health.  There's also growing evidence that methionine restriction is beneficial to humans.  All animal proteins from mammals and birds are high in methionine, plant proteins are low in it.  \n\nBy eating meat on a regular basis, particularly red meat, one directly exacerbates global warming, which would not only severely threaten the lion population, but also most complex life on earth.  \n\n**3)** Meat production also takes up far more space per calorie and per unit protein than plant production.  This means that native wild fauna are prevented from returning to their natural habitat, and if demand for meat rises, that they are also further pushed out of any remaining habitat they have.  \n\n**4)** The dentist who shot the lion paid $50,000 to have that privilege.  The GDP per head in Zimbabwe is about $950, so his actions put 50 people's annual salaries into the country.  \n\n**In summary:**  The lion was old, and had little value to the species.  Eating meat severely endangers all life on earth.  Eating meat also means further destruction of wild animals' habitats for pasture land.  The dentist also brought a large sum of money into the local economy in order to shoot the lion.  \n\nTherefore, anyone who is morally outraged about Cecil the lion's death and also eats meat regularly, particularly beef/lamb, is a hypocrite.  Thus, the majority of the outrage comes from a place of emotion (discrimination), and is not morally justified.  \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Being a whore/slut is not a bad thing + \n + Before I begin, I would like to clarify that my definition of the word whore/slut/tramp and the like when I was growing up meant a Woman/Girl who had a lot of sexual partners, (not the other definition, which means to have sex for money) and this is the definition I will be discussing here today.\n\nA person's view of what sex is and how it should be done is different for everyone. Some see it as just a casual thing, others a sacred act. But in the end, I doubt anyone would dispute the claim that a desire for sex is one of the most natural things about being human, secondary only to wanting food/water/shelter, and on equal standing to a desire for life fulfillment and companionship.\n\nSo why then, is having sex with a lot of people viewed as bad? Especially when you're taking the proper measures to make sure both you and your partner are safe, and you are not going to produce an unwanted baby....\n\nWomen in particular are the ones who get this sorta flack the most. It's very easy yet also extremely nasty to call a fellow girl a whore/slut/tramp etc when you want to discredit her. It's implied that a woman is somehow dirty or is a low life or what have you simply because she chooses to have a lot of sex.\n\nBut what happens when a guy has a lot of sex? He get's applauded for it. It's seen as him \"just doing what guys do.\" It's almost like it is encouraged. Even gay guys like myself don't get flack for having a lot of casual sex (we get shit for a totally different reason lmfao) but generally our straight allies don't tend to question our behavior all that much. At least, from my experience..\n\nSo why is it bad for a girl to have a lot of sex? I get that girls sexual \"wiring\" is different from guys as they generally leads to them having different/lower sex drives. But when a girl DOES have a high sex drive, and doesn't want a relationship, WHY IS THAT BAD?\n\nFootnote: Any girls out there reading this who like having lots of sex GOOD FOR YOU MAN. I support you.\n\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: \"_____ism = prejudice + power\" isn't a useful definition for discussing racism/sexism/etc outside of specific sociological contexts + \n + I want to start by saying that I understand how it can be very useful to talk about the importance power can play in discrimination dynamics and I think that distinction needs to be made when having serious academic discussions about the subject.  That being said, the \"power + discrimination\" definition of the various ___ism words is, unless I'm mistaken, a new addition to these words and as such isn't part of how the words are used nor how most people use them.  \n(Note: by this I mean that as these are \"newer\" definitions, they naturally aren't used by those who don't deliberately conform to newer trends.  Again, I could be wrong, but this seems like a safe assumption.)\n\nIt also seems like this definition is not useful in any intellectually honest context in that all it does is silence those who are complaining about non-traditional discrimination by focusing instead on the presumed misuse of \"racism\" and not on the situation in which they experienced discrimination, invalidating their experience and confusing those who aren't necessarily familiar with it's usage by introducing a new definition.   \n\nI guess the tl;dr is basically the power+ discrimination = ____ism definition isn't useful outside of explaining that power and pervasive discrimination has more of an impact than simply discrimination and the way it's used isn't actually useful in conversation.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Bus Rapid Transit is vastly superior to medium and heavy rail + \n + Update: By heavy rail, I am referring to the US definition that refers to metro rail services only, not commuter rail (travel outside the city) or intercity/national service.\n\n[Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit) has many definitions, but I'd like to define it in its maximum state, which is when [bi-articulated](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bi-articulated_bus), modernized buses operate metro style on reinforced, dedicated roadways with much greater distances between stops than on usual bus routes and with greater frequency than buses.\n\nReasons:\n\n* Many studies have shown that a BRT system supporting the same number of riders at the same frequency as a medium or heavy rail system will be much cheaper, both to operate and support and especially in installation. It is also faster to install such a system.\n\n* Where a disabled train has the potential to bring an entire metro line to a standstill, a disabled BRT bus may be in the way, but not a total obstruction, and can easily be towed or removed from BRT roadways via frequent exit ramps even on single lane systems. Train lines can also often be taken down just by a signaling problem, something as severe as a lightbulb burning out. Buses have no such weak points.\n\n* BRT relies on existing maintenance infrastructure and can utilize existing bus drivers with only a little extra training. Trains require a lot of specialized training for what seems to be less advanced work, and from my own experience with the [MBTA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Bay_Transportation_Authority) results in far less capable vehicle operators.\n\n* As was proven during the Boston winter of 2014-2015, trains offer no severe weather benefit, and as can be seen by the mass use of buses to replace train service, a BRT system would be much more weather durable for above ground systems, especially so for systems with dedicated roadways.\n\n* Buses usually are seen as less comfortable than a train, but on a dedicated roadway that has fewer to no turns and one that is reinforced to be less bumpy, a bus can be more comfortable, especially since it offers more seating capacity for the same amount of space than most rail lines. Buses can also be replaced or refitted much more often for comfort than trains, both due to price and ease of the process.\n\n* Buses are much better placed for adoption of automated operations than trains because of much more investment in the technology for cars and buses than trains. Even automated switching has proven to be an unreliable system at the WMATA and centralized train sensing, on the other hand, [disastrous](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2009_Washington_Metro_train_collision).\n\n\nI wanted to touch on another point:\n\n* I have been on trains that would not open their doors because it could not move completely onto a train platform (by 6-10 feet). A BRT would not have as much trouble letting people off if it didn't quite reach a station.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Police officers not shaking hands with people is a dick move and is part of the reason public perceptions of officers are so negative. + \n + Police officers not shaking hands with people is a dick move and is part of the reason public perceptions of officers are so negative. It serves to reenforce an \"Us vs. Them\" mentality. The main reason for not shaking hands with the public is safety, as it would put the officer in a vulnerable situation. However, is that not the point of a handshake? Offering you empty hand to a stranger shows trust and a mutual respect. Soldiers shake hands with civilians for this very reason. If an officer is so bad at threat assessment they will not shake hands with anyone who is not an officer, they should find a different job.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think there should be publicly available information on the \"best\" way to self-harm or have an eating disorder. + \n + It is very hard to find any information anywhere on what specifically are the danger factors with eating disorders and self harm, and how to do them more safely. All the easiest \"information\" to find online comes across very alarmist, and with clear agenda (to scare you away from the idea).\n\nThis sounds noble, but a lack of access to that information robs people of the opportunity to make the best possible decision, at a time when they are in a lot of danger and need all the help they can get. The lack of this information could well be contributing to the (significant) fatality rates eating disorders carry.\n\nI'm talking about practically helpful information, not directly aimed at stopping the reader from engaging in the risky behaviour. The types of foods that are safest, and most pleasant to throw up. The actual relative risks of the various possible negative outcomes. How to keep your metabolism active and take care of your skin, teeth etc. while calorie depriving. (I focus on eating disorders, because they are what I have experience with, but I'm sure similar advice exists for self-harm that could be useful).\n\nI understand that providing this information poses a serious risk of increasing the rates of uptake of eating disorders and self-harm. This strategy is by no means an end game, it's a band-aid. I believe it will increase rates, but decrease total harm caused by eating disorders and self harm, while we continue to work on more sustainable strategies to decrease these behaviours in the longer term. It's a band-aid solution, and I know those can be dangerous. But this problem is bad and getting worse, and it's time to accept that we need a band-aid to ease the bleeding while we find a better answer.\n\nI think this will help.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The US should make a $1,000 bill. + \n + Currently the largest widely circulating US note is the $100.  And US $100s [make up the large majority](http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/-100-bills-make-up-80-of-all-us-currency-but-why/265518/) of paper US dollars out there.  It is really all about the benjamins.\n\nThe USD $100 has been the largest bill since the 1960s, when larger notes ($500, $1,000, $5,000, and $10,000) were discontinued, [having last been printed in 1945.](http://web.archive.org/web/20070911204022/http://www.moneyfactory.gov/section.cfm/5/42)\n\nInflation means that [the 1969 value of $100](http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=100&year1=1969&year2=2015) is closer to $700 today.  So a $1,000 bill would be pretty close to the 1969 $100 bill.\n\nSo what are the upsides?\n\n1. It makes cash management easier.  Legitimate large transactions in cash still happen quite often.  It's simpler to do those with a small amount of cash, especially when counting out big stacks of $100s takes time, and in a public or semi-public place may attract attention, and result in [incidents like this.](http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-news/20081208/three-men-arrested-in-string-of-follow-home-robberies-from-casinos)  Plus, it reduces counting errors in big transactions.\n\n2. It helps out people in countries with confiscatory governments.  A huge chunk of US cash lives outside the US and acts as a safe haven for people whose local currencies and governments are unreliable.  Saving in the form of a smaller number of bills helps these people avoid detection, which is a good thing.\n\n3. It gives us space to honor someone new on a bill without all the fighting that comes from taking someone presently on a bill off.  Maybe FDR or Reagan (depending on your political leanings).\n\nAnd the downsides?\n\nA. Money laundering would be facilitated.  I don't think this can be gotten around so easily, but I also don't think cash money laundering is a huge problem in and of itself.  I don't know that it would be made much worse by this.\n\nB. Counterfeiting would be a problem, since the new bill would be a very juicy target.  The $1000 CAD [Birds of Canada note](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birds_of_Canada_%28banknotes%29) was highly counterfeited, and if you want to deposit one to a bank today, you need to have the serial number run to make sure it's legitimate.  This seems more solvable, especially if modern technology like polymer notes are used.  The [current Canadian banknotes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontier_Series) are an example of extremely hard to copy notes that could be used. \n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think not allowing people to pass on money to their kids when they die would be a good thing. + \n + I think that a 100% inheritance tax would be preferable to what we have now.\nI'll try and give a few arguments? \n\n* \"I've worked hard to give my kids a better life, why shouldn't I be allowed to?\". I sympathise with this one, but see it as short sighted. If we give stuff to people who haven't earned it then how should we choose who gets what? We're essentially punishing some people by not giving them stuff, and it seems like the way we're picking who to reward and punish here is based on who your parents are. Which seems unfair. \nNot to mention that if your parents have money to leave you, then the chances are you've had an upbringing which will already put you at an advantage. If your parents are very very rich, you'll have had incredible schooling, good food, holidays where you broaden your experience, chance to learn all sorts of things outside of school, you'll likely have been bought a house and car etc. If your parents are doing ok you'll have had good schooling and maybe a car and a few other advantages. If your parents are poor you won't have had any of that. And then to give people with all those advantages extra money, and not give it to poor people seems like compounding disadvantage.\n\n* \"The state has no right to anything I've earned\", fair enough, I can't say I disagree, my point here is more , what right does anyone have to anything you've earned? You're dead. You're not using it. Nothing to do with you any more. \n\n* \"I want to pass the house my kids grew up in onto them\", fine, as long as they live in it. If they ever rent it out or leave it empty then it should be taken off them. It's clearly not that emotionally significant if they do this and should be put to better use.\n\nJust as a quick side note, although I am including property, I'm not including that much other stuff. Things of emotional value people should definitely have. Profit? Not so much.\nI sort of want to change my view on this because I'm aware it's not something talked about much and so think I must have missed something? It seems very unfair to me but if it was that unfair surely it'd be mentioned sometimes? Also I'm hoping it's not but am aware that people may say my view comes from a position of resentment so I'd like to see any arguments that may convince me otherwise.\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Nobel Prizes should be given to all people involved in the project, not just to group leaders + \n + The times where one guy was working in his basement and made some groundbreaking discoveries are over. Nowadays research often requires a large number of people and collaborations. The group leader is instrumental in coordinating the research, but he rarely does the experiments himself. \nIt would therefore be only fair to include all people that actually worked on the project in the Nobel Prize.\n\nIn addition to that, I believe that Nobel Prizes often do not reflect the body of knowledge that is necessary to lead to a given discovery. Or in other words, there are lots of groups that go unnoticed, but without which the discovery would have been impossible.\n\nTL;DR: The Nobel Prize is a relic of the past because it doesn't reflect how team-focused, highly collaborative, cumulative and interdisciplinary science has become.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Humans are actually a very primitive species. Crimes like murder and rape are to be expected, are not inherently immoral, and we overreact to them because they break order in society. + \n + Okay, this is a tough, long one to write out and explain, but I'll do my best. Currently I am actually having trouble understanding why these crimes are inherently wrong, other than that if they were not thought of as terrible, all hell would break loose and there would be no order. I am honestly open to changing my view (I even desire to change it, as I think I'm becoming extremely cynical). For some background I am in a graduate program in neuroscience. \n\nMoving on...I am sure someone might say \"well how would you like it if you/your family were raped/murdered\", but I feel that kind of reinforces my point - this reason just shows we are afraid of backlash, and thus order in society is necessary. \n\n---> First of all, despite what we pretend to be, I honestly believe humans are actually very primitive. This means they are violent, still think with their \"reptilian brains\", and except outliers, are trying to fulfill their evolutionary/biological purpose - to create offspring.  Examples of what I see as proof for the primitive claim: \n\na) Perhaps some will point to the vast increases in science in technology as evidence that we are in fact not primitive, but 99.9999% of those increases come from 0.00001% of the population. Does the average human (on a global scale) really have anything to do with sending a man up to the moon or discovering a cure for a disease?\n\nb) Incredible amount of violence. The Holocaust was not too long ago...hundreds of thousands of soldiers/civilian supporters/etc all advocating for and carrying out genocide that killed millions. And that is just one example (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_toll). I don't believe that a handful of \"evil\" people could have carried these out - instead they were carried out by a group, albeit smaller, like 10% or so, and supported by something like 40%, and shown indifference by the majority of the rest. Again, need I mention ISIS, American acts against Natives, African tribe warfare, the list goes on. I believe every single human (yes you behind the computer screen) is capable of shocking violence or brutality. Our capacity and frequency of violence shows we are primitive.\n\nc) Factors in sexual attraction. This is a big one, because almost every single human is \"guilty\" of it. Both men and women will say they are looking for someone who is \"kind, intelligent, etc\", but much research has shown the most attractive trait women look for is height. The biggest reason for this is evolution - a bigger hunter/gatherer, protector, even dominator of women. Do women in cushy Western society today really need a big guy to protect them...I don't think so. For men, it is a combination of fertility signs (e.g. hip ratio) and youth. Again, personality goes out the window when you are looking at a woman with a beautiful figure. If you think about it, the sexual preferences of a human today (height, strength, resources for women...or beauty, fertility for men) are honestly closer to the sexual preferences of our closest relative, the chimpanzee, than to some mythical advanced human civilization that places the utmost value on compassion, intelligence, etc. Again, to me this shows that we are quite primitive.\n\nd) There is a similar primitive basis in other human ideas, like blind patriotism, or even racism in all aspects of society, from dating to careers (similar to animosity between tribes of chimpanzees, and attempts to maintain social hierarchy within tribes). Another one is harmful religious beliefs and traditions held by majority of humanity (showing a lack of understanding for science, progress). Not to bring another argument into this debate, but a good example is circumcision - 60% of male babies in the USA will be circumcised (99% for non-medical reasons), and 100-200 will die from complications, although thankfully there are a few societies, like Germany, where this is illegal, it still shows you how primitive we really are. Same thing (worse health effects for most types) on the other side of the planet with FGM. \n\n----> Thus, I think we've fooled ourselves into thinking we have become so advanced (morally, scientifically) as a species and civilization. In fact, we are extremely primitive, and I think the outrage and shock that we feel when we hear of a rape or murder victim (or any other serious crime) is honestly just a farce. Of course I don't mean to say that people who feel sad and angry are lying, but I mean that our empathy here stems from societal teachings. \n\nGiven what we are capable of, given our track record in history, is it really so surprising if a man rapes a woman? After all, if we are this primitive, we are all just trying to spread our genes, create offspring, survive, reproduce, and so on.\n\nExample - I might say: Isn't it wrong that a compassionate, intelligent person will not reproduce if he/she does not meet the primitive biological preferences of humans today? Well, you would say: It might be wrong, but it's just because of the sexual preferences (read: primitive nature) of humanity. In the same way, you might say: Isn't it terribly wrong if a person rapes another, steals all their money, kills their enemies and competition? I might say: It might be wrong, but it's just because of the primitive nature of humanity. \n\n---\n\n**In summary: humans are actually very primitive, as is evident by their violence, sexual preferences, racism, and harmful religious practices. Murder, rape, theft is to be expected in such a primitive species. We overreact to these crimes because it disrupts the order of society, not because they are inherently immoral.**\n\nAnyway, please CMV! By the way, I talked about murder/rape because it is easy to feel empathy for the victims, but this extends to all other crimes. Also, no religious arguments please. \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Realistic graphics in video games are no longer amazing - they're boring now and detract from other possible priorities developers can focus on. + \n + I'm not inherently against realistic games, but resent their ubiquity as well as the fact that they're the top priority.  I see most of the games in the store, and they just don't speak to me.  I enjoyed Brothers A Tale of Two Sons far more than Red Dead Redemption, The Witcher 3 and Skyrim.\n\n1. Games were invented as an abstract expression.  In the NES days, games weren't literal and drawn to scale.  Mario wasn't literally jumping on turtles.  I appreciate games today wanting to add story and human elements, but all games will ever be (in terms of immersion) is an abstraction with more realistic sprites. \n\n2. With realistic graphics, there's little room for imagination now that everything is literally represented.  With games like Doom and The Wind Waker, you could fill in plenty of blanks and make lots of assumptions about where you were.  \n\n3. Realistic games have a short shelf life.  In 3 years, people aren't going to care.  Notice how Bioshock 1 still looks great from an artistic perspective to this day, but Call of Duty Modern Warfare (released the same year) looks ugly.\n\n4. Being wow'ed by realistic graphics is a hedonic treadmill.  When a big graphical leap comes, you're at first amazed at how far video games have come.  Shortly after, it's just another game with good graphics.  Why chase a fleeting moment?\n\n5. We've had too many realistic games in the past 10.  When Crysis and Gears of War came out, they looked amazing.  Now every game looks like that.\n\n6. Current gen consoles aren't a big step up, compared to leaps in previous generations.  Even remasters are starting to push the hardware limits.  Going to 1080p today wasn't nearly as significant as the jump to HD in 2005 or the jump to 3D in 1995.  There's only so much you can do with realism this gen.\n\n7. Realistic graphics usually result in (sports aside) games that are violent.  They're ubiquitous.  Ubisoft has made 11 Assassin Creed games but can't make 1 3D Rayman game.  Sony abandoned Jak for more violent titles.  Violent games aren't inherently bad (I enjoyed games like L.A. Noire and The Last of Us), but don't people get tired of playing the same game over and over?  Don't people get tired of shooting soldiers or beating up zombies all of the time?\n\n8. There are more important priorities.  Story, characters, player reward/motivation systems, depth of mechanics, balance of meta/strategies, unique online/social experiences, user created content sharing and such.\n\n--- \n\n\nI was inspired to make this thread by seeing realistic demos of Zelda such as Ocarina's Temple of Time on the Unreal engine or Nintendo's Wii U tech demo.  And I'm not by principle against realistic Zelda.  I'd love to have one when technology can handle it without costs being crazy.  But just because someone looks amazing in a trailer, doesn't mean the game will be anymore amazing than Ocarina of Time's graphics when we actually play it.  It will be something like.  Wow!!!  Zelda looks real!!! ...Now what?\n\n---\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: after watching Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones, I think TV shows' quality is bad and I don't want to bother seeing any more of it. [Warning: spoilers ahead.] + \n + Before you downvote me, please hear me out and try to CMV with a well articulated comment. I would like to keep this a civil discussion without resorting to shutting people up with downvotes.\n\nI will try to explain my opinion.\nWARNING: looong rant ahead.\n\nI first watched Breaking Bad. \nI've never been into TV shows since they tend to be time consuming and (IMO) tend to appeal to a broader audience, but since everyone told me to watch it I did. \n\nThere are definitely some high points in the show: Bryan Cranston, Aaron Paul and Giancarlo Esposito gave terrific performances, and without them I think the show would not have had the success it had. \nGus' arc is IMO the peak of the show, with Gus' back story and general awesomeness. \nThe other characters though, feel irrelevant and without much to offer. There is the cop who conveniently discovers Heisenberg's identity on the toilet, his wife who is just... There, and the same goes for Walter's son. Skylar is a hypocrite and exists only to judge others from her morality horse. The other villains are forgettable and the psycho that appears towards the end of the show is a convenient plot device to kill Jesse's love interest and doesn't have any interesting trait. He's completely unidimensional. \nIn the end, the series felt like an action movie with a few interesting characters and some pretty good cinematography, but nothing mind blowing. \n\nI still liked it though and I can see why people like it but if this is considered the best TV show ever, then I question TV shows' quality. \n\n\nNow for Game of Thrones: I didn't read the books nor do I intend to unless it's significantly better than the show. \n\nI will try to keep my cool but I really DESPISE this show. I feel about it the same way I feel about Attack On Titan (yes, I hate that one too): interesting premise, terrible characters and pacing, and lots of CHEAP. SHOCK. VALUE. \n\nThe show always goes for the most shocking outcomes for the sake of shock value. People praise this show for being unpredictable and killing off anyone without distinction. Yet all the people who die are COMPLETE FUCKING IDIOTS and their deaths feel forced to avoid, god forbid, that the story might start getting going. \n\nWhen the Stark guy knows the King's wife has an incestous affair and suspects her to have tried to kill a fucking child, the guy who loves his wife tells him not to trust him and his daughter tells him about people wanting him DEAD he just claims the Iron Throne without considering that maybe, just MAYBE, he could get arrested/killed. \n\nHe could singlehandedly fix the corruption of the South, or at least try to while others tried to kill him, but we can't have that, now can we? The story must keep not going anywhere. If his death could have been at least plausible then it would have been okay.\n\nThen there is the dragon girl, who gets married to someone she doesn't love, is raped and then just falls in love with him. Dafuq, Stockholm's syndrome maybe?\n\nAnd at the end of season 3 we have other Starks dying because they're complete fools. Marrying another woman when you have already promised to marry the daughter of a powerful ally sure is a bright move, Einstein! After that I just dropped the series.\n\nIt's just like a soap opera, with tons of violence and sex, where characters who are considered \"grey\" are just flat without any interesting development other than the dwarf (I don't even remember those guys names) and maybe the Stark tomboy little girl and the Stark who is at the Night Watch. There is a woman with an incestous affair with his pretty brother, a king who likes drinking, eating and fucking, a king who's a naive imbecile, a dragon girl with Stockholm's syndrome who becomes a badass cuz DRAGONS, a psychopathic teen king who somehow still hasn't died in 3 seasons, a guy whose penis makes the thinking and dooms his family to death, etc. \n\nTHIS is considered good TV. If this is the best TV has to offer, then I don't even want to bother watching any more of it.\n\nPlease try to CMV.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: No bird should ever be a pet, nor does it want to be. Get a cat instead + \n + Birds are meant to fly, not to be caged, and having a bird as a pet, in a cage, is incredibly selfish on your part.  Get a cat. What is the allure of having a bird in a cage anyway?  It just sits there, somtimes flies around it's little cage but on the whole it feels trapped.  Birds should NEVER be pets.\n\nIf you're that lazy that 1) you want a pet, but 2) you don't want to put very much effort into it, get a cat.  They are very low maitenance and very self reliant.  And unlike birds, there are cats out there just begging to be rescued.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: In its current form, Snoo is not a very good logo for Reddit. + \n + For a social media site such as Reddit, a well-designed logo can be a great way to increase visibility and build recognition over the internet. Although Snoo has become associated with Reddit as the site grows, I believe there are several shortcomings with it when compared to logos of other social media sites/programs:\n\n* Snoo isn't evocative of Reddit's name or function. [Viewing Snoo out of context](http://marketingland.com/wp-content/ml-loads/2013/01/Reddit-Logo.jpeg), as an uninitiated viewer, does nothing to relate the concept of the site in any way. In contrast, the logo of [Twitter](https://g.twimg.com/Twitter_logo_blue.png), for example, effectively and subtly hints at the site's function. As a stylized songbird, it's easy to connect the words 'twitter' and 'tweets' to the sounds a bird makes. In addition, the short, simple messages of birds can also easily relate to the function of twitter. With Snoo, no such obvious connection exists. This could be forgiven if Snoo made some sort of connection to the name of Reddit, like how Facebook and Google+ contain letters, but again, no such connection exists.\n\n* Snoo is too complicated to be widely recognizable. [Simple, dynamic designs](http://www.1stwebdesigner.com/10-logo-design-tips/) are characteristic of good logos. The problem with Snoo is that it's too intricate to be as effective as the simple logos of Facebook, Pinterest, and even Digg. This problem becomes especially obvious when viewing icons on pages for quick sharing of links. [Take a look at this image](http://graphicdesignsinspiration.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Free-Social-Media-Icon-Sets-For-Designers-08.jpg). You have clean, simple logos like Google+, Skype, and Tumblr, before you get to Snoo's head. Once again, if you are unfamiliar with the logo as Reddit's, it's very difficult to guess what site it might be.\n\n* Snoo doesn't make use of any interesting or creative colors or designs. Facebook has its characteristic blue. Snapchat has its distinctive white-on-yellow. YouTube has its red. Reddit has a character in black outline with a white body, apart from two small red eyes. I believe that a distinctive color palette would draw more positive attention than its current form, which seems to fall under the radar to non-Redditors. It also makes a heavy use of negative space, which means it can be drastically and unintentionally altered from placing it on different backgrounds. \n\n* Finally, Snoo's upright orientation makes it difficult to place on social media buttons without altering it. [Take a look at another example of icon buttons](http://cdn.designsrazzi.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/free-flat-social-media-icons.jpg). Although some logos have their full titles truncated to fit into boxes, Snoo has to have its entire lower body removed in order to fit in the same space. While it does make for a more detailed logo on the site itself, its upright orientation harms its versatility when being displayed from elsewhere. The lack of consistency across platforms is another shortcoming of Snoo, in my opinion. \n\nOverall, I think an update of Snoo to help it fit in with logos of other social media websites, as well as a general aesthetic cleanup, would be great for Reddit in the long-term. To truly make Reddit into a more visible and popular website, a good, clean logo is important.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is nothing wrong with requiring (medically-appropriate) vaccination for children to attend public schools + \n + Recently I've heard a lot about mandatory vaccination schemes in public schools. I don't see any problem with them. I've heard a few counterarguments, but they seem unsatisfying to me, for example:\n\n1. My child, my choice. Well, yes. And this is the closest one to a valid argument, IMO. But of course we put limits on what parents are allowed to do and choose for their children; you can't deprive your child of food or education (in the US) and be allowed to keep your child, so clearly it is NOT all your choice. While refusing vaccines is nowhere near on that level, not EVERY possible choice is equally acceptable, because your child is a person, not a piece of property. If the child had the capacity to refuse, I might be swayed, but unfortunately young babies can't understand vaccines on any reasonable level. And, more importantly, it IS still your choice under school vaccination schemes; you can choose to homeschool your child, or send them to private schools that don't care. Those choices aren't available to everyone and that's unfortunate (for far more important reasons than this), but...that's our current system anyway. Being rich gets you all kinds of benefits. I don't think this is different from being able to buy better medical care, better schools, better food, private tutors, and worlds more for your child if you have the resources (I do support basic income, which would alleviate this issue, but that's neither here nor there as we haven't got it). Public schools are a governmental service, and there are rules about who can and cannot use them. I think it is fine to say only vaccinated (or medically exempt) people can use them.\n\n2. Not everyone can get vaccinated. That's why doctors are able to issue waivers for those not medically right for vaccination. This already happens and should continue.\n\n3. Vaccines are dangerous. Not as dangerous as rampant infection. Honestly this is its own debate...But suffice it to say you are going to need some pretty major evidence to possibly CMV. I don't think it exists, but I won't rule it out. I don't really want to talk about vaccine efficacy as it has been done to death, but I guess if there's some truly amazing evidence...\n\n4. Everyone is entitled to an education. They still are. Any unvaccinated child either needs to attend a non-public education option, be homeschooled or eschooled, provide a medical certificate that says they shouldn't be vaccinated, or get the shots. I don't necessarily have a strong view on the best way to handle noncompliance, and don't know enough about policy to say what would be most effective and just. Maybe fines for the parents? The same punishment as parents who refuse to send their kids to school or teach them at home for other reasons? I would not support removing the child from the home or incarcerating the parents, or any other severe punishment.\n\nWhat would change my view: evidence that such a policy would have clear public health risks, would unavoidably keep children from getting an education, or would have some other major negative effect on society. I also am open to the idea that it is fundamentally unjust, though it doesn't seem that way to me right now.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Putting hot water in ice cube trays is counterproductive. + \n + Apparently, a sizable minority of people make their ice using hot water from their taps.  They believe that some version of the Mpemba effect will allow the hot water to freeze more quickly than cold water would.  I find it plausible that the hot water would start to freeze faster (with a warm center that takes longer to complete freezing) but I cannot imagine how the cubes would freeze solid faster than if cold water were used.\n\nThose of you who believe in this practice, please CMV.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Nothing is wrong with homosexuality, or gay marriage. (Sorry if this was talked about previously) + \n + Hi Reddit,\nI know this topic has probably been spoken of millions upon millions of times on this sub, however I'm still semi new to Reddit. \n\nAnyway, last year I had an assignment to write about any opinion I had and why. I am pro gay marriage, always have been. Part of that paper was to write an opposing side, how someone of the opposite view could shut down my opinion. I had difficulty doing this myself, so I turned to my dad. He is completely against homosexuality. However, when I asked, he couldn't give a LEGITIMATE reason. All he said was \"it's gross\" and \"against the Bible.\" Well, \"it's gross\" isn't necessarily a valid point I can include into a formal paper, and not everybody agrees with the Bible or religion, so I couldn't really use that either. I turned in the paper using the Bible excuse, got an A, but it's still bothered me since. With all of the people I've talked to, nobody has given me a real opposition. \nChange my view!\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:the nuclear bombings on japan can not be justified . + \n + 1.firstly most people who say it is justified don't understand what \"justices\" and are using it to say \"it was ok !\"in a more powerful way so a more fitting way of describing the bombings would be it was acceptable for the time and given the options.kill on innocents is not justice nor is it justifiable.\n\n2.the argument \"but more people would have been killed!\" is not valid as we will never know if more people were saved, but more importantly if we can't tell if more people were saved how would the people at the time know ?adding to this that japan would of surrendered if given the option which can be argued as more people saved then the bombings (not a unconditionally surrender)\n\n3.saying it was justified trivialises the death, decision caused by them and ignores the moral imprecations of the event.(this is a observation made on reddit) that in discussions people are more focused in saying it is justified and giving the same reasons, rather than actually thinking about the event or have any meaningful decision .\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think government tracking and personal data collection are good and should be continued/expanded + \n + I'm a programmer, and I am really interested in data science and machine learning. I think it started at my current job, where occasionally I was told to scrape websites and collect leads for the marketers (which is probably me favorite part of the job). It feels really fulfilling to me to make something (a bot) that does what a person couldn't do in a month's full time work. That, and it feels rewarding knowing I gathered something(s) with immediate marketable value. That, and that, and the idea of all of the potential uses and benefits to having this information. \n\nI've been to a lot of hackathons (programming-marathons) and open-data is an awesome opportunity to make something cool and resume-building quickly (hackathons are usually only 24-48 hours overnight). The more data out there, the more possibilities there are to help the public or invent something novel.  \n\nI think of the government the same way, if the data they collect and use helps their ability to govern then I am all for it.  \n\nAnd on a personal level, I don't care that whoever is tracking my phone, reading my emails, whatever. I'm just glad someone is using my information to make my life and the lives of others to be better.  \n\n-If the NSA collected less information, it could be more useful and usable.    \n-Your Emails, much like music or physical letters, *should* be your own private property, even if they aren't now  \n-I can't both agree that the NSA should collect this information and the NSA should do this legally, because they are collecting it illegally it is a logical fallacy  \n-By agree to this, I take away other people's privacy rights, and that's not okay  \n-There could be new data or ways of analyzing it that would more seriously violate privacy or give power, and this is setting a bad precedent  \n-Mass surveillance is bad historically\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: it makes sense to have a standardized test used for undergraduate admissions based more on thought process than knowledge + \n + Tldr there should be a reasoning based undergraduate admissions test\n\nThe SAT is getting a large redesign soon.  Many have said its focus on reasoning versus knowledge had a negative effect on college admissions.  Reasons like it favored those of higher income backgrounds and whatnot.\n\nHowever, I think it makes sense to have a reasoning test available to students.  The ACT is an achievement test.  It is available to assess knowledge.  A students grades in their classes also demonstrate what they have learned.  Now, with the test change, there will be nothing to assess reasoning abilities.  If a student is truly at a disadvantage because of their background they are able to take the other test.  Providing a different kind of test allows students to play to their strength.\n\nAnd the only argument I hear against it, that it favors economically advantaged students, doesn't make sense.  Economically advantaged students are going to benefit with any test.  They have access to more resources that can either help with their thinking process or with their knowledge base.  A reasoning test allows a disadvantaged students to actually stand out if their school was sub par in terms of teaching, but the student had good reasoning abilities.\n\nSorry if this is formatted weirdly, I'm on mobile.  And if this doesn't make sense it's for the same reason.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think all tobacco products should be illegal. + \n + I think that cigarettes and chewing tobacco should be outlawed. There are no positive benefits whatsoever.\n\n\n Smokers say its relaxing, but have you ever seen one stressing because they need a smoke but ran out/cant leave to smoke at the moment etc, so if it is relaxing, it also adds to stress. Not to mention it's relaxing because it's a form of self fulfilling effect. It is relaxing because their body wants those chemicals, and they are giving it to the body.\n\n\nAll the unhealthy effects are well known, I'm not going to list all them.\n\n\nIt pollutes the enviroment. All the chemicals in the smoke, and the filters... how many smokers actually throw away the cigarette butts. I am sure 95% of them just flick them on the ground... look around outside anyplace where people go on smoke breaks. They are everywhere, blowing around, getting in the water, and animals eat them.\n\n\nIm sure the main counterpoint to this is going to be \"how can you or the government tell me what i can do with my body and health\"...\n\nThey already do though. They pass laws all the time because they say it's for our own good. Seatbelt laws for one example. The only person you hurt by not wearing one is yourself, but they make that a law. They have laws about what toxins and chemicals can be in our bug sprays, paint, and food, so it isn't like they dont already do that.\n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Chipotle workers should be replaced with robots + \n + Every time I walk into Chipotle, the line is 20 people deep and is moving slower than a shit smear.  The bottleneck for this clusterfuck is always the incredibly inefficient burrito assembly line, staffed by 4-5 individuals who are constantly talking over each other, confused, etc.\n\nIt would be much easier if I could walk up to the assembly line, and press a button for \"bowl.\"  Then a button for \"rice.\"  Then a button for \"black beans.\"  With each button press, robots would squirt an appropriate amount of food onto my tray as it moves down the assembly line.\n\nAnother benefit to this approach is that the burrito assembly line could become \"multi-threaded.\"  Rather than having ONE assembly line, Chipotle restaurants could be configured to have two or three assembly lines.  On top of all this, it would save Chipotle a massive amount of money in labor costs.\n\nI do not mean that we should replace 100% of Chipotle restaurant staff with robots!  There should still be humans there to prepare the food, and to ensure quality.  I'm mainly talking about replacing the 4-5 people on the food assembly line with robots.  There would probably be one person monitoring assembly line quality.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I don't think a communist society could work + \n + I'd first like to say that I am not experienced in this topic, so I apologize if I offend anybody's ideology. \n\nA communist society requires, if I recall correctly from my conversation with my Marxist friends, that means of production are in the hand of the workers and that no propriety is private. All service being public and everyone being paid the same wage with heavy income tax.Which would eventually leading to the abolition of wage/money.\n\nThe problem I see with this is that without  money a communist society would lose it's ability to do business with other countries, bartering not being a stable enough way of obtaining goods. The only way I see it working out is if the whole  or very substantial percentage of the planet became communist and hence incorporated in a greater system or having a closed economy which no country has.Now the big problem, I have with that is that contrarily to our current system which has varying degrees of privatization and interventionism, communism leaves little place for those variations, it is unlikely that every country on this planet will adopt the same exact political system (due to there different situations both cultural and economic). I don't even think there has been a point in human society where that happened.\n\nAlso, there is the pretty common argument of lack of incentive.Money is a tool that insures regularity, you regularly get paid and with that pay you can seek out things that stimulate and please you or that you need for your health and safety.Without it the motivator that seems to remain is love for one's craft or love for the collective which are much less stable and prone to decrease time goes on for most people. It may seem like I am digressing, but your nervous system (including your pleasure centers) is made so that once you face a stimuli enough times in the same way , you develop a level of habituation. For example, once you've had your shirt on all day, you no longer feel it unless information relating to it is pointed, once you do a certain activity that brought you pleasure each day your nervous system no longer releases dopamine (making you feel pleasure) and have to modify it to get the same high (think of an addict taking a larger intake or a food/porn addict who develops more eclectic tastes relating to his/her addiction). In short, banking on peoples love for their jobs seems to be risky as those people would eventually no longer be as stimulated doing their job and without any need of wage they would be free to quit, not get a job or lower their assiduity. \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I don't think Target should have made everything \"gender neutral\". + \n + Okay, so first of all, I'm not necessarily a liberal, but I'm no conservative either. I'm sort of a mixed bag; there are some liberal things I agree with (Raising taxes on the rich, welfare, increased minimum wage, equal pay rates on both men and women [although this has been a hot topic on whether it's true or not, because where I work both men and women are paid the same] but I also have a few conservative views like this one; now I just want to say, I have no problem with girls playing with trucks or boys playing with dolls. However, I don't agree with Target making everything \"Gender neutral\". If someone wants to dress their boy in \"masculine\" colors or their baby girl in \"feminine\" colors, then let them do it. The same way vice-versa. However, I think that getting rid of gender specific toy aisles is stupid because it just makes it harder for parents to find their children toys; some boys want masculine toys, just like some girls want feminine toys. If a girl wants a masculine toy, the parent could easily go to the boy's section and buy a toy from there for his or her daughter; in fact, my parents did this often. However, what I don't agree with is dressing (young) boys in girl's clothes or painting his nails. I don't really think parents should be discussing this sort of thing until the child is a teenager (or around that age). Another thing I noticed is that many \"SJWs\" have said that buying masculine toys for boys makes them masculine. Surely buying feminine toys for him would make him feminine if this was the case?\n\nTL;DR, I think boys and girls will act masculine or feminine when they grow up regardless of the toys they are given or the clothes their parents give them.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think Insurance companies should be able to disqualify people for pre-existing conditions. + \n + So, every time I see people defend Obamacare, they point out that companies having to accept people with pre-existing conditions is a major benefit. Maybe I'm missing something here, and I hope you guys can help change my mind.\n\nSo, in my view, corporations don't actually have to care about anyone. All they care about is money. They are businesses, they exist to make a profit. Absolutely nobody should be surprised by this. They don't have a moral obligation to help anybody or be compassionate or think of the children or any of that stuff. Businesses don't have a heart, just two columns of numbers.\n\nInsurance companies only exist to make money. The way they do that is by investing in different people, at different rates, to end up making more money than they spend. The perfect customer from their perspective is one who pays their bill every month and never gets sick or costs them money. The worst customer is one who is constantly sick and costs them a ton of money.\n\nSo when a young, smart, healthy, middle class person comes in for insurance, he's probably a good investment. Odds are, he will make his payments, and probably not develop any serious issues. A safe bet.\n\nNow you have an obese smoker with asthma, poor eyesight, a heart murmur, epilepsy, diabetes, and leprosy, and he wants insurance. Guess what pal? You are a terrible investment! The odds of you earning the company more money than you cost is almost zero. He's a terrible bet and no sane employee should even consider giving this person insurance.\n\nI understand this means these people can't get insurance, but that's not the companies problem. If the government wants to step in an insure people with poor health, that's fine, but I don't see why they should force insurance companies to make bad investments.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There's nothing wrong with \"children on leashes.\" + \n + In fact, they are not leashes - they are harnesses. \n\nDisneyland a couple years ago, my brothers, sister, cousin, dad and stepmom are walking past the dumbo ride, towards the Matterhorn. \nMy cousin is about 12. It's very, very crowded. You see a lot of people with young kids on \"leashes\"  - harnesses. My dad makes a comment about people walking around with young children on harnesses, calling them leashes.  \n\n\n\n\nMeanwhile, my cousin kind of disappears, wanders off. We found her 30 seconds later - not a big deal. She's 12 and she's so spacy she wanders off. \nI'm not saying a 12 year old should be wearing a harness - that'd be humiliating at her age, but when she was younger she used to do that too. Just vanish into a crowd in a matter of seconds. \n\n\n\nAnyway, child harnesses are extremely different from dog leashes:\n\n* They do not go around the child's neck. \n* Parents do not hold leashes in their hand\n* A harness is a strap tied around the parents' waist and a strap tied around the child's torso. \n* You keep a dog on a leash to control it's behavior. \n* You keep a child on a harness because Disneyland is extremely crowded and I could very easily see how you can turn around for 2 seconds and your 5 year old has wandered off, vanished, or been picked up by a child snatcher. \n\nTL;DR: **Children on \"leashes\" which are actually harnesses is in no way tantamount to treating your children like animals.**\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Single life is incredibly depressing. + \n + Hoping that this sub can help!\n\nIt seems that my life is in a weird period, and will stay this way until my view is fixed. \n\n23 year old male. I've been working in a startup for the last 3 years and it's grown tremendously. I make ~45K a year and have my own place with a few roommates - leasing a car, keeping busy with music... It all seems to be solid from all measures.\n\nBut it isn't enough. I don't have a girlfriend (likely due to a desperate vibe that I emit) and really find that to be the only thing I'm concerned with. I was in a relationship for 5 years - that ended 7 months ago, and I'm not yet over it. Before that, I had a 2.5 year relationship. A lot of thinking has led to a lot of learning - for example, I didn't end either of those relationships. Once I'm content... I never leave. That must be coming from a deeper belief/view at play.\n\nSo many cliches make sense, but are frustrating and have been functionally unhelpful:\n\nYou want what you can't have\nIf you love something let it go\nTime heals all wounds\n\nLogically, they all make sense - but from a deeper level, it doesn't seem to hit (or maybe I'd be changing how I view things).\n\nEven though it isn't a pressing issue at the moment, I haven't finished my degree - that will forever irk me (due to possible financial outcomes). Don't really have the drive to finish it.\n\nI've dealt with depression and it all seems to come down to a belief I hold deep down - that romantic relationships are the most significant thing in life. My last relationship ending was mostly my fault - I've learned what not to do moving forward, but don't have an opportunity to correct it with my last partner.\n\nI'm not looking for female friends - I'm looking for a lover, for a partner. Being able to sleep and wake up next to someone you care about is one of the coolest things I've ever experienced.\n\nMy view makes life very frustrating and unenjoyable without a relationship, which I don't currently have. I write to you here with a few things in mind:\n\n1. I'm not happy with how life is when single\n2. This is attributed to my worldview\n3. I realize that the significance I place on relationships is likely unhealthy\n4. I don't know how to change it\n5. I've spoken to many people about this (family, friends, therapist, ex's parents)\n6. Nothing said has been enough to hit me on a belief/view level.\n7. After 7 months I've been unable to solve this on my own\n\nPlease CMV.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Many Parents Have a Lop-Sided Reaction to People Mentioning the Joys of Not Having Children + \n + I've noticed this in person, but it is even more apparent on reddit. Almost anywhere on reddit, if there is a comment that gets popular that mentions something good about not having children or something bad about having children it seems there will soon be people replying stuff like \"Geez, apparently all of the child haters are out on reddit today.\" I find this to be an oddly aggressive pushback considering parents often spend a huge amount of time advertising to others exactly how amazing their children are.\n\nTo a certain degree, I think I can understand why this might be. It is kind of like getting a tattoo. Being a parent is something that only goes one direction. Unless you're willing to be practically socially ostracized, then once you have a child there is no going back. So just like getting a tattoo, people suddenly become much more aggressive about defending the practice in the face of even mild disagreement.\n\nThis also reminds me of a similar problem with religious belief. Where people will share their deepest religious convictions in public and make definitive statements about how the universe works and then respond with an out-sized reaction when someone posts something about how they don't really think any of that makes much sense.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The number of sexual partners is more balanced across the board in men than in women. + \n + So, it's obvious to anyone who took a math class that the average number of sex partners between straight men and straight women **must** be the same. \n\nHowever, the median can be different.\n\nAccording to the CDC, the median number of **opposite-sex** partners in a lifetime is **6.6** for men, and **4.3** for women. Basic mathematics concludes this: Take two sets of numbers (set M and set F). M and F have the same mean, but F has a smaller median than M. Therefore, the numbers in M are more balanced across the board than the numbers in F.\n\nWhat I mean by this is that, according to the data, promiscuous women are **more promiscuous** than promiscuous men, and celibate women are **more celibate** than celibate men.\n\nMath never lies, but feel free to change my view.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: shouldn't anyone under 18 (or at least some set age) always be tried as a minor? + \n + if two people commit the same crime and are the same age why shouldn't they be tried the same? If all men ARE created equal how is it fair to try them differently?\nI can see an argument to be made about being within 3 months of 18 or something on par, but it doesn't seem right. Just because someone is more/less mature shouldn't matter. if you can arbitrarily determine whether they are tried as a minor or adult doesn't that begin a trial by essentially saying \"America has a fair and just judicial system, but don't worry we are treating you differently.\"\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: It doesn't make sense that saying \"bless you\" when someone sneezes is polite. + \n + This is something that's always bothered me, all the way back to when I was a kid. I never understood why it was considered polite to say \"bless you\" after someone had sneezed. \n\nFrom my understanding, because people believed sneezing was a demon being expelled from your body, they would say \"bless you.\" Nowadays, that doesn't really make sense, and I doubt that anybody believes that is the reason people sneeze. \n\nNow I don't really care if people prefer to say \"bless you\" after they hear someone sneeze, but it's absolutely ridiculous that some people actually get upset, and will even go as far as calling someone out for not saying \"bless you\" after they'd sneezed. They simply had a tickle in their nose and their body was getting whatever particles it didn't want in the nose out. \n\nSome may say that it's similar to saying \"excuse me\" when they burp, fart, or yawn, but I disagree. Saying excuse me is a way of apologizing for being a disruption, while saying \"bless you\" is a silly way of saying \"I acknowledge that you have sneezed.\" \n\nSaying \"bless you\" doesn't make sense, and while it doesn't hurt to say, I shouldn't be ridiculed for refusing to congratulate someone on their sneeze. It becomes more disruptive than the sneeze itself and it's just silly. \n\nPlease, please CMV. I'm tired of getting shit for not wanting to say \"bless you\" but I'm also too stubborn of an asshole to conform.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Reddit content is dying. + \n + (context) I just posted a question seeking opinions about the isrealo-palestinian conflict, and what we can do to help and I'm getting jokes as answers on /r/askreddit. Now I don't want to generalize by saying reddit is becoming stupider but even when I'm obviously being serious about a subject, Poe's law still applies.\n\n \nI'm losing faith in reddit and this once beautiful platform for change is degrading into a meme clusterfuck devoid of any intellect. Only a few select highly controversial posts make it to the front line, intelligent discussion is harder and harder to find. This community has so much potential but it looks like it's being run by /r/circlejerk.\n\n\nView changed/abandonning thread, too subjective, I just feel like we're not optimizing this beautiful site and that popularity trumps good content all the time. This website could be revolutionary if it was used for more, you know? anyway, had a blast talking with you and learned a lot.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: McDonald's was not responsible for the injuries of the lady who spilled coffee over herself + \n + I've seen a few posts lately that refer to the lady who spilled coffee on herself and then sued McDonald's for medical expenses, and I am completely bemused by the support for the lady. \n\nThe jury found McDonald's to be 80% responsible and awarded several million dollars compensation, which was later reduced to about 600 000 dollars, and then later settled.\n\nAcording to [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants) and another [website](http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm) here are the abridged facts of the incident as I understand them.\n\n* coffee was ordered at a drive through window\n* coffee was handed to Liebeck\n* Liebeck's son drove off\n* they stopped so Liebeck could add sugar\n* Liebeck spilled the entire cup over her lap, hence severely injuring her\n\nMy argument that it is not McDonald's responsibility is that she had been safely handed the coffee. The transaction was complete and she had control. If the coffee had been spilled during the handover I would view it the other way around.\n\nThere are two arguments that I reject. I reject that the severity of the injury affects the responsibility. Comments such as \"have you seen those injuries, they're horrific, she had to be reconstructed\" are common. This is true, they were appalling injuries. But I think this is a strawman argument because my point is that it was not McDonald's responsibility after the handover, not that the injuries were minor. \n\nI reject that the coffee was too hot. These are hot drinks. It's obvious to me, and I would hope anyone who intends to drink such a drink that it would be hot and care should be given. Perhaps my culture views it differently. I grew up in England, and here 9 and ten year olds make tea for themselves; kettles boil water and then that water is poured into a teapot / cup. We know from a young age that this is dangerous and extreme care must be taken when handling such hot water. Indeed, in a similar UK case against McDonald's regarding hot coffee, the judge ruled that McDonald's was not responsible, one of the reasons being that people expect hot drinks to be hot and should make reasonable safety measures themselves. I do not believe Americans don't realise hot water is dangerous.\n\n If anyone would like to comment, I'd be happy to elaborate further. I look forward to having interesting discussion.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Canada has the best national anthem. + \n + I'm a US American,  and I like a rousing playing/singing of *The Star-Spangled Banner* as much as anyone; I'm not even really all that patriotic, but there's a weird and very cool communal experience when a stadium full of random people all stand at attention and mostly sing along off key.\n\nI don't like association football all that much, but one thing I do really like about football matches is seeing the different populations from around the world doing the same thing, so I've heard a lot of the world's national anthems, and I have to say that *Oh, Canada* takes the cake.\n\nMaybe I'm being biased because I am an English speaker. One thing I'd really like to see in this CMV is a compelling case for an anthem in a language I don't know.\n\nMedia links are, of course, welcome.\n\nJust to get a bit out of the way, why did I pick *Oh, Canada*?\n\nFirst off, singability. (I don't think that's a word.) OC stays with just a few notes in a pretty narrow range. For this reason, the \"off-key crowd\" effect which is so noticeable with songs like TSSB, especially when you're *in* the crowd, doesn't really affect OC so much; Crowds sound pretty good singing it.\n\nSecond, excellent lyrics. Thematically, there's not much for even the prickliest of political malcontents to object to. You could be an atheist and object to the appeal to God in there, but if I were an atheist I'd just think of the word in its explitive form when I sang it. There's no reason for religious hang-ups to ruin national anthem fun, especially if one is an atheist.\n\nI suppose that pacifists might object to the statement \"we stand on guard,\" but if you're talking about your *home*, it seems that even an extreme pacifist would want to stand *some* kind of guard, if only just to know when to run away.\n\nThird, and finally, I think that it's the best national anthem because it's so much fun to sing drunk. (That's like 85% what national anthems are for, after all.) The way it builds to that boisterous climax ... Just genius.\n\nBefore you disagree, just give *Oh, Canada* a sing once you've got a snootful. It's pretty good. Way better, I'll reluctantly admit, to TSSB.\n\nSo, CMV.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: People who want their partner to be monogamous do not deserve relationships + \n + I'm not saying *monogamous* people do not deserve relationships, to the extent that they simply don't want other partners. If a person doesn't want another partner, that's okay. Most of the time, I also don't wish for any other partners than my wife.\n\nWhat I'm saying, however, is that people do not deserve relationships to the extent that they want to impose monogamous *restrictions* on their partner.\n\nAs a society, we do not recognize agreements that attempt to take away a person's individuality. If you enter an agreement where you willingly become a slave, we do not recognize this. If you enter an agreement where you become an indentured servant, we do not recognize this.\n\nSimilarly, when you say your marriage vows, and make an implicit promise that your genitals will only ever touch your partner's, this is giving away individuality. Legally, this promise is not enforceable. We do not recognize it.\n\nWhat I'm saying is that we need to go beyond just a legal position, and recognize that *morally*, also, these promises should not have our respect. It is not moral to relinquish individuality.\n\nIf two people do not want other partners, that is great. They *should* be able to have a relationship that does not involve anyone else. But there should be **no expectation**, from either partner, that this state of affairs will continue indefinitely. The two partners should enjoy such a relationship as long as it lasts, and not attach strings.\n\nAt no point should a person expect from their partner to *never* want to be intimate with anyone else, and at no point should a person make their partner promise such a thing. Such an expectation is immoral; immature; insecure; possessive; jealous; and selfish. Such a promise keeps these non-respectable qualities even if, at one point in time, the promise and the desire to make it are mutual.\n\n-----\n\nResponses to common retorts:\n\n-----\n\n**0. You're ignoring that monogamy works fine for so many people!**\n\nI'm not ignoring that. If monogamy works for you, do it. However, I *am* saying that the proper way to do that is by being monogamous *yourself*; not by holding someone else – your partner – to a strict monogamous expectation.\n\nIf monogamy truly works, long-term, both for you and for your partner, you will walk into it by happenstance. If that happens to you, nothing is wrong with it. Just don't try to make that happen with coercion.\n\n**1. Society is based on contracts; employment agreements also encroach on individuality**\n\n\nAs an employer, I take steps to maximize my employees' individuality. My agreement with them is that they're paid for actual work they do (they are software developers), and I pay them handsomely for the work that is done well.\n\nI make no requirements encroaching on them that are not absolutely necessary. Everyone works from home, and can have an environment they like. I do not require certain hours to be kept. I make no impositions on their drug use or sobriety. I make no imposition that they cannot quit their jobs at any time, and go work for a competitive company.\n\nThis is because I believe work should be truly voluntary. I think the companies that practice these encroachments are in fact being immoral, and are exploiting negotiating leverage. I do not wish to be that type of employer.\n\nI believe a large portion of our world, of our economies, is based on subtle slavery. I believe we should be acting to change this, and the first place to start is with intimate relationships that ought to be loving.\n\n\nTo a large extent, we are *vastly* exaggerating the encroachments on individuality that we believe are necessary, and should be reducing these encroachments in all areas, both intimate and in employment.\n\n-----\n\n**2. I also expect my partner to be financially responsible, to travel with me, to not do drugs.**\n\nExpecting your partner to generally be financially responsible is one thing. But blowing up when they've purchased this *one* item that seems unnecessary to you is another.\n\nWanting your partner to share your interests is one thing. But blowing up when they don't want to travel with you to this *one* particular country is another.\n\nExpecting your partner to not smoke pot all day, and your home to not be full of smoke, is one thing. But blowing up when they've had a joint with a friend this one time is another.\n\nSimilarly: expecting your partner to mostly be available to meet your needs is one thing. But blowing a gasket because this one time they flirted / kissed / had safe sex with someone is another.\n\n-----\n\n**3. Expecting a person to not be intimate with others; and expecting a person to tolerate such intimacy; are the same type of coercion.**\n\nOnly to the extent that a cartoonist drawing Mohammad, and a fanatic calling for beheading in response, are the same type of insult. The drawing is not even an insult, unless you *choose* to interpret it that way.\n\nThe pain of a Muslim who saw a drawing of Mohammad is self-inflicted, and rooted in unhealthy beliefs. The pain of a person whose partner was intimate with someone is similarly self-inflicted, and rooted in unhealthy beliefs.\n\nWhen a person physically stabs you, it's their fault. But when it feels like you're being stabbed because your partner wants to express their love or lust with someone else, you're not being hurt by *them*. You're being hurt by jealousy and insecurities that you have not overcome, but can.\n\nThis is *your pain*, which you don't need to feel; and would not feel, if a sick culture wasn't telling you that you need to. Just like the pain of the Muslim seeing a drawing of Mohammad is a pain he doesn't need to feel; and would not feel, if his own sick culture wasn't telling him he needs to.\n\nYou may think this comparison is unfair and hurtful because Muslims who call for beheadings are obviously crazy, *as opposed to you*. But do you think those Muslims believe themselves crazy? They think they're *justified* – as do you.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Major religions are mythology with good PR + \n + I believe what seperates say Christianity from Norse or Greek mythology is that its better at convincing people it is true due to its institution, conquest, and capitalizing on the luingistic ascpect such as the books spreading. \n\nI think that in maybe 100-200 years we might call christianity christian mythology or Islam Islamic mythology. It will go out of trend due to scientific discoveries and humanist/secular world views will replace it. \n\nMost religions are made and written for older standards and we are already having this kind of cognitive dissonance over what it trulsy is. After a few generations people will stop forcing christianity as the norm and people will not be determined to persue it at all. I already see it in my home country and we will probably see it more in the US in the next 50 years. \n\nWhat i personally think has made christianity spread more then any other religion is that other religions while promising rewards or trying to justify one way of living has promised rewards such as life after death and also made it apply to everyone. For example \"You get into heaven as long as you dont do that thing we all hate anyways\". There you got a justice system, promise of heaven, an authority. That is all you really need to make people follow you. And now of course it has moved into this either bigoted denial of how the world is \"homophobic, creationist etc. or progressive one foot in one out \"Im christian but never go to church  and dont do anything special but anwser that i believe in God when asked\". \n\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: For women, sex is a \"want\" and not a \"need\", please CMV + \n + First of all, i do not like to believe this because i've been told over and over and over that it isn't true, but i keep seeing more and more evidence of it as the years pass (and in fact i feel a bit guilty for actually believing it, therefore this post), and second i'm speaking of average people here, i know there's asexuals and sex addicts, but those are the outliers, not the common case. \n\nWhat i see is that while for men sex is a *need*, like hunger and all (a need that doesn't kill us but instead makes us suffer if unsatisfied), for women it's more of a take-it-or-leave-it thing, something they can enjoy but that they don't really need, a nice thing to have but that doesn't really matter much if they don't have it, like, say, chocolate (although women would be far less willing to give up chocolate in my experience). \n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The Koran wants us all dead. + \n + Unless we convert, of course.\n\nLet me just say that Islam has been through many reforms and most muslims don't wish for the death of anyone.  There is a great deal of integration between Islam and modern society, but this isn't about the moderate majority. Also, terrorism and warfare in the Middle East are heavily fueled by politics.\n\nIf we accept that the Koran is the primary source of all that is Islam, and we accept that some (hundreds of millions?) individuals believe that the Koran is the unqestionable word of God, and we accept that the Koran clearly calls for the murder of nonbelievers (In the form of over 100 verses and the violent actions of Muhammad himself), then it follows that we've got a serious problem on our hands that will persist for as long as Islam remains. \n\nSo, what am I missing here? Why are we all tolerating it? Nothing we can do about it? Afraid we'll be murdered for speaking out? Even the most brutally honest public figures, like comedians, will never mention Islam. Penn Jillette has some serious balls just to say this much during an interview about his show \"Bullshit\".\n\n\"Are there any groups you won't go after?\"\n\n\"We haven't tackled Scientology because Showtime doesn't want us to. Maybe they have deals with individual Scientologists \u2013- I'm not sure. And we haven't tackled Islam because we have families.\"\n\n\n\nBonus CMV's:\n\nThe crusades were clearly justified. They were a defensive war, and a response to muslim aggression into Europe and the Middle East.\n\nIf Muhammad was alive today, he would be a supporter of ISIS, or maybe lead it himself.\n\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The theory of evolution is accurate, and the whole field of biology is dependent on it. + \n + Evolution through descent with modification caused by the methods of natural selection, sexual selection, kin-selection, artificial selection, and genetic drift is undeniable. We can clearly see it not only in the fossil record, but in labs (bacteria), experiments (Russia and its foxes are an example of artificial selection), medicine (anti-biotic resistance), pesticide resistance. This theory has been used to create methods to [delay pesticide resistance] (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/agriculture_04), as well as [antibiotic resistance] (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/%3C?%20echo%20$baseURL%20?%3E_0_0/medicine_03). How can someone deny evolution when it has been put to use in these fields? \n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:If we are opposed to the prison industrial-complex... then perhaps shaming, shunning, and exile should be considered as alternatives. + \n + First of all, I am largely opposed to the prison-industrial complex. I feel that many of the laws behind it are arbitrary (re: the drug war and victimless crimes), and that even many of the violent criminals who are jailed don't need to be locked up for as long to prevent them from being an immediate or persistent threat. In fact, I believe that long term incarceration under harsh conditions is something which actually causes further social harm \u2013 directly to the person incarcerated and to the society which the prisoner will be released into after an extended period of incarceration. Also, if the person has dependents, they too might suffer more if their material needs are not adequately provided for.\n\nSubsequently, if some sort of punishment is required for violating some sort of socially accepted institution, then I feel that some form of shaming, shunning, and exile are possibly effective alternatives to prevent crime before we decide to incarcerate someone for an extended period of time or issue fines which they may not be able to pay.\n\nOne advantage to this approach is that the punishment is more directly democratic. It's not a punishment which is wholly issued by a sitting judge who is appointed to represent the public and who arbitrarily decides a perpetrator's fate. Rather, the perpetrator, by agreeing to make public their offense, can still receive a certain degree of sympathy and forgiveness. And if they are shunned or exiled (for some indeterminate amount of time), then other members of the public can go along with that punishment to a degree they see fit.\n\nGranted, with shunning or exile the punishment would work much better with social cohesion, but if it were the accepted form of punishment then shunning or exile might be more readily accepted and enforced by the general population of an area. Admittedly, this is an aspect of society which would probably have to be reformed or evolve if a society chose to move away from incarceration, corporal punishment, and excessive fines. But if society is incapable of changing in this way... then I'm not sure society would be able to change in other ways which would make it sustainable and tolerable to live within.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Primates are non-human persons, and we should no sooner perform invasive experiments on them than we would a human who cannot give their informed assent. + \n + Basically what it says in the title. I've spent enough time around primates--specifically bonobo apes--to believe that, while they might not have all the capabilities of a human, they are \"nearly human,\" i.e. they have brains that are ballpark like ours, and I can't say for sure their lives lack the kind of meaning I find in my own--the meaning that makes life worth preserving. If we agree that it's unethical to experiment on incapacitated humans (mentally handicapped, comatose, etc.), then we shouldn't be allowed to experiment on primates.\n\nI'm not a vegetarian, nor am I an animal-rights activist. I'm agnostic about the degree to which many animals can think, feel, imagine, and suffer, but the capacity for primates to do all of the above is--to me, obviously--uncomfortably close to our own, and, as such, they deserve the same sort of autonomy we consider to be among the \"inalienable rights of man\". Here is a mild, but more informed, [take](http://animalresearch.thehastingscenter.org/report/the-case-for-phasing-out-experiments-on-primates/) on this issue. (You can also google \"non-human personhood\" for more.) It's not without repercussions for many areas of medicine such as HIV research, but I think that infecting an ape with HIV is not much different from infecting a person who cannot speak or think at an adult level. It's a case of protecting \"the least of us,\" even as it makes important work like [this](http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/36hq9i/potential_new_vaccine_blocks_every_strain_of_hiv/) more difficult.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I don't think Americans freedoms are being eroded away like many people would have us believe + \n + For the past decade or so there's been this growing idea that America is heading toward being a police state and that rights and freedoms are being picked off one by one, and judging by the public outcry it seems that things like the Patriot Act and the Snowden Affair have been eroding liberty and freedom from a point in time when they were guaranteed and unquestionable, a sort of 'good old days' mentality. I find this really ridiculous and think that while the US governments practises aren't anything good, they certainly aren't heralding the descent into hell from heaven so many people make them out to be. \n\n\nI mean America has never really been a place of liberty and freedom and equality for most of its history unless you were white and decently wealthy. The US committed genocide against the Indians, practised slavery, had institutionalized segregation until sixty years ago, allowed corporations to flat-out shoot unruly workers, and on multiple occasions made it illegal to speak out against the government. \n\n\n\nSo while many current deeds by the US certainly aren't good, in contrast to most of US history things are better than ever and aren't really getting 'worse' like the public outcry would lead you to believe. ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Hard-shell tacos don't make any sense + \n + Here are the problems I have with crunchy tacos:\n\n* I have to turn my head sideways in order to take a bite without spilling the ingredients.\n\n* It inevitably falls apart, meaning I have to have a plate ready to catch the filling, and then I have to either use a fork or pick up the loose ingredients with my fingers.\n\nAm I missing something? Is there some trick to eating them? Do crunchy tacos have some appeal that overcomes these shortcomings?\n\nIf given the ingredients to make a hard-shell taco, I can't think of any reason not to break up the shell and make a salad instead.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Women should not have taxpayer-funded paid maternity leave. + \n + Little disclaimer: this deals with US laws and procedures so I apologize if anyone outside the US isn't able to contribute, except to tell me how great it is having this in their own country.\n\nLast Sunday John Oliver's show dealt with this subject and chastised the US for being only one of two developed countries in the world without maternity leave that is paid for by the taxpayers. Here is a link to watch it if you haven't seen it yet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIhKAQX5izw\n\nHere is the gist of my viewpoint:\nIn the US, when a person is terminated from a job, he/she is entitled to unemployment benefits for up to 99 weeks or until they are employed again. Workers and companies pay into this and, while many people end up taking more than they give, it is the system we have and it seems to work for the majority of people here. When a person leaves a job VOLUNTARILY, however, they are not entitled to unemployment benefits. If you quit a job to go to another job this is fine. If you are quitting to go 'find' yourself in Australia for a year, you better have a financial plan because you can't live off other peoples' money for your vacation. This system also seems to work well for most people.\n\nIn the US, abortion is Constitutionally protected under a person's right to privacy. The details of the laws vary from state to state but there is no place in the US where a person cannot legally and safely obtain an abortion during the first six months of pregnancy.\n\nMy stance is that if having a child is a choice, it should be one the parents must prepare for financially before making - just like if they wanted to voluntarily take time off work for other reasons.\n\nWe have safety nets for people who are caught in situations they can't control. This is not one of them. Being a parent requires the ability to plan and budget anyway, and it includes many expenses that people will absolutely incur that will not be covered by the hard work of others. It should start with planning to be off work for whatever time having the baby takes.\n\nI completely support peoples' positions being protected while they are off and, quite honestly, think that length of time should be extended from 12 weeks to 24 weeks. But I REALLY don't like the idea of taxpayer dollars being used to support ANYONE who voluntarily leaves work - no matter the reason.\n\nChange My View.\n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: People who hunt have a sadistic trait + \n + \nThis isn't about Cecil the lion but it did get me thinking.....people who hunt must be at least a bit sadistic. Hear me out - I'm not here to make a dig at hunters. I don't eat meat myself but I actually believe hunting game as a source of meat is much more ethical than eating mass produced factory farmed animals. Game animals have at least had a natural life without chemicals, genetic engineering and is the ultimate in animal welfare. You can't beat having the life nature dictates. So I'm in conflict with what is actually involved in hunting. \nLets take an example of a hunting a deer. A healthy meat with a plentiful population to chose from. So you go out into its habitat, learn its habits, track it and then finally you see it. Quietly in its happily eating some food. Minding its own business. Full of life and so majestic in its natural habitat. This stunning beast is a pleasure to see.  I believe many hunters genuinely have a lot of respect for the animals they hunt. But then full of all that respect BOOM! They take its life. Just like that. All that effort to understand it, follow it and watch it they extinguished  in a second.  Cold hard logic can indeed justify why the animal is killed but deep down the pleasure hunters feel when they've killed an animal doesn't make sense to me. ", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is no possible advantage to playing a first-person shooter at less than the maximum resolution available to you. + \n + To get this out of the way early: **This is not going to be a PCMR circlejerk.** An unnecessary reminder: this subreddit is for reasoned persuasion, not mutual masturbation. \n\nI'm talking strictly about advantages **in professional, competitive, skill-based, PvP shooters** given by playing at a lower resolution, taller aspect ratio (4:3 vs 16:9), or narrower FOV (excepting personal tolerance for distortion). \n\n[This is the photo that prompted my question.](http://i.imgur.com/9Lo87yI.jpg) There is absolutely NO WAY that playing at 1024x768 (and unless that's a 1440p monitor, I think it's reasonable to suspect it's actually 800x600) gives him ANY advantage, and is instead a handicap, but it's not uncommon for professionals to play this way (I'm thinking in particular of the CS:GO / CS:S scene). \n\n**Points of confusion:**\n\n* With upscaling disabled, the pixels are the same size as they would be if he were playing at native resolution, so there's no 'zoom' offered. \n* Lower resolution means, definitively, less rendering precision. If an enemy's head is visible over an edge at distance, it may not take up enough of the player's FOV to be rendered (possibly an unlikely example). Also, the player is less able to aim in small increments. These are non-issues issue at 1080p+ resolutions. \n* UI elements (note especially the map and kill feed in the linked photo) are measured in pixels, and so obscure a HUGE percentage of available vision. This is greatly reduced by having more pixels on the screen.\n* Horizontal FOV (at a given level of distortion) suffers because of the narrower 4:3 aspect ratio. Limited peripheral vision is an obvious disadvantage that's very simply fixed with a widescreen 16:9/16:10 aspect ratio. \n\n**Warrants** (I believe that's the appropriate term) **/ Assumptions:**\n\n^(^Read: ^\"These ^arguments ^are ^either ^completely ^ineffective ^\"against\" ^me ^or ^irrelevant ^to ^a ^sponsored ^professional.\")\n\n* No hardware limitations (GPU inadequacy, etc).\n* A competitor wants every advantage available to them, especially the legal/fair ones. \n* A professional recognizes that 'their way' might not be the best way, and would readily change for the sake of improvement.\n* Access to more information is always better. \n* Greater precision is always better. \n\nSo, why would anyone play at 800x600 or 1024x768? \"Because they're used to it\" seems to be the most common answer, but I feel like that's nothing but lazy and backwards.\n\n^(Please forgive any formatting mistakes; I'm on mobile. I'll correct them as soon as I get back to a desktop.)", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think people who are jealous of unemployed people because they don't contribute, should either quit their job or ask for a raise. + \n + If you're employed, you are integrated into society, you wake up everyday with a goal and things to do with your life, you go and see people, you have purpose.\n\nIf you're unemployed, you'll be put aside, and people will constantly question your morals and life goals, and accuse you of being a leech on the system, which they seem to forget is exclusive, not inclusive.\n\nIt seems that people often don't realize capitalism was never meant to include everybody, that unemployed people do generate a lot of GDP since they consume, and that most of the time science and technology is to be thanked, instead of \"hard work\".\n\nIt's easy to be a cynic and argue that overpopulation is a problem, that \"trimming the fat\" should be made more regularly, but the truth is, nobody really understand what motivates individuals to work, get involved in society and it seems society is completely unable to tolerate marginal people. Social stratification and social Darwinism are plaguing society. Everybody wants to go up, and nobody dares looking down.\n\nSo instead of blaming the unemployed, use other means to solve this problem: start a business, hire unemployed people, ask for a raise, quit your job and join the unemployed to better understand what civilization is about: it's about living together. Capitalism is a mean, not an end. Stop living in your bubble and learn to know the struggles of others.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The principle of Free Speech would not be would not be violated by Reddit banning hate subs. + \n + For this CMV the [relevant XKCD] (https://xkcd.com/1357/) is not relevant. What I want to address is the idea that the \"principle of free speech\" i.e. Open debate without fear of reprisal would be violated by reddit if they banned hate subreddits. People that make the Principles of Free Speech (PFS) argument are talking about free speech as an enlightenment ideal. I get that, and that may be a fair argument to make. \n\nMy view: \n\nBanning subreddits is not silencing speech, it is preventing organization. Silencing speech would be a policy that says any users that makes X and Y claims  will be banned. That would be a clear violation of the PFS. Whether or not that is a good idea is not what I am arguing today. My argument, in concrete terms, is that banning coontown is not the same thing as banning white supremacist comments and submissions, and therefore not banning speech. There is nothing to stop a coontown poster from going to r/videos and posting white supremacist comments, or a KIA poster from going to r/gaming posting sexist comments. Organization does not equal speech. \n\nWhat will not change my view: \n\n*Appeals to the first amendment. We have already established that we are not talking about that.\n\n*Slippery slopes (\"If Admins can ban subs, users are next\") \n\n*Bias (\"Who gets to choose what subs to ban\") \n\n\n\n \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Tipping 10% is Fine + \n + I've been under the impression that 10% is an adequate tip, yet more and more I find people are adopting an ever increasing tip mentality. I've recently discussed with friends and people are saying that you should be tipping upwards of 15%, or even 25% for what amounts for average service. Many of the restaurants I go to now on the receipt list only 20%+ precalculated percentages.\n\n10% is not only easier to calculate (move the decimal point), it also has good leeway to adjust for good or bad service. At something like 20-25%, do individuals adjust to 40% for good service? \n\nIn addition, the higher tipping standards go, the less of a value indicator it is since people are generally inclined to only tip so much. This mitigates what most people say is the incentive for waiters to go above and beyond and get that higher tip.\n\nI do not want this to be a discussion of whether you should tip or not. I personally don't believe you should require tipping, but one cannot completely ignore social norms.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: With the proper classes, men and women could compete fairly in sports + \n + **See update at the bottom**\n\nYesterday I suggested that men and women could compete fairly against each other in sports, **if** we split up competitors into the proper classes for the sport. In other words, instead of gender segregation - men's tennis vs. women's tennis, we would have multiple classes of tennis, based on physical attributes. The goal would be to pick classes in a way that gender doesn't matter, so everyone in class X has the same raw physical potential.\n\nFor some sports like boxing the classes would probably be the familiar weight classes: heavyweight, featherweight, etc. But I'm definitely not saying that those classes are the final word, and for other sports I'm not sure what the class criterion would be. Some possibilities include height, weight, % of muscle mass, % of different types of muscle, lung efficiency, and so forth. **The criteria for classes would be chosen by experts in the field based on objective criteria.**\n\nWhen I suggested this, I was basically downvoted into oblivion, told that this idea would destroy women's sports, that men are obviously superior to women so my idea doesn't even make sense, and mostly just told \"but men will still beat women\" many times.\n\nNow, of course, in the top weight classes in boxing men would dominate, simply because most people over a certain mass of muscle are male. But that's the point of having non-heavyweight classes in boxing - the other classes let other people compete fairly too.\n\nAnd likewise, in basketball, height is a huge advantage, and there are far far more men in the extreme high end of height, that I don't expect to see women there. But I would expect to see women in a height class of basketball which is low enough so that there are far more women than men (talking about adults here), and even more so if we also took into account % of muscle mass.\n\nI was told that Serena Williams, the top female tennis player in the world, lost to the 200th top male tennis player, and  I guess people infer from that that women are simply inferior to men physically. To which I ask: Are they inferior, **if** you control for % of muscle mass, weight, and other relevant factors to the sport?\n\nI don't see why women would be inferior in such conditions. Yes, women have less size and % of muscle mass than men, **on average**, but for two human beings **with the same** height/weight/muscle mass/etc. (whatever makes sense for the specific sport), but one is a man and the other is a woman, surely the competition would be quite fair?\n\nAs far as I can tell, there is no \"magic\" difference between male and female athletes. [There is no \"male muscle\" or \"female muscle\"](http://www.jaxtrainer.com/m-vs-w.html), it is just that men tend to have more of it.\n\nThe only potentially valid argument I heard against my idea was the claim that men have **so many** advantages - from big ones like amount of muscle, to small ones like shape of their hip bones - that if sports created categories based on them all, it would end up with men in one and women in the other, reproducing the current gender segregation, and that if that isn't taken to that extreme, then women will basically vanish from sports. I concede that is theoretically possible, and it would be hard for me to disprove it, but it goes entirely against my intuition on this.\n\n\n**UPDATE**: Thanks to everyone for all the discussion so far. At this point I'd like to summarize things up to this point, because it seems like 100 people are making quite similar arguments, and I don't have enough time to answer every person. I apologize for comments that I don't get the chance to respond to.\n\n * Many people say that women are just not good enough. Most people support that with anecdotes like this women's team lost to a team of teenage boys. I am not saying there is no value to such anecdotes, but:\n  * There are anecdotes going the other way, like Serena and Venus losing but not losing by that much to the 200th top male player. If Serena and Venus can beat everyone but the top 500 or so tennis players in the whole world, then they are doing amazingly well. If we split people also by some physical factors (response time? % of muscles? % of fast-twitch muscle fibers?), I don't see why they can't win in their own class, and the few hundred or so men that can beat them would be in the other class.\n  * Even if most professional women's teams currently lose to more mediocre men, we don't know how much of that is physically based. Part of it, as posters correctly brought up - this was a point I didn't realize before - was that women compete against other women, so they aren't getting challenged enough. For example, if Serena and Venus practiced heavily against male players, maybe they would have beat that 200th guy. And the best way to change this is to open up more cross-gender competition.\n   * To further see the importance of competition, look at [this article about the gender gap in sports](http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/08/daily-chart-olympics). Female olympians would have won the gold against male olympians if they competed against the men from just a few decades ago, in several sports. Male bodies weren't much different then, so this isn't due to simple physical differences between men and women. The question is why scores - for both genders - improve so much over time. Better training techniques might be one thing, perhaps better shoes etc., but also better competitors that push you harder might be another. Overall, the fact that improvements keep happening in each gender, and that the best women of today would beat the men from the near past in many sports, does **not** support a simple explanation of \"men are just better and always will be\". (It doesn't rule it out either, of course.)\n * Other people say that women are just not good enough based on scientific data. This **could** convince me, but so far I don't see enough. For example, yes, women have less muscle mass on average, but AFAIK the science shows that the muscle they do have is equivalent to male muscle. So if we control for the amount (and %) of muscle, it should be fair, in sports where raw muscle is the crucial thing. But, if you find data showing that 99% of men have better coordination than the top 1% of women, I might be convinced on this. The criteria for my being convinced is, as I wrote in my last paragraph: If, to make the competition fair, we need to control for more and more physical factors, until the categories end up having all women in one and all men in the other (or 99.99% of all), then I am just recreating the current system, but with added costs but no benefit.\n  * Also, don't forget that we can create classes based on various factors, like a basketball team of people of height 1.60m. Since very few adult men exist of that height, I assume it would be dominated by women. So even if in a no-restrictions competition men would always win, if we limit by physical criteria, women can win in some classes. You can convince me I am wrong if you can show that even in a category like basketball 1.60m, that despite there being far, far more candidate women, men would still dominate it, and would do so even if we control for say % of muscle mass.\n   * And if you think 1.60m basketball sounds odd, I would say it is no more odd than lightweight boxing. It's actually a somewhat different sport, and interesting in a different way. I personally would be fascinated to see, just for variety, basketball played **not** by super-tall people.\n * Some people said that even if we find a way to split into physically-based classes, women would dominate the \"lesser\" ones. I do concede that more money goes into heavyweight boxing than lightweight. But, that is also already the case today with women's sports (compare the WNBA to the NBA), but those classes do well enough. I think my proposal could actually help, because I think making the classes more objective and having mixed-gender competitions would be novel and interesting.\n * Overall, I think a common thing happening in this discussion is that it seems obvious to most of you that women are just never going to be good enough, and I am asking for more concrete evidence for something which you take almost for granted. Of course, I agree it is hard to estimate how my proposal will work, especially when each sport would have its own criteria for classes, but I still think there is plenty of reason for optimism. So far my optimism has not been proven unjustified, as far as I can tell.\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:I'm starting to feel that the only purpose of life is work. + \n + You're all familiar with is: people concerned about their education, people concerned about their jobs, people concerned about the economy, people wanting to start their own successful business, it seems like there is nothing else in the world to occupy your thoughts with than work. \n\nYou go to school, then either get a job or continue your education, and then get a job. you work until you're old and weak, and then when you finally have time to yourself, you're probably too old and weak to enjoy anything.\n\nPlease make me feel that I am overreacting and that life offers things that are just as important as working. \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:Those positively identified and convicted of armed robbery/home invasion should be put to death. + \n + Hey CMV, I'll keep this one simple. I believe that if someone is willing to forcefully take from another innocent person with the threatening use of a knife, gun, or other easily lethal weapon, they have no place in society and have a fundamental defect in their human brain chemistry (without even touching on the trauma and psychological damage the victims must suffer).\nTo me, this type of crime shows an extreme amount of depravity. You're brandishing a weapon, ready to kill a person you do not even know, for short term profit. This especially applies to home invasions and store robberies.\nThe reason I added the 'positively identified' caveat is that I don't want to leave any room for putting an innocent person to death, so for this case to kick in, I would need either CCTV confirming their identity, or multiple eye witnesses confirming their identity. \nI'm willing to admit this view may be on the extreme side, but I like to think I'm a reasonable person and I'm open to change. So reddit, please CMV.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I am racist against Gypsies + \n + I am racist against gypsies - There, I said it. When I say I'm racist I don't mean that I think they're an inferior group of people, or that they should be exterminated and kicked out of my country, it's just that I can't stand them. \n\n\nIn every country in Europe you have groups of people who are marginalized, profiled and suffer discrimination - Gypsies are frequently included on the list. And why is that? It's not because they have darker skin color, in fact I'd argue Gypsies are ethnically a diverse group with sub-ethnic group - It's because of their culture. \n\nIt's hard to not be racist against these people when everytime I see one of them on the street they will either beg and try to pickpocket you or try to sell illegal products (or legal products without license) and if you're lucky they won't threat you with a knife to handle the money.\n\nAnd don't even get me started on Gypsy neighborhoods, ghettos and places where they live, it's impossible to go in there without goods and leave in one piece, those are literally no go zones in my country and the police goes in there with a group of fully armored cops with MP5's (similar to SWAT in America).\n\nThey always complain about how racist society is against them, yet they don't allow their kids to go to mandatory school years and basically force them to work for cultural reasons. They complain about discrimination, but they have no problem starting a fight with you for no reason, and if you dare fighting back be 100% sure that they will call the entire family to kick your ass and possibly put you in a coma. There's no escaping that.\n\nYou are all thinking that I'm terribly racist, but this is the only ethnic group I have a beef with, I don't have problems with Africans who are a very discriminated group in my country as well - In fact, my girlfriend is half-Gypsy and I love her very much, but she was adopted and raised by a non-Gypsy family and so she doesn't have the culture in her - And trust me, if you think I'm racist you'll be surprised to know she hates Gypsies with a passion that isn't even comparable to what I'm exposing here.\n\nWhat should I do? I feel bad and terrible and evil, but I can't help it, it's the only group that I'm prejudiced against. Oh, and if it's relevant I was robbed by a group of 10 Gypsies when I was younger - I didn't lose valuable goods, but it affected me deeply.\n\nIf people want to be integrated in society, they need to minimally adapt to cultural norms. Of course people don't hire Gypsies, no one wants to risk hiring someone who, at the slightest disagreement and beef with you can call an entire family to kick your ass. Oh, and obviously not speaking native tongues with a proper accent and lacking basic education because your parents voluntarily choose to deprive you of it also doesn't help.\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: In term of economic system, this is the best we have had and the best we know how to have + \n + If all realistic forms of government, societal structure and economic systems have been tried over the course of history, it holds that we have the best form (capitalist system with big government) now simply due to evolution. If it wasn't the best form then it would have collapsed and been replaced with something else long ago. \n\nWhat we have now is the fruits of thousands of years of experimentation with organising humans in the most effective way and to argue there is a better way right now doesn't make sense, otherwise it would be here right now instead. \n\nThere are several points here and I'm sure some I have missed from the central argument so feel to flesh out the situation a bit more in your argument. \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The world would be better off if El Chapo had been extradited to this US + \n + I believe the world would have been better off if Chapo Guzman had been extradited to the US. I understand that there are all kinds of laws surrounding extradition, but ultimately I don't those are relevant because if Guzman had been extradited to the US, he would have been kept in the more secure and less corrupt environment. His chances of escaping would have been much much lower.\n\nThat man is responsible for a huge part of the recent drug wars in Mexico. He is indirectly responsible for thousands of deaths. The fact that he is out there and out of the reach of the law is a massive let down to the people of Mexico and ultimately the world. \n\nMaybe the drug wars were partially caused by business opportunities created by drug policies in the US. But that's irrelevant. El Chapo is an evil man who deserves to be in prison, hands down.\n\nThe refusal of the Mexican government to extradite him makes the world worse off, as there is one more big time criminal who is not being brought to justice. Please CMV.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The most ethical thing one can do with one's money is hoard it. + \n + The more money someone has, the more they can improve other people's lives, and the more people they can help. In order to maximize the impact of one's donation, therefore, one should donate as much money as possible. It is widely accepted, however, that having money makes making more money easier, even if it's just a bank giving one more money because one has more in one's savings account. This then means that one should get more money in order to get more money in order to get more money....\n\nI honestly don't see a plateu here where getting even more money  would *not* make a difference to the number of people helped or help one's earning power to increase the amount of money one has available to help other people. So as long as one's moneymaking methods are helped by keeping as much cash as possible and their earnings rate exceeds inflation, they should keep their money. CMV?", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Free roaming cats should be treated as pest and destroyed if possible. In addition, letting your cat outside should be made illegal. + \n + It is estimated that roughly 84 million owned cats live in the US, and that there are 30-80 million un-owned cats, which include feral cats, barn cats, and cats who are not allowed inside. Researchers \"estimate that free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.4\u20133.7 billion birds and 6.9\u201320.7 billion mammals annually. This study calls cats the [worst invasive species](http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n1/full/ncomms2380.html) in the USA. Thus I believe cats should only be allowed indoors and should treated as pest (like pigeons or rats) if found outside. I am a Bird lover and I can witness the damage done by cats every day. As such I should be allowed to destroy any cat coming at my property. CMV please. \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: In a capitalist society, it is completely reasonable for men to make more money than women. + \n + This is naturally an incredibly controversial topic and I highly doubt that many people will agree with me, but I feel compelled to discuss this. \n\nThis needs to be prefaced by saying that all of this is based on averages, not individuals. I'm sure many women are more capable than many men, what I'm saying is that the general trend across the board is that on average a male worker is more productive. \n\nMen work almost triple the amount of overtime hours than women.\n\nMen work more standard hours than women.\n\nWomen take more sick days off work than men.\n\nWomen are more likely than men to take several years of maternity leave off of work.\n\nA small percentage of women undergo severe PMS and consequently work at a diminished capacity for several days of each month.\n\nTo use anecdotal evidence, yesterday i came in to work, to find that all 8 garbages were completely filled. This was strange, since the closing crew is supposed to take out the garbages every night. I asked my coworker why no one had done the garbages last night, and I was effectively told that only girls were working the closing shift, and none of them wanted to touch the garbages because they thought it was gross. So I had to take out 8 garbages first thing in the morning, because I was a man. Additionally, the parking lot was overflowing with trash that had spilled out of the over-packed garbage cans, but none of the girls had done the usual nightly responsibility of sweeping, since they thought it was a man's job as well. I'm not talking about one or two co-workers here, there were 7 women on shift, and every single one of them followed this gender stereotyped idea of what closing responsibilities they should have. Its one thing if men and women divide tasks based on relative strengths and weaknesses, but if someone neglects to do a task because there's no one of the opposite sex to assign it to, that is ridiculous. When only men are closing, someone still ends up washing the dishes and shining the countertops. \n\n\nDue to the biological, sociological, and psychological factors that women face, they are on average less suited to performing excessive labour, and in an economic system where more work = more money, it is no surprise that men make more than women. \n\nWhat I find most surprising is that when I bring up this issue, I am met with incredible opposition, as if I am trying to oppress women or promote sexism. The truth is, an entire branch of feminism exists for the very reasons I have stated; socialist feminism believes that men have a higher capacity to work and are therefore at an advantage in a capitalist society. They believe the only way wage equality can happen is through instating socialist policies that ensure employers are forced to pay men and women equally. \n\nI am not saying that women *deserve* to be paid less because they have children for example, humanity needs new people to be born , and as such women should not be penalized for taking time off work to raise children. However, we do not live in a moral democracy. We live in a capitalist democracy, where employers are free to pay their employees whatever they think is proportional to the revenue or work that each specific employee will bring to the company. On average, certainly not always, but on average, men can generate slightly more work and revenue than women. \n\nThus, the only way women can achieve equal pay is through socialist change in legislation. ", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Laws requiring paid maternity leave, in the absence of also requiring paternity leave, would be harmful to women especially those who don't want kids + \n + So, first and foremost, I think it's unfortunate that the U.S. is one of the countries where both maternity leave and paternity leave are not universally granted by employers. But I think that if we were to put a place a law mandating employers to give paid maternity leave, it would result in unfair hiring biases against women. Some employers would develop a preference for hiring men over women because, if you are purely concerned with profit as lots of employers are, why take the risk of hiring a lady who might take a lot of time from work while you can just not risk it and hire a man? There are already a lot of stereotypes about women being less dedicated to their jobs than men because they are \"more focused on kids\". Wouldn't a mandatory maternity leave just make this worse? \n\nIt's particularly unfair to women who aren't planning on having kids because employers could be biased against them for expecting them to use something they won't ever even need in the first place!\n\nIf paternity leave were also mandated, then this would be less of a problem because men would be as likely (or nearly as likely) to take leave as well, making the \"expected value\" of a man's labor to an employer the same as a woman's, and hopefully eliminating the bias.\n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I don't think that my sexuality is something to be proud of + \n + I am not really that into things like Pride, gay bars etc. I have come out because I was outed, to be honest I didn't really want to come out since I don't want to be known as \"the gay guy\", I want to be far more than my sexuality, it doesn't define who I am no matter what society would have me believe. \n\nI put on a smile since my other 1/2 is but to be honest I just put up with being gay, I don't really enjoy pride and get bored after the first 5 minutes on it and well I am starting to question the point in it anymore, it just seem to be a PR toy of big companies trying to look progressive and non-evil \n\nThere's nothing I can do about my sexuality so I just put up with it like you would put up with something you have no choice over. I put up with my migraines like I put up with my food allergies etc. \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: reddit could be doing an excellent job with the way they handled letting go of Victoria + \n + Reddit execs have been taking a bit image hit over the last few days. The issues are numerous but it seems like the catalyst for the blackout was the way they let go of Victoria without involving the reddit community or communicating with them, and seemingly having no plan of action on how to fill the gap in her responsibilities. \n\nI believe that perfectly acceptable reasons could have caused this course of action and to not accept that possibility and start a blackout and/or reddit exodus is irrational. \n\nFor example - a few years ago my company fired a VP quickly without having a real good plan on how to bridge the gap before we found a replacement. This individual had referred to another manager(semi-openly gay) as \"the faggot\" in a small meeting. We simply could not tolerate that behavior so we fired him the next day. It wasn't what was best for our bottom line, but it was best for the environment and culture that our company believes in. We didn't feel it was in the best interest of telling the whole company the reasoning for termination and several on that team were very upset by the clearly abrupt and unplanned separation - for several people their impression was \"management doesn't have their shit together\". \n\nI could imagine several scenarios where Victoria should be terminated quickly and it would not be appropriate to give a reason publicly. I would even say that reddit has been incredibly professional by continuing to remain silent on her termination even when facing the vastly damaging public backlash. ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Reddit should no longer be considered an isolated subcultural space with different standards of behavior than in person interaction + \n + I've been here for more than 5 years and the more mainstream reddit becomes, the stronger the cognitive dissonance afflicting the hardcore users gets. I understand that 4chan exists, and that a lot of people use both, but reddit has never been and never will be 4chan. And in the age where everyone and their mother has a smartphone, the Internet no longer constitutes a compartmentalizated subcultural space apart from and not subject to the norms of regular society where invective and insight in equal parts is both accepted and encouraged. Anyone here can turn on their TV to cable news and see how valuable meaningless reproach is. It doesn't advance any ideas, it doesn't enhance any discourse. And it's no more valuable here. The average person, who is now an inescapable part of the Internet, doesn't see it that way. Most people under a certain age with dependable home internet connections and/or smartphones spend so much time online in some type of online communities that this famed dichotomy between online and \"meatspace\" is not relevant at all. The average person also doesn't see punching down as a manifestation of the much-extolled \"freedom\" of the Internet.\n\nAnonymous does not and should not mean dissociated. You may see your reddit handle as an identity, but many just see it as an alias, the alias of a human being who they just have not met personally yet. And so when FPH supporters subconsciously see their hate projected onto an identity they see as isolated and bound to reddit, it's pretty likely the human on the receiving end doesn't see that distinction. I don't understand why people are willing to say things on here to people they wouldn't be willing to spray paint anonymously on the side of the other person's house. I'm sure a lot of people would just assert a priori that the different platforms would give the same message different emotional resonances. But again, I doubt the person on the receiving end would make that distinction.\n\nYou shouldn't have to use your real name like Facebook or Battle.Net, but you should recognize that other users represent real humans. \"Polite society\" gets along just fine in the exchange of speech and ideas without textbook meanness.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Touch-Typing should be a required skill for university. + \n + I think it's safe to say that almost everyone in the world uses a keyboard now. And yet, the vast majority of people have no idea how to type without looking at the keys and often hunting and pecking. I personally consider this a major problem because I think it is holding us back to some extent.\n\nSome points that I use to support this argument:\n\n1. Faster typing = more productivity, businesses would benefit. You could do more paperwork, more homework, anything on the computer. I'd argue that if everybody could type, we'd all have more free time as well, or at the very least GDP would increase as we get more work done in less time. \n\n2. It's useful for personal and professional activities: Even if all you do is type posts on facebook and write an email to your grandkids, knowing how to type will help you.\n\n3. It's easy to learn. It's all muscle memory, and if you practiced for an hour a day you'd be good in a month. Plus there are programs galore for it. \n\nSo, my view is that if university required you to know how to touch-type, perhaps with a modest WPM test on entry, or at least a freshman-year course, people would be forced to learn it and would become better typists, thus benefiting everyone down the line. \n\nWhy university? Because minimum wage workers don't usually need to type on a computer, making it less necessary at the high school level. Also, in university, you'll be typing a hell of a lot. I don't care what course you take, you'll need to type up essays and ultimately a thesis paper. \n\nAm I overblowing this? To quote the great Mugatu, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. To me it's at least as important as learning how to write with a pen these days. I'd just like to understand why society currently seems to place no value in this skill, and that maybe I'm overreacting. \n\n\nWell, thanks for all the comments, it's been a very interesting discussion so far. \n\nThe argument that's hanging onto me the most is that the keyboard may become obsolete, but I can't see that happening soon enough to justify ignoring a useful skill.\n\nFor those who point out that we can learn it of our own free will and it's not the university's place, I feel that the long-term benefits of such a policy change benefit us in the long term. Universities often require you to study other things they feel are beneficial, such as learning another language (which is often taught inadequately), so I don't feel that it's outside the potential scope of a university to require typing.\n\nAnd for those pointing out that it isn't worth the time, I maintain that learning costs next to nothing, and it saves you time over the course of your life if you add up every time you type.\n\n\n/u/cheeseboyardee made the point that not everyone learns at the same rate and some people may not be able to learn to type well, and thus mandating it could exclude otherwise capable people. \n\nThanks for all the posts and cordial discussion. \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Ellen Pao's leadership will have little to no impact on reddit's \"free speech\" + \n + I'm seeing posts everywhere regarding the \"safe space\" that reddit is destined to become under the new CEO's leadership, but have not been able to find any agenda from Pao herself that seems controversial at all: the only thing I've seen her say is that she's concerned about harassment and threats, and I would argue that both of those issues are not only deserving of attention, but not at all shocking. I've also seen people say that subreddits critical of Pao have been removed, but there are always other factors at play in the comments and there are several still going, plus about five front page posts per day about what a horrible person she is, so I don't know if I can call that censorship either.\nIn short, I feel that the predictions about reddit becoming an environment that bans free speech or whatever are wildly overblown. Ignoring her personal life (which, scandal ridden or not is irrelevant to her performance at reddit) can you change my view?\n\nHere I also might need to concede that even if subs devoted to harrassment *were* banned (CoonTown, fatpeoplehate, etc etc ad infinitum), I don't think reddit or the world would be losing anything of value. I'm embarrassed to tell people I come here because of those subs, and I don't think that reddit or any privately held corporation is under obligation to host anything of that nature. So while I don't see them getting removed, I wouldn't she a single tear if they did. This is of course a different debate, but one that likely plays a role in my view here.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Superhero movies are cancer for modern cinema + \n + When I look to modern Cinema, I see a huge tumor, in the middle. Basicly, all-of-yours Avengers, Iron-mans or Suicide-Squats-things. My problem is that I cant see the point or the reason for watching, or even creating sort-of-these high-budget low-artform movies. \n\n\nOne thing I wont get is why people watching these movies, their reboots over and over past decades. I can accept that old spiderman movies from early 2000s are childhood for some people and I fully respect it.  But what is gonna give you when you make reboot (like latest spiderman honestly), which is ruining franchise? Are you aiming for lower-age audience? Are doing it JUST for money? Dont know the answer.\n\nThen, there comes a popularity of those movies. Did we came to stage that we are going to Cinema only for those \"films\" but killing the rest of the cinema originality? When you come to that stage, Hollywood biggest studios have only concern for this type of extremly profitable movies and loosing care of \"true movies\".\n\nThen, I cant stand the marketing of the movies. You can see list of next superhero movies by marvel or DC for next 10 years, whats the point of that? That you will see next 10 same bad movies only with different villain? **By my point, when you are longering the franchise for long as possible, you are fooling your fans.**\n\nThen, there is a Superhero films in nutshell: People (or heroes, avengers, what-so-ever) are doing extremly unlogical decisions, killing people like robots (no emotion in there) and just killing villains, prepairing for it or just making their way of their personal problems. This is same for most of the movies. (If I didnt saw some best superhero movie, whitch doesnt do wrong these things, reccommend me one). \n\nFor once in while, I can see a good superhero movie, like Batman trilogy from Christopher Nolan. They are doing same things (beating villains, prepairing....) but they are doing it in way to respect the franchise. And its offen rare that someone like Nolan will accept a offer for another superhero blockbuster. \n\nAm I too old, or the movies are for 12year olds (like MLP), but adults love it anyway? Can someone tell me? Besides that, please dont look at my grammar. Its extremly late and Im tired as hell.\n\nThanks, and CMV :).\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Frieza unintentionally saved the universe by destroying planet Vegeta and exterminating the Saiyans + \n + Frieza was a psychotic mass murderer and tyrant but was generally very collected emotionally. Rather than destroy planets for pure entertainment he cleared them out and sold them to species with a need for a new world. It was evil of course, but there was a certain logic to it and seeing as he was just one tyrant in the vastness of the universe it was somewhat unlikely that he'd ever find your world. \n\nHad he not destroyed the Saiyans every other species in the galaxy or universe would have been destroyed.\n\nSaiyans are completely insane. Had Goku not been raised by humans his and his father's ridiculous powers would have been used, more likely lazily guided, by King Vegeta to commit relentless genocide. Saiyans double their power after they almost die, they can turn into giant apes so powerful that five can exterminate all life from one planet, and for whatever reason they can continuously transform into more and more powerful beings. Their ability to turn super saiyan seems to be rather easy if they face enough significant challenges, and their singular interest in combat ensures that they will meet more threats and, rather than get crippled or exhausted, they will only get more powerful after each challenge. Further they don't seem to age as most creatures do, remaining with the physique of a thirty year old well into their autumn years.\n\nIt would appear that the Saiyans were a relatively young species by the time Frieza destroyed them. They conquered planet Tuffle from a nearby moon and established themselves as a civilized species all within the reign of the first and last King Vegeta, going on to introduce themselves to nearby worlds with mass destruction and genocide. Goku and Vegeta's unlimited strength would suggest that eventually, if the Saiyans survived as a species, there could be hundreds of Super Saiyan 3's and 4's wreaking havoc all over the galaxy for no reason other than pure sport. Broly, yet another powerful Saiyan, appears capable of destroying several worlds in a matter of minutes without even needing a spaceship.\n\nIn essence, given a few centuries of constant battle, there would have been thousands of Super Saiyans with the same world-destroying power of Frieza. While he destroyed the species for his own selfish reasons and fears he ensured that, for a time, he was the only individual besides Broly (and later Buu) capable of destroying worlds with ease. This ensured that, statistically, the likelihood of having your world destroyed in the largeness of the universe by one of these three individuals was quite low. \n\nNow imagine billions of Saiyans, billions Brolys Gokus and Vegetas, billions of relentlessly bloodthirsty fighters, capable of transforming into giant apes and having unlimited power ups, fighting and killing purely for the insatiable thrill and fun of it. Goku and Vegeta, even after becoming righteous individuals, clearly demonstrate no interest beyond fighting and eating. Sex, pursuit of knowledge, spending time with family, art... these are at best tertiary interests. Frieza, at the very least, enjoyed having his much weaker minions do much of his fighting for him meaning theoretically one could be spared genocide by a chance encounter with him. There is no avoiding genocide after a Saiyan scouting party discovers your world. \n\nIf in the infinite vastness of the universe there was a planet Vegeta that shared it with our Earth, ideally far away from the Earth Goku eventually landed on with its King Dogs and Dragon Balls chances are we would have been exterminated for no reason beyond the amusement of a species of irreconcilably insane monsters; and Frieza's atrocity spared us all. \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: If you are unattractive, it's largely your fault. + \n + The only times where it's not your fault is if you are disfigured, or if you were born with extreme facial asymmetry. In both cases you cannot change those issues. If you have a nose that is 2 1/2 inches long and crushed in eye socket, then yes, you have an out. \n\nHowever, if you are not disfigured, and your facial syemetry is average, and you are still considered unattractive, well then it's your fault. \n\nAre you overweight? Your fault. \n\nDo you dress like a 35 year old male who still lives in his mom's basement, and wears black velcro shoes?  Your fault. \n\nAre you balding? Depending on the structure of your skull, this is debatable, but you can take steps to mitigate this that don't involve a comb over. Halfway your fault. \n\nDo you have acne? Take better care of your skin. There are some miracle acne drugs out there. Your fault. \n\nDo you only wear shit tier clothes every single day because their \"comfortable\"? Your fault. \n\nDo you wear shit tier clothes every single day because you have no concept of fashion? Your fault. \n\nDo you wear shit tier clothes every single day because you can't afford decent clothes? Work harder, go back to school, still your fault. \n\nLadies, do you not wear makeup because it takes too much effort to apply? Your fault. If makeup didn't work there wouldn't be a multi-billion dollar industry surrounding it. \n\nDo you smell like ass because you don't take a shower every day, use deodorant, and wear cologne/perfume? Your fault. \n\nDo you have a shit tier job because you have a degree in History? Your fault. \n\nMen, do you not shave your unibrow/nose hair? Your fault. \n\nNearly any excuse you can give for why you are unattractive is something you can control for and therefore makes it your fault. I do not presume to say that taking all these steps will make someone a 10/10 but if you are a 2/10, I firmly believe you can go to a 7/10. Everyone can be a 7/10 out of ten. Again, this bars physical characteristics that you have no control over. If you're a 4'10 male, it's not your fault, you just have shitty height genetics. \n\nAlso I am not saying being attractive is easy. It takes a lot of work and a lot of self improvement. \n\nFinally, this post isn't supposed to make anyone feel good. I am fully aware of how douchy it sounds. Spare me the hateful pm's.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Far too many people (specifically Redditors) do not understand Biblical homosexuality and often read the Bible at face value + \n + \n\nHello CMV, practicing Christian here! \n\nI believe that far too many people (this will be reddit-centric) hold many ideas about the bible that reveal only a cursory (and often secondhand) idea about the bible. This post is largely in response to [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3fsgbp/cmvbelief_in_christianity_does_not_necessitate/) one, which harbors several critical arguments including:\n\n1. Homosexuality is sinful as stated in the Bible\n\nand \n\n2. Christians who eat shellfish and wear mixed fibers are just as guilty of sin as homosexuals.\n\nNow, both of these views do not take into account the historical context in which they are presented in the Bible. I will start with point 2 because it leads into point 1.   \n\nMany people argue point two is ridiculous. Anti-theists use it point out the absurdity of the Bible, whereas (Liberal) Theists use it to point out the absurdity of Homosexuality being sinful. What this point fails to address, though, is the difference between [Moral and Ceremonial Law](http://www.gotquestions.org/ceremonial-law.html). From the website: \"The ceremonial laws are called hukkim or chuqqah in Hebrew, which literally means 'custom of the nation'; the words are often translated as 'statutes.'\" Rules such as not eating shellfish and wearing mixed fibers falls into this section. Now, main reason why people single out homosexuality is because Paul lists it as a sexual sin in the New Testament, and is among many of the other \"big sins\" often enumerated in the Bible, including killing, stealing, and lying. \n\nOn point 1, the question becomes why the compilers of the bible centuries ago felt compelled to add passages calling out monogamous same-sex relationships. [Unless, of course, it doesn't.](https://moanti.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/gaychristians/) The crux of the matter is that homosexual sex was used during antiquity as a means of humiliating and demeaning foreigners ( [as explained further in this link](https://moanti.wordpress.com/2013/07/07/the_bible_verse_most_christians_dont_like_to_quote/) ), and was therefore an act of **Rape**, distinct from the 21st century idea that two homosexuals can have a loving and fulfilling relationship.  \n\nI implore the on-the-fence theists reading this to examine the links provided as I also implore the atheists reading to use these links to please *call out* any of my so-called brothers and sisters who use the Bible as a tool for hate and power.\n\nThanks for reading.  \n\n\nAlso, I am by not by any stretch of the imagination a biblical scholar, pastor, or the like, so be gentle please :)     \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Voting Day Should be A Public Holiday + \n + In many democratic countries, the day citizens vote is a public holiday. This is not the case in the US where citizens have to vote before or after work or during a lunch break. I'm from a country where the day people vote is a public holiday. The lines are pretty long in some areas, and the whole process can take a few hours, even if you are quite early. \nSo it makes me wonder, why one earth wouldn't the US not have voting day as a public holiday? It seems like it stops people from voting and that it results in less ballots being cast. This is because people simply do not have the time! People have to juggle a job, family obligations, basic errands needed to survive the day as well as transport and on top of this have to still make time to vote for their futures. It seems counter-intuitive and undemocratic, in the sense that it makes the democratic process less accessible. \n\nAlso, surely the people who won't be able to vote would be from a certain social class or demographic? For example, I\u2019m imagining that a single mother holding down two jobs won\u2019t be able to find the time to do what\u2019s required of her to support herself and her child(ren) in addition to having to find the time to vote. \nIn the case of it being a public holiday, I imagine people will say that this will just be used as a day off to relax and people won\u2019t vote anyway. I think the only people who won\u2019t vote would be people who didn\u2019t want to in the first place for particular reasons, such as cynicism or apathy toward the democratic system, not caring about who\u2019s in charge or no interest in the political system as they don\u2019t think it has an effect on their lives.\n\nI think people will probably also point out that some businesses will likely stay open and citizens will have to work anyway and thus be excluded from voting. In this case, the majority of citizens will still be off work, so this wouldn\u2019t be a complete argument against not having voting day a public holiday. The people who have to work on voting day, would most likely have shorter shifts as this is a public holiday and be allowed to vote. Being that this would be a public holiday, businesses would be forced to pay workers overtime. This would be an incentive to shorter shifts and it would be treated like any other public holiday.\nIn addition, there would be a wider viewership of news networks and other sources of information as citizens would have more time to access this information. \n\nI understand that I come from a different country, so perhaps what I\u2019m saying isn\u2019t going to be particularly applicable to the US. On the other hand, perhaps this is the wake up call that Americans need! In any case, I am greatly interested in discussion and would welcome the chance to change my view.\n\n\nAside, from picking apart my own argument, I'd greatly appreciate to hear what the arguments are in the US by people who don't want to have citizens take the day off on voting day.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:Patriotism is intrinsicly bad. + \n + I believe that it is bad for humans generally that we have patriotism. It leads not only to discrimination. (hello Mr Trump)\nBut also to economic and political difficulties and misstrust.\n\nIt prevents not only people from accepting everyone as their partner in human, but also causes hatred and sometimes war between nations or ethnic groups.\n\nI dont mean that partriotism is worse than no patriotism, but that as a concept and as an element we experience all the time it it in itself bad for us.\n\n(Intrinsic badness versus comparative badness) \n\nWithout patriotism we could form one great community and society. This is prevented by prejudice against others and arrogance about themselves, partiotism conveys.\n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: In general, liberal education does not work as advertised + \n + Most of my friends and I are recently graduated liberal arts students. Ideally, this means that we have [broad knowledge of the wider world (e.g. science, culture, and society) as well as in-depth study in a specific area of interest.](https://www.aacu.org/leap/what-is-a-liberal-education).\n\nHowever, despite being good students, having graduated from a relatively competitive school (one of the \"public ivies\") most of us are hugely lacking in our \"broad knowledge of science, culture and society\".\n\nLast night, twelve of us hung out at my apartment, and we talked a bit about this, and whether we have a \"broad knowledge of the wider world\".  We played a little game where we would ask the group what we considered a broad knowledge or critical thinking question, and kept track of who could either come up with the answer or answered in the affirmative.\n\n----------------------------------------------------------\n\nOut of the twelve of us:\n\nonly 7 said they would be able to solve a simple calculus problem (maximizing the volume of an open faced box given a rectangular piece of cardboard)\n\nOnly 5 got the correct answer to a [relatively easy logic problem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheryl%27s_Birthday) \n\nOnly 6 got the correct answer to an [easier logic problem](http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/the-incredibly-simple-logic-puzzle-that-youll-probably-get-wrong--x1loz87b5WW). This one bothered me the most, since liberal arts is supposed to teach critical thinking, especially in the humanities, but it was only math and science majors getting this one right.\n\nOnly 4 were able to answer a [simple probability problem](http://allendowney.blogspot.com/2011/10/my-favorite-bayess-theorem-problems.html) (The first one). This one also bothered me, since it needs no higher level math, it just involves critical thinking, yet lots of people (all the humanities majors, and some of the science majors) got this one wrong\n\n7 believed that the p-value from a statistical hypothesis test is the probability that the null hypothesis is true\n\nonly 6 had written any computer program in any language\n\nonly 4 said they would be able to solve the first few (very easy) programming challenges on [projecteuler.net](https://projecteuler.net/archives)\n\nonly 8 can read music\n\nonly 7 knew that Yugoslavia is no longer a state (the international studies major shockingly did not)\n\nonly 3 could name 3 or more of the current nations that used to comprise Yugoslavia\n\nOnly 4 knew what [the principle of parallx is](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax) and how it's used in astronomy\n\nOnly 3 have read Ulysses\n\nOnly 4 have read War and Peace\n\nOnly 4 could identify Iambic Pentameter\n\nOnly 5 could name 3 or more Central Powers and 3 or more Allied powers from WW1\n\nOnly 7 could name 3 or more Axis powers and 3 or more Allied powers from WW2\n\nOnly 4 knew what the battle of Hastings was about\n\nOnly 4 knew who the Jacobins were\n\nOnly 4 knew the difference between deontology, consequentialism and virtue ethics\n\nOnly 2 knew the difference between cultural relativism and moral relativism\n\n\nI have more of this if anyone is interested\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------------\n\nOur majors were:\n\nMathematics and Philosophy (me)\n\nMathematics and Economics\n\nMathematics and Economics\n\nComputer science\n\nComputer Science\n\nHistory and Political Science\n\nEnglish Literature and History\n\nEnglish Literature and Psychology\n\nLinguistics and Psychology\n\nBiology\n\nChemistry\n\nInternational Studies\n\n------------------------------------------------------\n\nMy point is that we were all pretty good liberal arts students at a pretty good university, but all had serious gaps in being a well rounded, educated person, who is both good at critical thinking, and has a broad knowledge of the world.\n\nI think that part of the problem is that although our school compelled us to take breadth courses, they were trivially easy (for example, one of us was able to not take any math courses at college, simply because they took AP economics in high school, and they took an introductory Astronomy course that involved basic algebra, another example is that I have never had a college level biology course, I took two easy botany courses that taught virtually nothing about biology). My point though isn't why this is the case, merely that Liberal Arts don't, in general, provide a well rounded education. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, but that discussion is afield from this CMV post.\n\nI'd be willing to give deltas if (but not only if):\n\n* You convince me that my friends and I are simply abberations, and that most liberal arts students have better broad knowledge and critical thinking skills than we do\n\n* The questions that we asked each other last night were either too hard, or not indicative of broad knowledge and critical thinking. \n\n* We fared well enough on the questions such that we could be considered to be well rounded, educated people\n\n* Our school is not representative of most liberal arts educations - other schools compel students to study more broadly and work on their thinking skills better than ours did.\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is no difference between believing you don't know how the universe came in to being, and believing that God brought the universe in to being + \n + The universe exists, and came in to being somehow. \n\nSome claim that we don't know yet exactly how the universe came in to being, we know roughly when it did, and roughly *how* it did, but what caused it to come in to being is a unanswered question - one we may never answer.\n\nThere are others that believe God brought the Universe in to being (that is, an all powerful entity was the first-mover, setting the universe in motion). \n\nBut if God is all powerful and infinite, we have no idea what His/Her/its nature is, and couldn't possibly know, as mortal, finite beings. What is the difference between saying we don't know how the universe came in to being, and saying that this entity that we don't know the nature of, and couldn't possibly comprehend, brought the universe in to being? Aren't they equally nebulous beliefs?\n\nHow does believing that God brought the universe in to being differentiate your beliefs from those who would say we don't know how the universe was brought in to being? Aren't they pretty much the same belief?\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:Racism, sexism and general discrimination will only begin to fade when we stop pointing fingers and accept that \"Us\" vs \"Them\" isn't real, there is only \"Us\" on this earth. + \n + It's a fairly accepted fact that humans are social creatures and like to form groups. This can have positive effects like a sense of belonging, cooperation and division of burdens. However, to make a group, each member has to have something in common, other than just being human. It could be gender, race, a common vision or belief. You get the idea.\n\nSo by uniting based on common characteristics, we automatically exclude those who don't fit the mould. Thus creating every kind of discrimination you can think of.\n\nThe worst part is, if you look at groups of people looking to reduce discrimination, they're as much as part of the problem as the original perpetrators. One example of this in action is the reporter who was kicked out of a Black Lives event in CSU. African Americans have a long history of mistreatment in the US and many have the right to be furious. But the problem is that they see all \"whites\" as being the perpetrators of this mistreatment and exacerbate the \"white vs black\" dichotomy. \n\nMy opinion on how to solve these issues is this: I've been told that to solve problems as a couple, you mustn't make it \"you\" vs \"partner\", you have to make it \"both of you as a couple\" vs \"the problem\". So I think we should apply the same logic to racism and sexism. Women vs men and whites vs blacks (only two of the uncountable amount of dichotomies that exist) can't be solved by separating and pointing fingers at the other group, it can only be solved by uniting. There is no Us vs Them, only Us.\n\nPerhaps you've suffered discrimination first hand (as I have) and disagree with my opinion because you want justice above all. In which case, please explain your opinion.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The homeless people in a certain two block area of Seattle have negative value as human beings + \n + **For clarity:**\n\n- I don't think that all homeless people lack value, just the homeless in this particular area that I walk through every day on my way to work\n\n- I believe that the majority of homeless people have jobs, but due to various factors are temporarily without a home\n\n- I do not believe that the majority of homeless people just use drugs and/or alchohol all day\n\n**For people that live in Seattle:**\nMy walking route is from the train station to the Seattle Art Museum building. The area I'm talking about is walking north on 2nd Avenue, between S Main Street and Yesler Way (on the other side of the street from the Union Gospel Mission)\n\n**My View:**\n\nThe people that loiter along this particular area of Seattle do not provide any value at all to society, and take more than they give. I do not value them as human beings, and if someone there was in need of help I would walk on by without providing any assistance. Here are the things that I see at least once a week, or every day that have created my view:\n\n- In the area where they loiter and sleep, there is always an immense amount of trash on the sidewalk. This is despite there being two dumpsters where they could take the trash to. *None of these people have a serious physical disability that prevents them from throwing away their trash, they just choose not to do it*. A city employee has to go through the area twice a day to clean up their trash. I did see one lady there with a broom cleaning up the area where she sleeps, but she was just moving the trash from the sidewalk to the street.\n\n- The smell of urine is constant, especially in the afternoons when the sun is out. There are at least alley corners where they could urinate, if not bathrooms. They just choose to pee right where they sleep (and people walk) though instead. Again, they are capable of not doing this but choose to do it anyway.\n\n- At least once a week I see the typical things that happen right before a fight. Tension build up, voices raised, body language, etc.. Rarely see this anywhere else in the city, just here. Again, they choose to do this.\n\n- People asking me for money \"for food\". This is probably the thing that most upsets me. In other areas, I don't normally assume the person asking for money is going to just buy drugs with it. In THIS area though, there is a place called the Union Gospel Mission that serves 3 meals a day for free, with no strings attached. The food isn't gross or anything, and it provides plenty of daily calories. How do I know? Because I volunteer there every week. They are literally standing across the street from a place that provides free frood, asking for money to buy food.\n\nThese people don't even respect the area where they've chosen to live, let alone respect the other people that have to walk through there. The city (with my tax dollars) has to send police, trash pick up, and a person with a street cleaner through this area every day just to keep it somewhat decent. This leads me to the conclusion that these people are only takers, and provide no value at all to the society that they live in. Therefore, I do not value them as human beings.\n\nEven in the (very rare) case of the person who is taking advantage of welfare there is value. They are spending money on things, and living in a home. That money goes into the economy, etc... Your average homeless person has value too, they probably have a job and contribute something to their society. I find none of that with this particular group of homeless living in this specific 2 block area.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Baseball is not an interesting, tactical or even skillful sport. + \n + I'm from Australia where we grow up with cricket rather than baseball. The fundamentals are the same: a pitcher throws a ball at a batter, who hits the ball between fielders and then runs to a goal to score points.\n\nBut cricket is superior to baseball in every way. The fielders don't wear gloves. They cover more ground. The batter is allowed and encouraged to hit the ball in a 360 radius from where he stands, compared to 90 degrees in baseball. The field is far more customisable, making allowances for left-handed batsmen and bowlers (pitchers), the bowler himself, the weather conditions, the shape and size of the ground itself, the state of the match. Baseball field positions are more or less static. With the exception of an occasional bunt in baseball, it is more or less all out attack, whereas cricket teams must make constant adjustments to their strategy. Often cricket teams won't even try to get a batter out. \n\nThe area at which a baseball pitcher must aim is extremely small, limiting the number of ways the batter can deal with a ball in the 'strike zone.' Conversely cricket bowlers can and do aim at a batman's body in order to intimidate them, or pitch the ball in other areas in order to entice them to play risky shots that are likely result in an out. That is to say, the rules of cricket allow for players to have a much wider spectrum of playing styles than baseball does.\n\nInnings are longer in cricket which allows 'relationships' to develop between batters, and tactical battles to evolve between opposing batters and bowlers. In baseball a pitcher and batter will only face each other for a theoretical maximum of 54 pitches per game (the reality is far, far less than this), whereas it is common in cricket for one batsman to face one bowler for hundreds of deliveries (pitches) per game. Cricket batsmen can choose whether to run or not, which requires a whole extra layer of strategy from both teams.\n\nThere is more. Cricket is to baseball as chess is to checkers. What does baseball have over cricket?\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Republicans are trying to win through voter suppresion + \n + I try very hard to see both sides of any issue.  I honestly believe that most \"normal\" people want what's best for their country, but they have different ideas either of what is best or what's the best way to achieve it.\n\nBut particularly since the recent limitations of the protections granted by the Voting Rights Act, the Republicans have jumped on every opportunity to limit voting - reducing hours, eliminating early voting, passing voter ID rules, and on and on.\n\nI can see the argument for Voter ID in theory, but the other measures have one objective - make it harder for poor (i.e., Democratic) voters to cast their ballot.\n\n\nThere are some pretty damning quotes from Republicans about their true intent, [like these](http://billmoyers.com/2014/10/24/voter-discrimination/).\n\nI can't imagine anyone who has any idealism about democracy, especially someone who considers themselves a patriot, not wanting all legal voters to cast a ballot.\n\nI don't want to be cynical, but I don't see any other way to view this other than Republicans valuing winning over respecting the democratic process.  Please, help me find another way to look at this.\n\n[And, to save you some time, the argument that what they are doing is technically legal won't cut it.  I know it is, but that doesn't make it right or defensible, which is what I'm concerned with.]\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The result of the Supreme Court case on gay marriage is the next step in the \"sexual revolution\" and might have certain negative implication on society. + \n + First of all, I want to first express how happy I am with this subreddit. It has always been a hub for civilized discussion on complicated and difficult topics. I have never witnessed uncivilized discussion on here before and I'm glad to be a part of the community. Good job, Reddit!\n\nWith that said, if you are unfamiliar with the sexual revolution I am referring to, this is a time beginning in the 1960s where people experienced an \"urge to 'find oneself'\" ([Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_revolution)). During this time, lots of previously taboo'd sexually related acts, ideals, etc entered into society and have more recently, at the end of the 20th century have thoroughly integrated themselves into it. This involves a large variety of things including but not limited to: proliferation and normalization of pornography, sex before marriage, acceptance of sexually explicit movie/television material, contraceptions, and the LGBT movement.\n\nFor example, pornography, which was formerly unheard of in public conversation is now often not only discussed, but glorified and upheld as a great thing. This is just one example of what I am talking about. *I am not arguing the moralities of pornography however.*\n\n**My argument: **The recent decision by the Supreme Court to rule in favor of gay marriage is simply the next step in the sexual revolution and essentially negates some of the arguments against the next step after this; I am specifically referring to  incestuous relationships, and other ways of \"loving\" someone. However, I will mainly refer to incest for the sake of a shorter discussion.\n\n* One of the main arguments against gay marriage is that it is \"unnatural\". One could also argue that incest is unnatural, but even more broadly, any sexual relationship outside of marriage between a man and woman can be argued effectively as unnatural.\n\n* Gay marriage activists very frequently champion progressive thinking and non-discrimination as basis for legalizing gay marriage. The term progressive is very open for interpretation, but eliminating discrimination is very straight forward. If someone named Cercei loves her brother named Jamie, should it be allowed? Should they be allowed to marry and procreate? Incestuous relationships very often breed deformities and retardations in children; should these children be forced to have an incomplete, handicapped life on the basis of equality. *For more information on incest please view this very informative [documentary](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068473/).*\n\n* Another argument against gay marriage has frequently been that it further inhibits the ability for the human race to procreate. This is fairly obvious as to why people say this: a man and a man cannot bear a child and vice versa. However, the same argument stands for incest; in fact, it is worse. Incestuous relationships don't further the human species, but rather they turn it backwards by corrupting genes and eliminating diversity. Also, as previously stated, incest often results in retardation in the resulting child.\n\nWith gay marriage legalized officially, these arguments become unsubstantial and hypocritical to argue with against incest.\n\n**In conclusion, my fear is that the sexual revolution has the potential to continue to progress and eventually today's taboos will become everyday occurrences all on the basis of equality and non-discrimination.** This has the potential to effect humans on not only a genetic level by potentially allowing incest to corrupt human genetic material and cause genetic disorders, but also on a societal level where humans become more concerned with catering to someones sexual identity/preference rather than the actual person inside. I believe this could be devastating to humans. I don't claim to know what would happen, but it isn't too difficult to come up with a worst-case scenario of what society could become when the main focus of peoples interactions is politically correctness, being non-offensive, and catering to every form of person on a sexual basis.\n\nPlease feel free to ask questions and I will be happy to clarify.\n\nCMV,\nTresky\n\n*Disclaimer: I am in no way attempting to say that gay marriage in and of itself is causing the downfall of humanity and am not attempting to demonize or put-down members of the LGBT community. I am merely making a case of a path that humanity could potentially be (and I now believe is) on that leads to a corrupt and evil society.*\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: In an intimate relationship, you have an obligation to satisfy your partner's sexual needs. + \n + Disclaimer: I am in no way justifying, or condoning pressuring anyone for sex in any situation, in any way. That being said:\n\nWhat happens after the honeymoon period when one person still desires sex, but their partner has lost interest (commonly referred to as a [dead bedroom](http://reddit.com/r/DeadBedrooms))?\n\nI think it's still the duty of the disinterested party to at least minimally fulfill the sexual needs of their partner, if sustaining the relationship is a priority. In bullet form, here's why:\n\n* Each partner in the relationship is the others' only source of intimacy and sex (assuming a monogamous relationship), therefore if one partner withholds sex, the physical needs of the other is not being met. What is ultimately a chore or an inconvenience for one partner is a physiological necessity for the other.\n\n* Compromise is fundamentally part of every aspect of a relationship, and sex is no different. I'm conflicted in my thinking on this point: No one should be made to have sex if they don't want to. However, both my SO and I do things for each other that we don't necessarily want to do because it's better for the relationship, or it makes the other happy. I don't believe sex and intimacy should be treated differently- it's reasonable to have expectations of sex as a requirement of the relationship.\n\nThoughts?", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Female Nintendo characters have recently started to be role models instead of sexist caricatures. + \n + Back in the day, the only thing Princess Peach did was get kidnapped by King Bowser. For the purposes of the story and the limited resources available to the developers, saving the princess was the main goal. It made sense. But as time went on we get to see Nintendo princesses and women kick serious ass. Samus, Zelda (and Sheik!) and even Princess Peach when she's not getting kidnapped.\n\nWe see women characters in Nintendo games get treated as equals in games like Mario Kart, Mario Party/sports games and even Smash Bros. Princess Peach is one of the best characters in Sm4sh if you ask me. And while Nintendo has some progress to make (Super Princess Peach was an embarrassment), games like Super Mario 3D world (where Peach AND Rosalina are playable) show that they're willing to make the women the star of the show too.\n\nEven in the Zelda series, Princess Zelda isn't a character that just gets kidnapped. Twilight Princess shows us that she's the strong and powerful ruler of Hyrule. She was willing to stand up to Zant and Gannon, with a sword in her hand. Even in Ocarina of Time (spoilers ahead, lol) she is running around helping out Link as Sheik. In Wind Waker she's a kick-ass, take no prisoners kind of pirate.\n\nI know that the history of \"your princess is in another castle\" type stories are problematic but we've seen Nintendo's female characters grow and mature in a way that few other female video game characters have.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Infidelity should be punishable under civil law. + \n + Humans have decided that trust is how we operate. It is the basis of contract law, of commerce, of nations, of democracy and last but certainly not least, it is the basis of personal relationships. If we are willing to try people for breaches of trust in these areas, why then when someone cheats on their partner can the partner not sue for breach of trust? That's not even accounting for the emotional trauma. I don't think that people should go to prison for it but awarding some level of damages to the other person seems fair to me. I feel like I should mention I've never cheated or been cheated on, this is just something I was thinking of earlier today.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Bernie Sanders idea of free college doesn't seem like a good thing. + \n + This is probably because I am really bad at understanding politics and don't totally know what Sanders wants to do.  \n\nBut the money for free college would come from taxes, correct?  Does that mean that taxes would get raised or that he would just alter around the spending the government does?  Because if taxes are going to get raised that means I have to pay for my own loans that are going to take 10 years plus extra taxes so people can go for free?  That is not fair and while it seems nice, I don't have the money for that.  Nor, I'm sure, do most Americans.  \n\nAnd what happens with private institutions?  Does that mean through my taxes I am paying for someone to go a $60,000 school when I couldn't go to one myself because I couldn't afford it?  Maybe that seems selfish, but that does not seem fair.  And the government should not be able to force me to pay so other people can get an easier life when I myself did not get that chance.  By the way, I know I am already being forced to pay for things I don't want, but shouldn't we be trying to lessen those instances instead of adding to them?\n\nI mean, on paper his idea sounds great.  Free college, a better educated America, a more economically even country. YAY.  But that doesn't come for free.  And just because I am finally out of school and making a semi-decent wage doesn't mean I should have to pay for other people.  I guess that means I am anti-socialism?  Is there maybe any other way that this could be accomplished?  Like just lessening the cost of college somehow instead of totally free?\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe in complete bodily autonomy + \n + So long as a person is mentally sound and not infringing upon the rights of others, they should be able to do as they please to their own body. Body modification (tattoos, piercings, plastic surgery), abortion, suicide, drug use, you name it. If I want to burn my brain on exstacy and I'm not robbing anyone for cash or injuring anyone while intoxicated, go me. If I want breasts the size of watermelons, woohoo. If I simply do not wish to live on this planet, that's up to me to bury a bullet in my skull. If any of these things end up being a mistake, they are my mistake to make and the government should have no say in whether or not I can commit them. ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The solution to (future) student debt is not to make the colleges free, but to make them more efficient. + \n + I am seeing a lot of posts and news articles recently about lowering the student debt, most notably Bernie Sanders claim to make all colleges free. The debate seems to rage back and forth about whether this is tenable, and who would pay the cost, but for me, this seems to be totally the wrong direction.\n\nWhen I went to university, out of the four years getting a psychology degree, I learned maybe 2 years of psychology. The rest of my courses were electives. In fact, I took as many psych courses as they would allow, getting special permission to specialize, and it was still less than half. Upon graduating, I found out that most masters programs don't require you to have your bachelors in their subject, as they are basically teaching you from scratch (some will add one extra year if you are from a totally different discipline). Why can't the solution to be to push for less extraneous courses in college? It would lower the debt (less years) and allow you to join the workforce earlier.\n\nPrime examples: Law school can be entered with any degree, Medical school requires a single years worth of prerequisite sciences and any degree, Masters of psychology can be done with any degree, Computer science Masters will require only 1 additional year if you have no background...\n\nI feel like I am missing something obvious here. Please CMV.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Math should not segregate students of different skill levels by placing an adept student into the next year's class. Instead, advanced students should be placed in a rigorous class that uses the same concepts in their peers but in more unconventional and challenging ways. + \n + Disclaimer: I am only well versed with the math system in the USA.\n\nIn the contemporary classroom, math is an integral class to any student's curriculum. Students are all required to take math for nearly every year. The teacher usually teaches just the concepts in these normal classes. Some students score much higher on these conceptual tests administrated to the class than others. When this consistently happens, the school opts to place the student in a so-called advanced math class, in which they learn material in advance and at a faster pace than their peers. For example, those who demonstrate exceptional ability in 6th grade can skip to Algebra 1 if they pass a ~~national~~ standardized placement test. Supposedly, the schools have demonstrated that they have accomodated the student's needs for a more rigorous class. However, I believe that they have instead wasted the potential of the student's ability because the student never is allowed to expand and extrapolate from the concepts they are taught.\n\nWhen we examine the student who skips to Calculus in year 10 when their peers are learning Geometry, we can see that both the advanced student and the regular students are learning math at the same depth. The Calculus student is supposedly more advanced simply because they have learned more content. However, when we consider that the advanced student has taken summer classes which claim to teach a year's worth of math in 8 weeks, one must then question how the adept has demonstrated their true mastery of the material. Most classes in the USA are little more than plug and chug classes. Algebra 1 teaches students how to make linear and quadratic functions, but it doesn't teach the context behind why they're used. Geometry, which supposedly emphasizes proofs and thinking beyond plug and chug, presents its questions in a straightforward manner. The diagrams are simple enough to \"eyeball\" the answer before one even starts the proof. Algebra 2 is a mashup of so many random concepts, like exponentials and logarithms, polynomials, sequences and series, and matrices, but it doesn't teach amything about why we have those functions and why we use those functions. We don't learn in Algebra 2 that logs were used to represent numbers of greater magnitude than what is comprehendable, nor are we taught about the ability for sequences and series to approximate a value. Trigonometry only teaches us how we can graph a sinusoid and how to use the Law of Sines. It doesn't teach us how we can use sinusoids to represent harmonic motion, nor does it teach how people rearranged the Pythagorean theorem to create a more convenient rule for different scenarios. The school only teaches surface level content to its students, creating a math foundation which is a mile wide, but only a millimeter deep.\n\nEven in differential calculus, students are usually only taught a.) what the derivative is, b.) how to differentiate this long equation, and c.) how to maximize/minimize the function. They aren't taught the true potential and the true challenge of using calculus, and why people created calculus in the first place. For example, while most may know how to maximize the volume of a box, they most likely won't know how to find mutual tangent lines of two quadratic equations. The second task requires understanding of not only what the derivative is, but also requires one to know how to combine the concepts of two points on a linear equation and the how having two different parabolas will affect the model/setup used. What is the point of learning faster if a.) the slower peers will reach the same amount of understanding as you and b.) you will run out of so-called harder and more advanced classes?\n\nSome schools claim that their honors classes solve this problem entirely. They claim that with their honors class comes a chance to view material in \"greater depth\". From my observations (feel free to post counterexamples), I see the schools just jamming more surface level content into their classes. Algebra 2 Honors simply adds conics and asks the students to transform the rectangular equations. They are never taught about how conics begin with parametrics and then transform into rectangular equations. Precalculus Honors simply covers limits (and in some places, simple derivatives) without really expanding on said concepts. What I don't understand is why these schools don't spend more time on developing mastery and context to each concept.\n\nMath, after all, is about understanding patterns of numbers. It's not about simply plug and chug. We don't do harder math by saying \"99x99 is easier than 999x999, which is easier than 9999x9999, therefore we should teach the advanced to do 9999x9999\", we ask ourselves why the answers of those multiplications creates a pattern of 9801, 998001, and 99980001. It's a shame that this kind of teaching is what's driving some people away from math. To them, it's simply busywork, because no teacher provides a challenge which requires much forethought to answer.\n\nCMV?\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: USA was unjustified in bombing Japan to hasten the end of World War 2. The government of USA should apologize from the nation of Japan. + \n + Why I hold this view:\n\n1.  America can't ever be considered to be justified in using atomic bombs to end a war. Those bombs were dropped on cities full of innocent civilians, women and children. People with real lives, they were emotional sentient beings; not a statistical number. There had to be some other way than decimating two civilian cities just because we want to end a war quickly.\n\n2. Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda executed a brutal plan to orchestrate the 9/11 attacks. [According to them, their major motivation was to end the presence of US in gulf countries and other motives as well.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#Motives) For this purpose they chose to ram airplanes in the WTC  & Pentagon to achieve maximum civilian casualties and make a frightening spectacle for the US public. The ends justify the means seems to be their reasoning. Was Al-Qaeda & Co justified in perpetrating 9/11? \nNo one would say yes.\n\n     If we observe the reasoning of US generals behind the nuclear bombing to end World War 2, we can see some parallels. Al-Qaeda and American Generals both used a method of causing mass casualties to drive a point across. They both used lives of innocent civilians as a statistic to further their respective causes. The atomic bombings caused 246,000+ casualties (not taking into account the deaths caused later by radiation exposure and cancer. 9/11 caused 3000 deaths. \n\n\n3. Civilians VS Army: If you believe that the ends justify the means, then dropping the bomb may seem justified. But then you also agree that civilian casualties are fair game to drive a point across. Army is a different thing. A soldier agrees to the dangers of war and hardship for the protection of their nation. They agree to the fact that they may not return alive from a war. A civilian is a different case, their involvement in a war is very remote. To slaughter innocent civilians just because it will hasten the end of a war seems unjustified. Many people hold the viewpoint that the US bombing was in retaliation of Pearl Harbour. But the Japanese attacked a naval base, they did not bomb a hospital or a school did they? If we agree that the end justify the means then logically we have to say that Al-Qaeda was kind of justified to cause 9/11 as well.\n\n4. The argument of USA that the bombing saved more lives compared to Operation Downfall, in the long term, is wrong. Because at least the lives of innocent civilians would have been spared. How do we even know the outcome of Operation Downfall? Moreover Japan was nearly close to surrendering anyway as the Secretary Of War, Henry Louis Stimson agreed: \n\n\u201cJapan had no allies; its navy was almost destroyed; its islands were under a naval blockade; and its cities were undergoing concentrated air attacks.\u201d\n\n\nWe erased two cities and its people from history. We dehumanized them, reduced them to a statistic. W[e even censored images and stories of the Japanese victims to push the narrative in our direction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Depiction.2C_public_response_and_censorship). At least the Government should officially apologize to the nation of Japan.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Sometimes, the idea of being transgender perpetuates heteronormative society, and less people would consider themselves transgender if we didn't restrict people based on gender. + \n + Hi Reddit. With all the news over the past couple weeks regarding Caitlyn Jenner\u2019s transition and coming out, I feel now is a good time to discuss gender\u2019s role in society and its position in how people identify as an individual. I would like to preface myself by saying that I identify as a pansexual cis-male, and I certainly have zero issues with people that are transgendered. I do, however, get very confused as to *why* some people are transgendered.\n\n\nMany people use the phrase, \u201cI am a male trapped in a female\u2019s body,\u201d or, \u201cmy body is male but my brain is female.\u201d What does this even mean? From a very young age, people are raised with ideas imposed upon us that dictate what boys are and what girls are, and these perceptions have nothing to do with the biological sex of someone and are typically based upon baseless stereotypical personality traits or what that gender should like to do. We are taught boys should play with toy cars and tools while girls are supposed to like barbies and dresses. These stereotypes are completely disparate from the reality that people are often multi-faceted, and might like many things across several disciplines and across several \u201cgender\u201d boundaries. I, personally, love to wrench my own car, build things, and in the same day I might decide to look totally different and wear makeup as an artistic outlet or go out shopping with friends to look at heels. These interests have nothing to do with my biological sex, and shouldn\u2019t have an affect on how I identify.\n\n\nSociety has dictated that girls do certain things and boys do certain things. What does this mean when someone who is anatomically male tends to like a lot of the things that the opposite gender stereotypically likes? I think it\u2019s unfair to oneself to say, \u201cI like girl things so therefore I\u2019m a girl,\u201d or, \u201cI like looking like a girl so I\u2019m a girl.\u201d This idea of outward presentation equating to one\u2019s gender identity seems restrictive to me. I question how many people would identify as transgender if these societal norms became antiquated and everyone was truly free to express all sides of themselves regardless of physical sex. It should not be odd to be a very \u201cfeminine\u201d person (makeup, hair, dress, etc) and be anatomically male and identify as a male despite one\u2019s outward aesthetic. There shouldn\u2019t even be an emphasis in society as to what gonads someone possesses. I believe far less people would identify as transgender, especially considering some people that are transgendered do not want sexual reassignment surgery, if we, as a society, were more open minded about individuality instead of trying to group people together based on their gender. If one doesn\u2019t even want to have SRS, but they want to live their life \u201cas a wo/man,\u201d how is this not simply perpetuating the heteronormative ideologies imposed upon us? One shouldn\u2019t have to explain to society who they are with their gender just because they don\u2019t fit into the false dichotomy of male/female.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Irish people are British + \n + \nJust to be clear I'm in no way an imperialist 'little Englander' type. A personal mantra is 'one race, the human race'. IMHO nationalism is a scourge on society (perhaps we'd better save that for a future CMV).\n\nI'm English but feel as close kinship to Irish people as I do with Scottish & Welsh people. Looking at my own family tree you don't have to go too far back to find plenty of Irish, Scottish & Welsh relatives amongst the English.\n\nMany thanks to everyone for the carefully considered and thought provoking responses. Peace & love upon you whether you happen to be British or Irish or anything else for that matter :)\n\n**Change my view : Irish people are British**\n\nBackground : A dear friend of mine is Irish, I\u2019m English. Last year in a conversation relating to the broad differences between Irish & English people I made the following remark \u2018we\u2019re both British\u2019 the reply I got was \u2018you can call me a cunt but don\u2019t call me a Brit\u2019. This is the only time I\u2019ve heard her use the word cunt.\n\nI\u2019m aware there is a lot of controversy around this issue in Ireland, and have read about it fairly extensively, but I cannot accept the factual premise that Irish people are not British.\n\nTo me, to be British you have to be a citizen or native of a country within the British Isles. The island of Ireland is one of the British Isles and has been so since before the notion, never mind the nations, of England or Ireland even existed.\n\nThere does appear to be widespread ignorance that somehow confuses the term \u2018British\u2019 with the term \u2018English\u2019 or the island of Great Britain.\n\nIt seems very odd to me that Irish people would rather be identified by the English word \u2018Irish\u2019 than the ancient word \u2018British\u2019.\n\n\nTo some there seems to be a political meaning to the term \u2018British\u2019, whereas in my eyes it\u2019s a geographical term like \u2018European\u2019.\n\nI\u2019m fully aware that people are entitled to their own view on whether they are British or not, what they're not entitled to are their own facts.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: If your brain chemistry is not right... Pills, self-help books, meditation, ... won't make any difference at all when you are clinically depressed + \n + I've been taking many different types of anti-depressants over the last 10 years, I read dozens of self-help books about positive thinking, and recently started doing meditation,... I still feel miserable, I always have been. It's not curable. For me it's comparable to having diabetes, it's not curable, you just have to live with it.\n\nI rarely leave my apartment, I have no friends and no girlfriend. I just live, but never enjoy anything. The only substance that makes me somewhat happy for a short period of time is alcohol. I wonder if there are people out there who are in a similar situation than me or can give a solution that I haven't tried yet.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: We live in a society designed for \"Morning People\", but this system should be abolished and replaced with one that favors \"Night People\". + \n + The idea that individuals have circadian rhythms that determine their sleep behavior is [well studied](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17936039). For the purposes of this CMV, I'm assuming this phenomenon is at least semi-accurate for most of the population. I am also assuming we live in a society that is based around the sleep patterns of morning people.\n\nHowever, my view is that society would be better off if it catered to so-called \"Night-owls\". Night owls are shown to be more intelligent, more personable, and more productive than morning people. [However, there is empirical evidence that they suffer from a kind of \"social jet-lag\" that results in less happiness, less white matter in the brain, and more self-reports of feeling tired](http://www.medicaldaily.com/night-owls-smarter-new-study-suggests-late-bed-late-rise-leads-greater-workplace-success-244753).\n\nMy hypothesis is that Night owls show increased aptitude *despite* suffering through unfavorable conditions. If presented with favorable conditions, such as a societal system of late-to-bed, late-to-rise, we would see an even more pronounced productivity and success from these people, which would benefit society as a whole.\n\nWe no longer live in a strictly agrarian society. \"Business Hours\" as they stand are arbitrary, and in an increasingly international business world, strict hours become even less reasonable. We have lived under the tyranny of morning people for too long. Their antiquated and inefficient system must be abolished. Long Live the Night Owl. Long Live the New Flesh. CMV.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is something inherently wrong with individuals who like pineapple on their pizza. + \n + I have always hated pineapple pizza. I have tried it regularly for years to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding the appeal but it has never worked. Pineapple is a relatively sweet fruit on it's own and a combination of sweet and salty flavors is not that uncommon, however no amount of pepperoni or any other topping can mask the vile taste and dissappointment that is a mouthful of delicious pizza ruined by the fruit. This has led me to the conclusion that there is either something psychologically or potentially physiologically wrong with people who like pineapple pizza.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Not Everyone Is Beautiful. Self-esteem Efforts Are Misguided. + \n + I've seen quite a bit in recent years on social media, TV, and other mediums, an attempt to bring up the self-esteem of many people, most notably of which is probably young women.  The idea is fantastic, but the methodology is misguided.\n\nThe problem we have faced in the past is a woman's worth being tied directly to her physical attractiveness.  If a woman was physically beautiful, she was desirable, regardless of intelligence, personality, work ethic, values, etc.  Of course, I'm over simplifying just a bit, but we're all aware of the problem.\n\nFast forward to recent years, and we have lots of groups attempting to combat the problem of physical attractiveness being a woman's value, but this is off base.  They attempt to solve the problem by redefining beauty.  They try to convince young ladies that everyone is beautiful, that curves (fat) are beautiful, that acne is beautiful, that being flat-chested is beautiful, etc.  Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but when you were to approach it from a statistical view, it is obvious that certain traits are generally more desirable than others.  This is why most professional models are tall, have small waists, have angular facial features, small noses, full lips, large breasts, long arms, long fingers, long legs proportionally.\n\nWhat is largely ignored by social campaigns that, in some ways, demonize beauty, is the idea of acceptance.  Girls and guys are not taught to accept that they were dealt a certain set of cards for life.  You can take care of your body, work out, eat healthy, etc, to get the most out of what you've been given, but young people are not generally taught to accept that they are who they are and they have certain limitations to live within.  If you're short, frumpy, have a big nose, acne, or whatever, I believe it's better to teach people to accept who you are.  It reminds me of a line from \"The Incredibles\" that made perfect sense.  Yes, I'm referencing a child's movie, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid.  The main bad guy is Syndrome, and part of his sinister plot is to give everyone super powers because, \"When everyone is super, no one will be.\"\n\nMuch in the same way, if everyone is beautiful, then nobody is beautiful.\n\nFor guys, a possible equivalent to a female's beauty is a man's athleticism.  However, it doesn't seem that guy's are taught to be fooled into thinking everyone is athletic.  Because beauty is more subjective, it is more difficult to quantify, but with athleticism, no one would try to tell me I'm just as athletic as Anthony Davis to make me feel better.  They'd tell me he's a special athlete, and I need to accept I'll never be a professional athlete, and I need to not tie my worth to my athleticism. \n\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: As a biologist, I have no issue with using the terms gender and sex interchangeably. Context is what matters. + \n + I am a biologist that has done some research on the evolution of sex in dioecious plants. This is a topic that has frustrated me from time to time over the last year or so.  Here on reddit and other forums I have run across phrases such as the following:\n\n * Gender refers to a social construct and is not used interchangeably with biological sex\n\n\n * There is no such thing as biological gender\n\n\n * Sex is not gender/gender is not sex\n\nI've also had a psychologist buddy of mine get on to me for misapplying the term gender when discussing the biological sex of a plant.\nNow, I understand that the word gender can be used to describe a social construct and/or internal identity rather than refer to biological sex. Welcome ladies and gentlemen to the English language, where words can mean different things in different contexts. And this isn't just a colloquialism, where people have misused the term gender to the point where it has become commonplace. This is used all the time in biology to describe sex in species other than humans. See [this paper](http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Roberto_Tognetti/publication/233384891_Adaptation_to_climate_change_of_dioecious_plants_does_gender_balance_matter/links/09e4150ea89dc9eab9000000.pdf) on dioecious plant species. \nWe even have a term in biology called [gender load](http://www.uoguelph.ca/~amclab/amclab/Publications_files/Svensson.EA.09.pdf) to describe a phenomena where there is a  continuous production of low-fitness offspring of\nboth sexes. If you are concerned that someone might not understand what they are talking about, use what I just laid out as a correction. Tell them they are confusing identity or social construct and biological sex. In the same way that you might tell someone opposed to gay rights that when you\u2019re talking about marriage you are referring only to the legal contract between spouses and not what they think their god says. \n\nFurthermore, [an etymology search]( http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=gender&searchmode=none) of the word gender reveals that the word has long been used interchangeably with sex. \nSo, tell me reddit. Am I a culturally insensitive bastard, for using gender interchangeably with biological sex in context? CMV.\n\n\n\n___\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: It is wrong to look at/ expose people whose information was leaked with the Ashley Madison hack. + \n + \nAshley Madison was a website for cheaters. And *generally* cheating is wrong, but it isn't always wrong. Maybe it's an open, non-monogamous relationship. Maybe the guy was cheating with the blessing of his wife. Maybe the wife was completely shut down sexually and the choice was between having an affair on the side to fulfill his sexual needs or throw away an otherwise happy marriage. Maybe we as society shouldn't be in the position to judge other people's personal lives just because we disagree with someone else's action. Just because you don't want to be cheated on it doesn't mean that you can judge cheaters who were in some situation that you know nothing about and are in no position to pass judgement on. \n\nThese people have a right to privacy. The internet leaking into people's lives ruins thing for people permanently. There was a vox(?) article about the lives of people who twitter has shamed after their shaming. I worry that the response to this leak is going to be out of proportion to the general social backlash that a cheater receives. Normally when someone cheats (without the consent of their SO) their relationship ends and that is more or less the extent of it. The nature of this leak is such that it will expose thousands of people to blackmail and professional consequences all for something that while, morally unacceptable in our society, is not criminal.  \n\nAlso look at the fucking hypocrisy. Reddit collectively denounced Gawker for publishing the allegations that some businessman was visiting a male prostitute like a month ago. Now all of a sudden it is fine to go outing all these other men who were cheating or attempting to cheat on their spouses? It's the exact same situation that the businessman in the Gawker article was in, but because it is 1 million people instead of just one specific person we don't feel sympathy? That's bullshit.\n\nTL;DR Keep your nose out of other people's business you judgmental asshole.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is no way the GOP can win the 2016 Presidential election. + \n + \nThe GOP has too many candidates, and while the majority of them will fall off before the nominations, one or two additionally popular candidates has the possibility to pull enough votes to cost an election. \n\nI believe that the GOP has become increasingly divided, with groups like the Tea Party pulling many members, and having their own candidates like Rand Paul. While these groups identify under the Republican umbrella, their views vary quite a bit. \n\nThis type of division in the party has cost the Republicans elections in the past, recently with the Clinton v. Bush election in 1992[^1](http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=1992) where Independent Ross Perot pulled 19 Million primarily Conservative votes. Historically one could look at the Election of 1912[^2](http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=1912) where the Republican party was torn between TR and Taft. \n\nI could see where one could argue this could happen with the Democratic party as well because of Hilary Clinton's popularity, but also Bernie Sander's increasing popularity when Clinton is pretty much assumed to get the Dem nomination, but I don't believe the Democratic party is as divided as the GOP. \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The Civil War was about slavery + \n + You often hear the phrase \"The Civil War wasn't about slavery\", particularly from socially conservative people. Take for example this quote:\n\n\"Slavery was a \u201cside issue to the Civil War,\u201d said Pat Hardy, a Republican board member, when the board adopted the standards in 2010. \u201cThere would be those who would say the reason for the Civil War was over slavery. No. It was over states\u2019 rights.\u201d [Source](http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/150-years-later-schools-are-still-a-battlefield-for-interpreting-civil-war/2015/07/05/e8fbd57e-2001-11e5-bf41-c23f5d3face1_story.html?hpid=z4)\n\nYes, the war was fought over states rights...**to have slavery**. I believe that those who deny that slavery was the cause of the war have no factual basis for this and are simply saying it to make the Confederacy appear less racist.\n\nI will admit though, I am not familiar with civil war history. So if you can CMV by pointing out another reason for the war, independent of slavery, go for it.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: How is it moral that we are tossed into jail prior to being convicted by a jury of our peers, by simply being arrested? + \n + This question focuses on the US justice system, though it seems to be prevalent in all countries I know. Essentially by virtue of the law, you are innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, how is it fair or sensible that you can be arrested and put in jail with potentially other violent criminals, and treated like one yourself; without being convicted? No proof has been presented to incarcerate you. \n\nIn short, how is it moral to treat people like criminals before their conviction? \n\nI do understand that if an arrest is made, it is sensible that that person be detained (rather important if you literally catch someone committing murder or something violent like this). But until proven being a shadow of a doubt, should you not be detained in a location that is more humane and safe? At the very least, your on room with privacy and no danger. Is this simply not a practical? Would it just cost too much?\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:Reddit-style forums are superior to the more common single thread forums for almost any purpose. + \n + To pull an example of a single thread forum off the web: [here](http://support.zathyus.com/index/).\n\nThe only situation where single threads might be good is where a fixed group is involved, for example project planning by a small team or a roleplaying session with a game master.  In that case, it might be good to prevent the conversation from fracturing and keep everyone on the same page.\n\nWhen it comes to most social or entertainment purposes, reddit's style of branching threads with up/downvotes just works better.\n\n-It prevents the loudest people in the conversation from drowning everyone out.  In addition, it allows you to ignore particularly obnoxious posters.\n\n-It allows discussion of a tangent without derailing the main topic.\n\n-It allows you to go back to earlier posts in the conversation and address points that were overlooked the first time around.\n\n-Upvotes give you a way to silently voice approval, without wasting words to repeat what the other poster said.\n\n-Reddit's AMA tradition is one of the better ways of conducting public interviews, and it would not be possible in a single thread forum.\n\nWith all these advantages, I don't think that single thread forums should be used as much as they are.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Anarchism/Voluntaryism is the Ethical Superior to Government + \n + I am an anarchist, to be specific, a Voluntaryist anarcho-capitalist.\nAnarchism is the absence of government, the state. Voluntaryism is a political philosophy with two main points; all interactions should be voluntary by all parties, and everyone should abide by the non-aggression principle (people can not threaten, force, or coerce another person, for that is violent). \nTo get it strait, I believe anarchism is only associated with chaos for the reason that the polar opposite of anarchy, the state, has been in power for thousands of years and is the ones to educate people since then.\nI believe that the state itself is a hypocrisy; no man can be trusted to rule himself, so lets have someone from this group rule everyone.\nI believe that taxation is theft on the grounds that they do not ask for your consent when they take your money, and is immoral no matter what the money is used for.\nI believe that arresting is kidnapping, especially when it comes to lawbreakers, who I define as those who commit victimless crimes, compared to criminals who commit crimes with victims. To be honest, my views here are somewhat fuzzy.\nThough I am absolutely not against learning and education, I am against state-based education. I find it violent through coercion. I or my parents could be fined or jailed because I want to take complete charge in my own education or just don't want to be educated in a place that indoctrinates patriots from an age where we can't argue well against it?\nI do not believe that technological advancement will halt in any major way.\nI do not believe that electricity, sewage, internet and the like will go away at all without government. Well, it's possible in a place where the government controls everything, but not entirely, I believe.\nI am against the police because they have the legal right to kill you for what a couple documents say. People should only have the right to kill another individual as a last option in defense of yourself or someone else. No one should have the right to kidnap or kill you for a victimless crime. (Again, somewhat of a fuzzy area, especially when it comes to rapists or murderers.)\nI believe that laws are nothing but threats. \u201cIf you do this, then we have the right to go as far as to kill you.\u201d That sounds completely immoral, using threats to keep someone from doing something. \nI do not think people are any less safe in the long term if anarchy suddenly reigned on mankind. In fact, I believe that there will be a much stronger sense of community without a state, and a greater sense of protection.\nI am sure I missed some points here, and I apologize if this seems too long. I tried to keep it short.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Publicly humiliating children is an ineffective parenting tool. + \n + *note: I mean any and all cases like this, I'm just using the case below as an example*.\n\nI'm sure many of you have seen the viral Facebook video of a mother shaming her 13-year old daughter. As of last night (when I checked) the video had over 10 million views.\n\nYes, the goal was to end her daughter's explicit sexual activity online whilst also sending a message to all her friends that her daughter has been lying about her age. That's an admirable goal. The daughter's actions are *unquestionably wrong*, I'm not arguing otherwise. \n\nBut the method the mother chose to get to that goal is reckless and shortsighted. Did she not consider the consequences of having her daughter shamed in front of millions of people? Her daughter has to go to school, a place full of people who I'm sure have seen the video. And let's face it, high/middle schoolers are vicious. Some people kill themselves from bullying.\n\nNot only that, but the mother said her daughter's full name in front of 10 million people. I mean, what happens to the chances of a career for this 13-year old now? It'll follow her forever. She could say goodbye to any chance of becoming president. Not to mention that she's an easy target for doxxing.\n\nThis is just a guess (because everyone's different), but I imagine that their relationship is ruined now. The daughter will probably be more secretive and distrustful of her mother. The relationship doesn't seem to be grounds for open communication, either.\n\nI think the mental and emotional health of this girl has been severely damaged and any career she could've pursued will be hindered by her mother's reckless parenting. CMV.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: City life is hugely preferable to country/small town life + \n + I've spent a couple of months living in the country near a small town/village, and I honestly do not understand how it would appeal to anyone. The differences are too many to list, but the big ones are:\n\n#Cities have significantly better municipal services.\n\nThe difference is night and day. Cities have bigger and better libraries, schools, police/fire departments, hospitals, gas, internet, and so on and so forth. As 4G LTE rolls out, I can tell you exactly who's going to get it first. Everything about this makes city life so much safer and more comfortable.\n\n#Everything is closer in the city, and there is a greater range of things to do.\n\nA really small town will have one or two general-purpose shops. Cities can have huge malls filled with stores and restaurants of all varieties. There are theatres and large public events and strip clubs and meetings of like-minded people and clubs and just about anything to do if you ever get bored. There's a convenience store on just about every corner.\n\n#Cities afford a degree of pseudo-anonymity.\n\nIf you move into an apartment building, lolwhocares. If you move into the country you've got a ton of people who have a **new neighbor** that they wanna get to know and everything. Even if you abstain from social interaction, you become \"that weird neighbor that abstains from social interaction.\" This  tends to temper individualism, and it's not like you can \"just spend time with the people you like,\" because rumors and all travel fast with a community that small.\n\n#bugs\n\nholy fucking shit the bugs aaaaaaaaa\n\n#In the country, everything is high maintenance.\n\nSince just about everything that isn't a tractor was designed to operate in a man-made environment, everything keeps getting dirty and breaking. Cars and houses and electronics and appliances and furniture all need to be repaired and/or replaced noticeably more frequently than they would in the city.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: \"If everyone is super, no one will be,\" is not a chilling prediction; it would be a good thing, and \"The Incredibles\" was wrong to give this viewpoint to a villain. + \n + It's been awhile since I've seen the movie, but one line has stuck with me for years: \"If everyone's super, no one will be.\" This basically sums up the ideology of the villain of the film: Syndrome is trying to build inventions that would give any user superpower-level abilities, so that \"natural\" superheroes wouldn't be special anymore.\n\nNow, Syndrome is a villain, regardless of his beliefs. He kidnaps the Incredibles and tries to kill at least some of them. He also built a death robot to destroy an entire city (for reasons that I still do not understand). The movie correctly portrays these behaviors as villainous. However, for no apparent reason, Syndrome is acting on a surprisingly positive, egalitarian motive. If they wanted to make a compelling villain, he could have had a simple world domination goal, or just wanted to make himself a superhero. But no: Syndrome's goals are to make \"natural\" superheroes no better than anyone else...by making everyone a superhero. And this is bad, because....?\n\nThe theme gets even weirder at the end, where Dash pretends to be less than stellar at track and gets second place, despite his powers. Apparently, the Incredibles are fine with the appearance of equality, as long as they know they're really superior. In fact, it's nice to let other people PRETEND to be the best, and you don't have to feel threatened by that, because you'll always be the real best. I can't help but view the film as a struggle between two profoundly incorrect viewpoints. I walk away knowing that Syndrome did more evil things, but hating the Incredibles more because they're just so unlikeable.\n\nSyndrome is correctly cast as the villain of the piece because of his bullying of the Incredibles and city destructobot, but his plan to provide cool gadgets for everyone is not evil, and it would not be a bad thing if \"everyone was super.\" On the contrary, it would be the best outcome of the movie. We only get a brief glimpse of Syndrome's inventions, but even the few we see appear to have some potential livesaving applications (flying shoes for firefighters to get people out of burning buildings; laser glasses to rescue people trapped in car accidents). If everyone was super, it wouldn't just be a lucky few tasked with saving people whether they wanted to or not. Instead, those who truly wanted to could do it, and as many people as necessary could have each \"power.\" If we had the technology to do so, we ought to make everyone super. Syndrome's alleged motive for evil falls totally flat, and the Incredibles' reaction is weirdly elitist. CMV.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: In the 21st century western world, both genders have pros and cons and hence one is not more oppressed + \n + I know this might be considered a low hanging fruit, and let me know if it is, but I have a friend who is overall very intelligent, yet this is something we argue about once in a while and I was hoping for some opinions that we can read together and come to a conclusion. I've noticed these arguments occur with many people who consider themselves feminist (actual not tumblr). \n\nPersonally I believe that there are issues with treatment of both genders. Women have higher rates of rape outside prison, a very small but statistically significant pay gap (~95:100), stricter standards of beauty, some discrimination in STEM fields in professional environments, general treatment at skill levels, domestic violence rates, sex ed in certain regions, Madonna/Whore complex treatment, etc. I also believe men have issues such as higher rates of workplace injuries and death, PTSD due to higher enlisting rates, treatment towards mental health issues, homelessness, mate selection, physical violence, university enrolment and graduation rates, punishment for the same crime, paternity and divorce issues, etc.\n\nIn the end I don't believe that one gender has a clear advantage over the other. I believe that both genders have issues they face in modern society, and to quantify them would take away from the struggles of either. Hence despite agreeing on many points with feminism, I would not be considered a feminist because I don't agree with the core belief that women are the oppressed gender. This seems to bother my friend who feels strongly about feminism, because despite the fact that we agree on many points, that one distinction is not something we agree on. He finds it insulting that I would compare out-of-prison rapes to something like PTSD from war in terms of statistics of percentage occurring to each gender. Personally I find it shitty because he doesn't acknowledge that men have some serious issues as well, and no one gender is undoubtedly superior in the eyes of society. \n\nIn many other parts of the world, I agree with him 100%; women are significantly more oppressed in many Islamic countries for example. I just think the only factor in which men are clearly superior in practice and eyes of society are physical abilities, but otherwise both genders deal with some horrible things and no one gender is undoubtedly oppressed.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There should be a law that any Guacamole that is sold must contain at least 75% (for example) Avocado + \n + From wikipedia:\n\nGuacamole [...] is an avocado-based dip or salad that began with the Aztecs in Mexico. In addition to its use in modern Mexican cuisine it has also become part of American cuisine as a dip, condiment and salad ingredient. It is traditionally made by mashing ripe avocados and sea salt with a molcajete (mortar and pestle). Some recipes call for tomato, onion, garlic, lemon or lime juice, chili or cayenne pepper, yogurt, cilantro or basil, jalape\u00f1o and/or additional seasonings.\n\nYet, when I buy guacamole in stores, the first ingredient almost invaraible reads \"cream cheese\". I've seen avocado percentages as low as 8%. That is false advertising. Guacamole is made from avocado. Not cream cheese. \n\nYou may say that they do show the ingredients list, so it should not care. But most people don't read the list. They just assume that if it says Guacamole  on the packet, that's what is inside.\n\nAnd that's entirely reasonable. Say for example you bought some vodka, but when you drink it, it just tastes like water. And then you find out that the \"vodka\" actually only has 1% Alcohol and is almost entirely water. Even if it said all that on the bottle, it would still be grossly misleading to call that \"vodka\".\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think the terms \"homophobia\" and \"transphobia\" are misrepresentative, aggravating and a poor equivalent to racism and sexism. + \n + Phobia has a fairly specific meaning that doesn't apply in most cases of homophobia and transphobia. I see the argument that prejudice against homosexuals stems from fear of their own sexuality, people assuming their sexuality, fear of difference et cetera; and I'm sure that's accurate in some cases. In most cases it seems more like trying to pretend that disdain and fear are synonyms.\n\nWorse is transphobia, of which most cases I've seen stem purely from ignorance. Without evidence or information perhaps it's reasonable to believe that someone's gender can't be opposite their sex, perhaps it's unreasonable. Either way it's a far cry from anything resembling a phobia.\n\nI know there isn't another convenient, readily known term but generalizing everyone who disagrees with you, often times wrongly, only widens the divide.\n\nFor clarification, I think there is a correct usage of these terms but it isn't as a catch all for LGBTQ prejudice.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The Ashley Madison hack was unjustified and is doing more harm than good. + \n + As someone who has admittedly cheated before and learned from my terrible decisions, I feel like this is completely wrong. However, literally EVERYONE I have talked to or asked their opinion about it today has told me that I'm wrong or that these people deserve it, yadda yadda. So here's my thoughts:\n\nI don't feel like this hack is justified. I DO feel like cheaters are terrible people and having been on both sides I feel I've got a pretty good un-biased opinion of it. It hurts and hurting someone else is even worse, or at least to me it ended up feeling that way. But I don't think it's right that all of these people are getting exposed like this. This sounds terrible to a lot of people but, ignorance really can be bliss. Someone can be cheated on and be better off never knowing. The cheater may even have a change of heart and or regret their decision for the rest of their married life and do everything in their power to make up for it without ever actually coming out about it, making for a very happy relationship. Thing is, some of those kinds of people may very well have been using this site. Or people in open relationships where it woulda been okay regardless.\n\nYet everyone I talk to says \"they're getting what they deserve\" and yea, i mean, i get it, sometimes some people do deserve to be punished for something they did but, this feels wrong. I don't think they should be humiliated if they could have avoided it. There's a lot of reasons someone could have used this site, like distant spouses, emotional affairs, family shaming... and they dont deserve to be publicly humiliated. And its definitely not right for some hacker to just be able to do this all from the safety of being anonymous.\n\nEverybody makes mistakes, doesn't mean you should be punished/humiliated for it. You can change or learn otherwise without that.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Even today being gay is awful + \n + So I came out recently and well I am finding out how much homophobia still exists in my little corner of England. Since I came out people have been spreading rumours about me (My Mum called me at 11:30 last night after hearing someone claim that I am dating a guy in his 40s (I am 24) and that we were seen doing drugs or something, both claims are bullcrap) . \n\nSomeone put a note on the windshield of my car full of homophobic drivel they got of the internet and saying that they will \"pray for me\" (the city where I live has a sizeable Muslim population and well this is what happens when you are gay in a Muslim part of town I suppose) stuff like that drags you down.\n\nI lost a lot of friends as well, a few of them are religious and dumped me when they found out, I know people say \"well they weren't really your friends\" but I am still pretty lonely to be honest.\n\nThen last night, feeling crap I went to one of the local gay bars in the city in the hope that I would maybe meet someone to speak to or something more, I hung around to closing time and when I left I was greeted by shouts of faggot etc. by a gang of pissed chavs. How is this meant to be living, so what we can get married but that is only going to help a lucky few, for ones like me I just wish I wasn't gay seriously I regret coming out and seriously wish I did a better job at hiding my depression which inevitably ended up with me being outed.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: While white people will never be able to understand what it means to be a minority, that doesn't mean we cannot be critical of their actions. + \n + I recently got in an argument with a friend regarding the BLM (Black Lives Matter) interruption of Bernie Sanders speech. I argued that while I understand their frustration, I still hold its unacceptable to break the law the way BLM did. \n\nMy friend argued back that since both of us are white, we can never understand the situation and the anger these representatives of BLM feel. Therefore, she argued, we cannot criticize their actions since we cannot and can never understand their perspective.\n\nMy friend showed me [this article](http://time.com/3605606/ferguson-in-defense-of-rioting/) in defense of her argument. I'll quote from the conclusion,\n\n\nIn response to the article, I essentially argued that while I do feel for minorities in the U.S, violence is neither a morally sound or pragmatic way to go about change. I also felt that the argument presented (we are not minorities, therefore we will never be able to understand, therefore we cannot criticize) is fundamentally unsound.\n\nI'd love to hear some support for her viewpoint, because I am an open-minded person and I care about racial equality America\n\nSo please, CMV!\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think Batman's dumb and I don't see the appeal. + \n + He's intelligent and wealthy and adaptable apparently. I think the majority of Gotham's problems could've solved with smart investments in social programs and industry and the police force which Bruce has money for. \n\nI swear the guy is anonymous being Batman, which means he can get away with killing, which would solve all his super villian issues immediately. How naive are superheros when same villains keep coming back. Considering his track record, you think he really can't his stance on the not killing rule. \n\nAnd even when it comes to I dunno fighting regular crime, I'm pretty sure a neighborhood watch group and 100 patrolmen would do a much better job than one guy flying around million dollar super planes. I think that just makes you an asshole. \n\nI'm done: You guys gave me more reasons to hate Batman more and superheros in general. \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Film is a superior medium to theatre + \n + **My argument:**\n\nI *love* theatre. I'm an English teacher, and enjoy teaching plays just as much as teaching novels or poetry, and I focused my masters dissertation on Shakespearean tragedy. However, I believe that in many aspects, film is not only the natural successor to theatre as a storytelling tool, but also its superior. In many ways I see theatre as a rudimentary attempt to achieve the same things film does, but with greater limitations. I don't think there's any film made that's better than Macbeth, Hamlet or Othello, but I believe if film had been around as long as theatre, the masterworks of the former medium would have far surpassed that of the latter.\n\n**Reasoning:**\n \nFor starters, what does theatre do *better* than cinema? Anything involving audience interaction: definitely, though this is (I would argue) a minor thing in most genres, and the genres that make it a major thing tend to be abominable (like pantomime).  Theatre is also better whenever whatever story you present needs to be sufficiently artificial: so if you agree with Brecht and pooh-pooh the idea of suspension of disbelief, then theatre: a medium where you can literally always *see* the fakeness (the audience, the staging) is superior to film. And yet, there are films like Dogville which can still fulfil this same function. \n\nHowever, I would argue that in most cases, storytellers of fiction desire their audience to suspend their disbelief and 'believe in' the fictional world they have created: even if they're prepared to deliberately break this on occasion, as Shakespeare does. Tragedy wouldn't be tragic unless we believed in the characters it displayed. It could still be enjoyable (Like Oscar Wilde's absurdly artificial play Salome) but not tragic. Comedy is less slavish to suspension of disbelief and need for verisimilitude, but most comedies still strive for it to some degree. And here's the rub: *film is far superior to theatre in providing this aspect*. \n\nThere are so many limitations that theatre has to overcome in order to provide an experience the audience can 'believe in', and if it succeeds in overcoming these limitations, we are pulled out of the fiction because we are so impressed by how realistic the blood coming out of Banquo's mouth is, and if it fails at overcoming these limitations, we are pulled out of the fiction because the blood coming out of Banquo's mouth looks like watery food colouring. It's a lose-lose situation. In film however, when something looks sufficiently realistic so as to instil a sense of verisimilitude in its viewers: it more often than not bypasses that feeling of being impressed at the craftmanship of the artificial world, and instead bolsters our 'belief' in the fiction. Even if you know it's a miniature, you do not need to exert much mental strain to 'believe in' the skyline of L.A. in Blade Runner: it feels natural. Yet on the other hand, a scene change from one environment to another in theatre is jarring, and often when the lights come on we think to ourselves: *ah look: they've now lowered that chandelier that I saw in the previous scene, and they've put some white sheets over the furniture to show it's a different house*. A film can cut from a skyline to an interior shot, and even the most egregious of George Lucas wipe transitions won't break our sense of its natural flow.\n\n**In a nutshell, my argument is this:**\n\n1) The majority of storytellers in the majority of genres desire suspension of disbelief.\n\n2) Film overcomes various barriers which theatre for millennia has been forced to find ingenious workarounds to.\n\n3) When the hurdle of suspension of disbelief is easier to vault, more time, skill and energy can be spent actualising the artist's vision which strives to find beauty or truth.\n\n4) Therefore: film is, overall, the superior medium, and even in its infancy this new art form is already producing works that are starting to rival the greatest of plays. Had film been around as long as theatre, we would have as many 'master' filmmakers as we do writers.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Those who condemn the hunting of trophy animals and are not vegetarians are hypocrites + \n + Tonight's front page of r/all, as well as headlines on many other news sites, are dominated by content related to the hunting of \"trophy\" animals, sparked by the killing of Cecil the lion. Although admittedly it is far from a consensus, many seem to believe that the hunting of these exotic animals is objectively wrong and therefore should be prohibited. It is likely that many of those vocal with their distaste of hunting for sport (like ***[the >500,000 signatories of the \"Justice for Cecil\" petition](http://www.thepetitionsite.com/821/738/351/demand-justice-for-cecil-the-lion-in-zimbambwe/)*** ) however are also consumers of meat. I believe this can be inferred by the sheer amount of negative press Walter Palmer is receiving contrasted with the fact that a minority of people are vegetarians. This perspective seems hypocritical. \n\nI can imagine two main counterarguments to my claim. Their general ideas, with my responses, are below: \n\n1) \"The killing of endangered animals is worse than the killing of animals under no danger of extinction.\"\nResponse: Objectively I do not think an individual life can and should be valued more than another. Therefore although killing a member of an endangered species is deplorable, due to the smaller room for error for the management of the populations of these species, the killing of an animal like a cow is equally so.\n\n2) \"Killing for sport is unjustifiable whereas killing animals for their meat/pelt/whatever serves a purpose, making it justifiable.\"\nResponse: It is no longer true that humans, at least those in developed areas, need the goods of a dead animal to survive. Although it could be argued that at one point the hunting of animals was a necessary evil for the survival of our species, there is no longer any need to murder animals for sustenance. All of the nutrients necessary for the well-being of humans that are gained from eating meat now have more ethical alternatives. \n\nI'd appreciate if anyone could either further develop one of the perspectives presented above or share a new one. CMV\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: My public school's diversity education was actually racist. + \n + I went to high school in the 1980's.  In a small town in the Northwest, U.S., that was very white, (OK, all white), where basically everyone was Christian.  I would like to think that the school curriculum was chosen with good intentions.  Except looking back on it now, I really don't believe that.  I would like to believe that, except I don't.\n\nSo for English in tenth grade, we had novels assigned designed to promote diversity and an awareness of injustice against other races.  \n\nTo teach us about the problems that black people historically faced in America, we read a book called \"Black Like Me\".  The book, \"Black Like Me\" is about a white man who colored his skin to appear black and went down South in the late 1950's.  The book chronicles his (fairly awful) experiences.  \n\nExcept thinking about it now, there must have been hundreds of thousands of black men in the South during this time period.  If we wanted to know what it was like, why didn't we just ask one of them?  Did we really need to send a white man down pretending to be black?  Was that the only way to get a legitimate opinion?  It doesn't feel right.\n\nThen we have the holocaust, and our assigned reading was \"The Hiding Place\" by Corrie Ten Boom.  Which is about two Christian sisters sent to a prison camp for attempting to save Jewish people.  Now don't get me wrong, what they did was incredible, but is it really the best way to teach students about the holocaust with a book written about the suffering of Christians?  Something very crucial seems to be missing here.  It's not like there was some shortage of books written by Jewish people.\n\nSo I would like to change my view.  I would like to think that everyone had the best of intentions.  In retrospect, it just doesn't feel right and doesn't seem right.  Who the heck would choose these books and why?  \n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrie_ten_Boom\n\n \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: It is morally wrong to eat animals. + \n + I believe that as intelligent beings capable of moral reasoning, we have a serious obligation to not needlessly kill and eat animals.  Im my opinion, ignoring this moral obligation is very serious, on par with most other \"do not kill\" obligations we have in our lives.\n\nI also believe that the logic of \"humans are smarter than animals, therefore it's ok to eat this [pig/cow/etc.]\" is flawed, because most humans would feel uncomfortable eating a comatose person or someone who is profoundly mentally retarded, and yet would consider it totally fine to eat a pig with more self-sufficiency and intelligence.\n\nI believe the rationale approach to issues of meat morality is to ask the question \"Why *should* it be ok to kill animals and eat their meat?\" rather than \"Why shouldn't it?\"\n\nMost modern philosophers make the issue seem relatively conclusive, saying that eating meat is morally wrong. (With some edge cases, of course. Not many argue that there's nothing wrong with eating meat to save your life on a desert island.)\n\nReddit, what do you think?  Is there a morally justifiable reason all of us should be ok with eating meat?\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Liberalism is currently undergoing a schism, and is splitting into two factions + \n + From what I have observed, liberals tend to fall into one of two categories, both of which are vehemently opposed to the other.\n\nThe first faction is heavily focused on political correctness and the \u201csocial justice\u201d movement. They are major proponents of multiculturalism. They tend to view human social behavior as being socially constructed, and the result of the environment, and are often hostile towards evolutionary psychology. They are more focused on equality of outcome than equality of opportunity. Mainstream feminists fall into this category. They are also more likely to support gun control than the second faction. They have more female members compared to the second faction, and are more likely to be religious.\nExamples of liberals in this faction include: Hillary Clinton, Laci Green, Mike Rugnetta, Trace Dominguez, PZ Myers, and Jen McCreight.\n\nThe second faction is liberal socially and economically, i.e. on abortion, gay marriage, drug liberalization, health care, etc., but is vehemently against the political correctness that the first faction espouses. They are also more averse to multiculturalism than the first faction. They tend to seek biological explanations for human behavior, and are more accepting of evolutionary psychology. They are more focused on equality of opportunity than equality of outcome. Almost all of the members of this faction are atheists. This faction is much more heavily male dominated than the first faction. They are also more likely to support gun rights compared to members of the first faction. They also tend to be more likely to criticize mainstream democrats, such as Barack Obama. Examples of liberals in this faction include: Richard Dawkins, George Carlin, TJ Kirk, Phil Mason, and Carl Benjamin.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Vegetarianism is senseless and is actually equal to being against humans + \n + First of, this is only talking about people who are vegetarians/vegans for ethical reasons. If you are a vegetarian for any other reason, this does not apply\n\nBeing a vegetarian is more expensive than eating meat. Therefore, you need to get this money from elsewhere. This ultimately ends in a society having less money/resources, which they can give to the poor. Thus, you are kind of killing humans in trying to save animals. So vegetarians are basically putting other species of animals above their own, which I would say is objectively bad. \n\nOf course, this is not how society works, you are not directly killing people by being a vegetarian, but you are not directly helping animals either, so that is not an argument.\n\nI fail to see any argument against this. What about you?", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: A Country's peace and economic prosperity should be placed before human rights e.g freedom of speech,freedom of press,individual privacy + \n +    Coming from Singapore,a country that has experienced tremendous growth from a 3rd world country to a first world country within a short period time there is no doubt there were many sacrifices made in the process.\n\n   However it has also been noted by people from other countries (western countries in particular) that this growth was achieved partly due to the fact that we have placed our placed our economic prosperity and peace before our human rights. One prominent example of this would be our freedom of press which was ranked at 150 out of 180 countries. My government response to this was that in order to maintain social and racial harmony control over the media was necessary in order to prevent racial riot and social tension from occurring which would in turn weaken our economy. Personally after seeing the Baltimore riots, i started to understand the rationale behind some of their actions as i would definitely do not want my country to descend into chaos due to riots. Furthermore, after starting to work i have come to the realization sometimes putting food on the table is more important than the rights we have.\n\n  In addition, to my surprise my government Media Development Agency (MDA) also monitor its people through the use of software provided by the Hacking Team( they have a company in singapore) . However, it seems like most singaporeans do not care if their country is monitoring their activities as i quote the common reply i get is '' I do not have anything to hide.So what should i be scared of?'' This mindset is very common as we feel that our country will only use the software to catch the bad people like terrorist and the invasion of our privacy is just for the greater good of the society so as to maintain peace and economic prosperity.\n\nSo i have come to the conclusion that in order to have peace and economic prosperity some sacrifices of our human rights is a necessary evil. Change my view reddit. Thanks\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Trans people are just confused about what it means to be a man/woman. + \n + I think that Transpeople for the most part are either 1) chemically imbalanced, which can be easily treated through medication, or 2) just have a poor grasp on what it means to be a man/woman. \n\nBeing a man/woman isn't about conforming to traditional views of masculinity or femininity, it's about being an adult versus a child. The same thing with trianary genders systems, the people claiming them are just subscribing to old school/sexist ideas about what a man or a woman feels like, and because they don't feel like that, are pretending to be something else. \n\n\nNot all women are going to feel like the traditional \"feminine\" stereotype, but that doesn't mean they aren't a woman, it just means they are saying that what defines a woman is how they differ from men and vice versa, instead of the less sexist idea that what defines a woman is how she is different than a child and what makes a man is how he differs from a boy. \n\n\nTL;DR: What makes a man is how he differs from a boy, not how he differs from a woman. Trans/trianary gendered people are instead subscribing to sexist view that what makes a man is how differs from a woman. \n\nPlease, CMV. ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The bigger argument against legalizing illegal immigrants is not because we don't want them in the country, but because we would be losing a lower class, lower paid work force. + \n + To elaborate, there are some Hispanic people I know that don't have papers yet have jobs (think McDonald's) where they pay taxes, pay into social security, and will never see a dime of it.  If we were to make everyone in this country legal, we would have millions of people that would expect better treatment or at the very least a living wage.  Whenever I see conservative issues bringing up illegal immigrants, it is more focused on overcrowding and the fact that we'll have millions of people flooding to this country, but with more people willing to work and consume, comes a bigger economy.  Please point out the flaws with my logic.  I'm sure there are plenty.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe that the current issue of same-sex marriage is todays equivalent to the interracial marriage issue of the 1960's and prior. + \n + To me, this is the exact same issue, just a different year. In 1967, the US passed a law which made it legal for two people of different races to marry; and just recently, in the year 2015, the US made it legal for two people of the same sex to marry. \n\nSome of the arguments i have seen in opposition of gay marriage are:\n\n* \"homosexuality is a sin\"\n\n* \"not natural\"\n\n* \"erodes the sanctity of marriage\"\n\n* \"slippery slope leading to marriage of _____\"\n\n* \"not healthy for children\"\n\n* \"goes against God\"\n\nThese all seem to be the same arguments that were presented in the 1950's and 1960's when people were fighting for marriage equality between the races. So why haven't people learned anything about equality over the last 60 years?\n\n\n\n\nThis isnt an end all statement; but a great point. What is the difference? \n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Stereotypes are valid and using them to prepare for social interaction is a good idea. + \n + First, I can present as arrogant and self righteous and I am aware of this but do not mean to be. I am black. I have friends of Caucasian and Chinese descent. When I interact with them, the stereo types I have heard about their race is usually reinforced by their own actions. \n\nI'll get more in depth; i deliver Chinese food in southeast Dallas.  A stereotype of blacks is that we are notoriously poor tippers. I cannot disagree. In the years of my employment, which provides for me and my son surprisingly well, I have learned through direct observation that that stereotype is based in reality. Whites tip me, Hispanics tip me, Asians as well; blacks...?ha! I digress but I hope my point is clear. I approach a known black customers house knowing the chances are that they will not tip me. It minimizes the dissapointment. It is beneficial to me to enter into these interactions using a stereotype to my advantage. Granted, my emotions are not *that* important but I truly feel better knowing how this interaction is *probably* going to go, and that's a benefit. Its safe to expect a tip from whited or hispamices, etc. and there's no cautionary warning in the form of a stereotype regarding these races. \n\n\nI know that may be a flimsier example but I think it suffices to illustrate my point. If you are going on a date with a white person, assuming they can't dance may and provably will save one from a potentially awkward situation. Knowing, or expecting(due to the stereotype) that a Hispanic might work hard for cheap can and probably does lead to financial benefits for shrewd entrepreneurs.\n\nI have no sources for this its just a gut feeling. I think stereotypes are usually valid and can be used to my benefit. CMV!\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The Ashley Madison data dump did a lot more harm than good. + \n + I see a lot of posting on social media about how the Ashley Madison users are \"getting whats coming to them\" and the like, but it seems like people are glossing over a few key issues:\n\n* There are couples who probably use this service to get with other couples to satisfy their kink. And likewise, there are probably many single people who use it to fulfill their own desires of satisfying that couple's kink.\n\n*  People's sexuality is now out in the open against their will, potentially leading to violence. Another user brought up the issue here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskMen/comments/3hmlmn/anyone_else_feel_ambivalent_about_this_ashley/\n\nSee, I'm normally all good for hacking that exposes corruption or government abuse at high levels of money/power, but this isn't that. \n\nCan someone give me a reason why hack doesn't do more harm than good?\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Mistreating someone because they're fat is the same as being racist. + \n + There are a couple of analogies that we can make between r/fatpeoplehate and racist people. They discriminate a particular group of individuals due to one of their physical or mental problems. They even created themselves a \"superiority\" in their group (you had to verify that you were fit to have the \"verified shitlord\" flair) . They harass fat people when on a regular basis these people did not do anything to provoque them. \nAnd two final points: Why is harassing fat people legal when racial harassment is illegal? And i'm not here to cover the free speech question. Unless you have to state it to proove your point please don't talk about that aspect of things. \n(I'm sorry for using the word \"fat\" to describe these people) ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Homo sapiens is in the end of its evolutionary path + \n + Human being can not evolve further. \n\nEvolution requires environmental stress in order to select better adapted traits to spread to the population. Over time this spreading of traits drives evolution forward. \n\nAt this point in time, most people (especially in the developed world, but not excluding the developing world) has access to limit or even remove environmental stress from their lives altogether. Some broad example: heating and cooling system, medicine, nutritious food. Better access to these allow individual with less adapted genes to survive and procreate. \n\nFurthermore, current social system hinders natural selection. In monogamous relationship, the chance of a person with better traits to procreate roughly similar to those with worse traits. Another example is that social security shares the risk through out the society: let's say a kid with diabetic can procreate and pass his/her gene to the gene pool because of access to treatment and medication (as opposed to in the wild, they most likely will not survive). I am not saying this is bad, but these characteristics dampen natural selection, thus evolution. \n\nTaking these into consideration and without any apocalyptic situations, I think human can not evolve further and we are basically evolutionary dead end. \n\nPlease, correct my view. \n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:Abortion is not a woman's rights issue, and framing it that way just confuses the argument. + \n + I have never met a person who said they were against abortion because they did not think woman should have autonomy over their own body. Every pro-life person I know says that they are against abortion because it ends the life of a person. Thus, abortion is about when a fetus becomes a person, and if a woman still has the right to exercise autonomy over that person once it is considered such, and if so, is there a limit on when that right could be exercised? \n\nI do not believe I need to cite people claiming abortion is about women's rights, its on my Facebook wall every single day. Additionally, this is not an argument about whether pro-life or pro-choice is correct , but rather about what the real issue is. The vilifying of people of who want to protect what they see has human life is inherently counterproductive to what pro-choice people are trying to accomplish. \n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Ignorance SHOULD be a defense against the law + \n + So the common saying goes \"Ignorance is not a defense.\" Even though we joke around about white people saying \"I didn't know I couldn't do that,\" the claim of \"I didn't know\" does not go over well in court. You're still guilty of whatever you're guilty of. \n\nHowever, the law code in just about every civilized country is more confusing than Chinese Calculus. Every one of us probably breaks at least one law a day. I also took one year of law classes in community college, which makes a reddit expert, so here are my thoughts:\n\n1) It should be misdemeanors only. You shouldn't be able to claim ignorance on a felony. Those are too severe. \n\n2) It should be an affirmative defense, which means you have to prove your ignorance. You can't just say \"I didn't know.\" You'd have to prove it was an obscure law that defies common sense. This puts the burden of proof on the defendant which means it couldnt be abused.\n\n3) Examples of this could be:\n\nIf you're going 35 in a 25 and get pulled over, but the path you took on that road did not contain any speed limit signs. You're from out of town. 35 is a reasonable speed limit for the surrounding area.\n\nOr\n\nIn Denver it is illegal to lend your vacuum cleaner to your neighbors (not making this [up](http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/colorado)). There is no reasonable person would would believe that this a law. Proving ignorance may be hard, but not knowing this is a law should be a perfectly valid defense. \n\nIn short, there are too many pointless, stupid laws out there and it is impossible to know all of them - and not knowing them should be a valid argument if certain situations present themselves. \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is Nothing Particulary Unique About Chess. + \n + I've come to believe that the reason chess has stayed around for so long and been seen as a deep thinker's game has very little to do with any unique properties of chess and is almost entirely due to historical coincidence.\n\nThis especially hits me when I'm playing some modern games like Dwarf Fortress or Civilization. In many ways, these games could be seen as an advancement on chess. There are varied units that all have various contraints related to moving across the field and various strengths and weaknesses relative to each other.\n\nI'd even go far as to say that we could completely throw out the game chess and convert all of its top players into Starcraft players and, not only would we not lose anything of real value in the richness of the game, but we would probably elevate the depth of strategy involved to some degree. Especially after the game(s) were refined over the next hundred years like chess has been due to its popularity and ability to attract top talent.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Parents should not allow their child to live transgender/ cross dress under the age of 12-13 + \n + I am friends with a woman on facebook who does drag. She has a young son (10) who she dresses up (I have to think she dresses him, as he is not old enough to attain his own clothes) as a girl. It has gotten to the point where she has made a fan page for him where she constantly posts pictures of him in his drag/ female attire.\n\nAre children able to consciously make a decision like that, which will likely effect their entire schooling experience, at such a young age? Or is it a \"dress like mommy does\" case, where the parent allows it because they are so affluent in that lifestyle?\n\nI am all for gender equality, fluidity, and expressing yourself how you see fit. But I have a hard time believing that a child can choose that and they want to begin to pave their life after that when their brain is developing. It almost feels forced and that the parent is making that choice for them. It also kind of rubs me the wrong way that the parent posts all these public pictures of her son on Facebook in a fan page, none the less. Should he not be able to decide who sees his lifestyle choices? He obviously doesn't have a facebook, being that he's 10, so I very seriously doubt that he was asked if its ok.\n\nRegardless, change my view!!! ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Building a PC isn't worth the effort/headache + \n + I don't think building a PC is worth it unless you enjoy the process of doing so. The $100-200 you save isn't worth the work it takes to assemble the thing and troubleshoot faulty parts.\n\nSo I had a 100% functional pc I built years ago, and decided I'd \"rebuild\" it with a skylake CPU/new motherboard/new cooler/ddr4 RAM.\n\nI was short on cash, so I decided to reuse the same GPU for now, 100% functional before I built the new PC.\n\nPackage arrives, I take a couple hours to assemble it as the cooler is a bit tricky. But I get it right, but the system only outputs to the onboard VGA. Onboard DVI and GPU outputs don't work, but the GPU fans are spinning. Yes, the PCIe power connectors are connected, and yes I properly seated the GPU.\n\nSo I look online, and people tell me I probably just need drivers. So I install windows just fine. Try to get drivers off of AMD's site, install fails. Not surprising, because the GPU won't show in the device manager. Great.\n\nSo I turn it off, open it up, and put a spare GPU into the same slot. Still no image. I then take that spare GPU, and put it in the 2nd PCIe slot. Magically, it works. But this PCIe slot operates at x8, and isn't big enough to fit high end GPUs because the SATA ports are in the way. So no bueno.\n\nI decide that the PCIe slot is broken, and take the pc apart to get the board ready to RMA. I decide I need a PC while I wait for the new parts, so I reassemble my old build, which took even more time.\n\nSystem boots, image displayed but now the video card fans don't spin. System restarts after a few minutes abruptly. Obviously, this means that the card is overheating due to no active cooling.\n\nPut in spare card, works fine. So the new motherboard I bought fried the video card I own due to a falty PCIe slot, and chances are Newegg or ASUS won't cover that, judging by what I read online.\nSo now I'm down $600 I spent on new parts, 2 days worth of time I spent troubleshooting(which I could have made a lot if I worked those days), and now I'm stuck using a low end GPU as the motherboard fried my $200 one.\n\nThere's a reason that professional corporations just buy OEM PCs like Dell instead of hiring people to build them. The build process is all fine if you know what you're doing and all parts work, but the moment you get 1 DOA part that fries other parts, then it's pure hell to figure out what to replace, and what to keep. The time spent troubleshooting poor parts isn't worth the miniscule amount of money you save.\n\nI've been working in a PC repair shop for a year, took a year long pc repair course, and I'm comptia A+ certified, so I know what I'm doing, for the most part. But imagine if this happened to a beginner, who is just going off of guides found online with no experience behind them in troubleshooting. They would have no clue what part to blame, what to RMA, what to buy. \n\nUnless you're extremely frugal, or enjoy building PCs, you're better off just buying an OEM PC. The $100-200 yous ave isn't worth the time spent figuring it out, or the risk that you'll never get it to work at all(because of DOA parts or rookie mistakes)", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Using Adblock (or similar software) is an overall detriment to the internet + \n + Nearly all websites only have two options for generating revenue and staying online:\n\n1.  Sell ads\n\n2.  Charge the consumer directly\n\nSelling ads is obviously the easier method and it typically used more often than charging directly because it doesn't ask the consumer to pay up front.  This allows the consumer to get a taste of what the site has to offer before they put some of their own money on the line (potentially with a \"premium\" service like Reddit Gold).\n\nIf people continue to use Adblock or other similar software to completely block ads, the option to keep the lights on by selling ads gets harder and harder.  This means that selling access to the site in the form of a subscription (or something similar) becomes the only option.  This is frankly a bad thing because consumer will be unwilling to risk spending money on a subscription if they aren't sure about the content.  Smaller sites will find it harder to stay afloat and new sites will have a very difficult time getting off the ground.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: women's breast are not sexual organs + \n + growing up in america i was condition to believe women's breast are sexual organs do to the fact that we over sexualized them too much. it wasnt till recently that i came to conscious and started realizing that there is practically no way a woman's breast could be sexual organs. i mean obviously we men have breast too and our breast dont stimulate the opposite sex in any different way. and yes i'm well aware that during sex women could receive lots of stimulation through them in the act of foreplay. but so do other body parts, like the neck, the mouth, the foot, etc. lets also not forget that women do need their breast to breastfeed  their children, which this obviously screams out that they cant be sex organs.\n\nanyways it seems like the more i try to believe this the more negative reactions i get from those around me. people here still insist that women's breast are sexual organs and the fact that women here in america, unlike women in africa or other countries in europe are still too afraid to go topless outside when its too hot kinda punctuates this believe. we also must forget that or government does believe they are sexual breast as it is against the law either way for women to go topless out in the streets. so i was wondering if this is correct that maybe you guys can then convince me that they are sexual organs. \n\nI also like to point out that i was watching that documentary [Free The Nipple](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2298394/) the other day on Netflix and it really touched me. i think it really is unfair that during heatwave days a man can take his shirt off in public yet women can't. i think we americans are too damn dramatic going judgmentally ballistic when we see boobs in public. at the same do to how we americans have been sexually conditioned since day one i'm actually amazed that there are women here who complain about not being able to go topless out in public. i thought that would of been the worst and most humiliating nightmare for an American woman.\n\n\n\nps= speaking of legal, not that i have anything against gay people or anything but i'm actually kinda surprised that today gay marriage is legal yet it's still illegal for women to go out topless in public.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There's nothing wrong with letting my dog drink out of the toilet bowl. + \n + Our house has a guest bathroom that rarely gets used. I tend to leave the door open and my dog will sometimes drink out of it. I just flush it to \"refresh\" the water and call it a day.\n\nPeople have remarked that it's gross though. I don't see how. The water is clean, and even if the toilet bowl has germs on it I've seen my dog eat poop before, I don't think a little urine in his beard will kill him. Plus I end up cleaning the bathroom semi-regularly anyway.\n\nI see it as a convenient way for my dog to get water when I don't notice his water bowl is empty with no downside. What's the big deal?\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: It's immoral to spend any more money than what you must spend for basic needs and reasonable comfort, when that money could be used to help people in need. + \n + **GONNA START OFF RIGHT NOW BY SAYING I DON'T LIVE BY THIS RULE.**\n\nReasons being:\n\n1. I am 16 and (obviously) live with my family still, I don't have a job or any personal income to speak of. I don't have the financial independence to live by this creed.\n\n2. It sounds like not much fun\n\nOne of those reasons is pretty valid and one definitely isn't.\n\nI believe this because it just makes the most logical sense to me. Why on earth would it be fair for me to walk around with a new pair of shoes when there's people I can see *in my own damn neighborhood* who can't afford a square meal, to speak nothing of comfortable clothing? It's just...wrong.\n\nThat's why I think that as soon as somebody has their basic needs and some *reasonable, modest* comforts like a TV, and air conditioning, any more money past that should go to a charity, or similarly be used for good.\n\n**I'm really, really not trying to be high and mighty about this**. I don't live like this, and honestly even when I move out and start making my own money I don't think I'd be able to bring myself to throw out the PC and the cellphone and the car. I also don't think there's any non-arbitrary specific point where it could be declared that someone is being selfish with their money, and also everybody's definition of \"basic needs and modest comforts\" is probably different. I think you still get my meaning.\n\nI still believe, speaking in idealistic terms, it's unjustifiable to keep to yourself what would be best spent saving others.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The American People Shouldn't Have The Right To Vote + \n + It seems that most of the american people have no real grip on how society or politics work. Judging by what I see on facebook (limited source), people out in public (slightly limited source), and on mainstream TV, I feel that most Americans have no idea how foreign policy works, how national policy works, how congress works, or how unrealistic their own political agenda is. People get duped into voting for people whom they do not research, or just vote based on party affiliation. Most notably people vote while admitting politicians are corrupt. If people are not willing to vote for people who will push real reform then why not just let the corporate overlords finish what we let them start? It seems we're at a point where whoever the banking/investment firm elite decide get to run, those are the candidates that get funded and we are given the illusion of who we would rather have - the left hand or right hand of the financial elite.\n\nLet's me also mention how people don't read legislation i.e. the removal of the confederate flag (Tennessee Battle Fag) from state buildings.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Payday loans are a GOOD idea for people who need money quickly, people who don't need, or can get a traditional loan. + \n + Payday loans are a quick and easy alternative for people who are\nin a hard situation. They work by you writing a check, which is dated for a day or two after your next paycheck, for the amount of money you want plus a fee and then giving it to a payday lender. Then when that day comes they cash your check. How is this bad for people in poverty or for anyone who needs money quickly? \n\nI have seen people opinions saying that these loans are bad and charge an outrageous interest rate, but I haven't seen hard data saying these loans are bad for people. I would like to see some real data which shows my view is wrong.\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Turning your head to check your blind spot is unsafe compared to alternatives + \n + I hate driving. One of the main reasons is (aside from being kind of a shitty driver myself), I feel like turning your head 135 degrees to check your blind spot is extremely dangerous, even though it's part of the standard procedure for changing into another lane. This is especially bad now that I've got a [Madza 3](http://images.newcars.com/images/car-pictures/original/2014-Mazda-Mazda3-Sedan-i-SV-4dr-Sedan-Photo-3.png), since the backseat windows are so high up that I have to crane my neck and can barely make out what's going on in my blind spot anyways. Also, having to turn my head to such a wide angle means there's a lot more time when my eyes aren't in front of me, on the road ahead.\n\nI understand that it's absolutely essential to make sure there's nobody in your blind spot. But there's lots of solutions that allow you to use mirrors to check instead, among them being\n\n- [adjusting your sideviews to incorporate the blind spot](http://www.caranddriver.com/features/how-to-adjust-your-mirrors-to-avoid-blind-spots)\n- [buying one of these](http://www.amazon.com/Fit-System-C0400-Passenger-Adjustable/dp/B001DKT0DO/ref=sr_1_1?s=automotive&ie=UTF8&qid=1436313257&sr=1-1&keywords=blind+spot+mirror)\n\nBoth of these options let you keep at least your peripheral vision on the road and greatly reduces the time it takes you check your blind spot.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: \"It hasn't molded or spoiled in years\" and \"bugs won't even bother with it\" are actually advantages, not problems, of fast food. + \n + I'm getting [this picture](http://i.imgur.com/nsRflaq.jpg) a lot lately. I get the argument: real food would have molded and bugs would have eaten it by now. However, aren't those facts good things? Food that never goes bad and is in no danger of infestation sounds like an improvement over food that goes bad and attracts bugs. Especially in insanitary places with no fridges and lots of bugs.\n\nI'm not arguing that fast food is healthy. My point is that the arguments in the picture help, rather than hurt, the case for the production of fast food.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: If it is reasonable for humans to own animals such as dogs as pets, then it is also reasonable for a sufficiently intelligent alien species to own humans as pets. + \n + I think most people intuitively agree that the pet-owner relationship is on the whole beneficial to the pet. While the possibility exists for neglect or abuse on the owner's part, we say that those downsides aren't enough to find the practice in general morally objectionable.\n\nSuppose we encountered an alien race whose intelligence as can be determined via every measure is greater than ours by a factor equal to the factor between humans and dogs/cats. (Ex: If humans are 10x smarter than dogs, these aliens would be 10x smarter than humans, and 100x smarter than dogs.) When it comes to communication, their culture and society is so hopelessly complex and nuanced that we'll never be able to communicate with them as they do with each other. At best the aliens may attempt to speak to us using signals we can comprehend. (Just as humans attempt to do with pets.)\n\nSuppose also that the general attitude towards pet keeping with these aliens is the same as our attitude. Humans should given food and shelter to satisfy all their physical needs, and humans should be given enough freedom so that they can exercise most of their physical, intellectual, and creative desires. Emotionally, the primary bond a human can expect is of companionship with it's owner, but it's possible that they will be able to interact and form strong bonds with other pets. Of course, these things are no more *guaranteed* to happen then they are with humans and their pets, but the aliens feel that their standard of care is strong enough that those concerns don't necessitate outlawing pet keeping, or finding pet keeping in general morally objectionable.\n\nOn the whole, I believe this would be a beneficial relationship for humanity, to the same degree that the pet-owner relationship humans have with dogs/cats is beneficial for those dogs/cats.\n\n*One final disclaimer: There are many different kinds of pets humans have, that posses many different levels and kinds of intelligence. Fish obviously don't generally receive the same standard of care and freedom as dogs do. I'd like to keep the discussion focused on animals that we treat similarly to dogs and cats. I've focused so much on dogs and cats because they're A) very, very common as pets. B) pretty dang smart, but still nowhere near us. I don't totally discount arguments that make use of analogies with pets other than dogs and cats, but the hypothetical scenario I'm assuming places us in the same relationship with these aliens as dogs and cats are with us.*\n\n\n**Breaking News**: a delta has been awarded [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/39ymxu/cmv_if_it_is_reasonable_for_humans_to_own_animals/cs7wne5?context=3) for a minor change in my position. Another delta awarded [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/39ymxu/cmv_if_it_is_reasonable_for_humans_to_own_animals/cs8a6pu?context=2), for another minor change in position.\n\nAlright folks, I've got to head off now, I've been doing this for like 6 or 7 hours now. It was a pleasure talking to all you guys. My favorite exchange occurred [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/39ymxu/cmv_if_it_is_reasonable_for_humans_to_own_animals/cs7qbbx) it didn't totally change my view, but it made some progress. I think if some really strong arguments were made I might flip my position. But for now I think I'll still be welcoming our new alien overlords. I might make some more comments tomorrow, we'll see.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Hitler was a terrible leader. + \n + Often when Hitler or Nazi Germany is brought up on reddit you'll see a comment along the lines of 'Sure Hitler was evil, but you gotta admit he was a good leader' or something along those lines with the idea being that Hitler was a pretty sharp leader who pulled Germany out of a depression and made it great again. I disagree, Hitler was a godawful leader, as good leaders tend not to leave their countries into such total destruction. And the claim that Hitler saved Germany from depression is false, the economic reforms that pulled Germany's bacon out of the economic fire were done by [Hjalmar Schacht.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjalmar_Schacht) Hitler's economic policies set Germany on the course to [financial ruin](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3i78h9/why_do_some_historians_say_nazi_germany_was/cudz604) and forced them into a situation where the only way to survive was to invade and plunder their neighbors. \n\n\nSo. Hitler ruined the previously successful economic situation, made military alliances with Italy and Japan that did nothing for him except get him in further trouble with an American enemy and an Italian ally constantly needing help, played hell with the warfront by sacking any general who crossed his opinion, and spent valuable resources creating internal strife by persecuting his own people.\n\n\n\nSo I say Hitler was a good speaker, but a terrible leader.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think it would be beneficial to society if people commonly included their preferred pronouns when introducing themselves. + \n + I've seen a lot of people on reddit who, when someone mentions people being prompted to give their pronouns, react as if this is a bad thing. The near-unanimity of these feelings against this practice have led me to question my own view, so I came here to see what y'all think.\n\nThere are a few reasons why I think this would benefit society as a whole:\n\n1. **Helping trans (and cis!) people not be misgendered.** Most men don't like being mistaken for women, and most women don't like being mistaken for men. This includes trans men and trans women, who likely have to confront it more often (and, on top of that, who can see it as yet another unwelcome reminder that other people don't see them the same way they see themselves). Right now, people are generally expected to assume the gender of the people they meet based on appearances, but that clearly isn't reliable, especially when it comes to trans people. If asking for pronouns becomes normal, these awkward interactions will be eliminated.\n\n2. **Bringing trans acceptance into the mainstream.** One of the biggest obstacles I've seen to trans acceptance is the attitude that we can, or we should be able to, tell a person's gender just by looking at them. The very act of asking for someone's pronouns assumes that you can't tell just by looking, so this change would entail acceptance of the fact that you can't assume someone's gender just by their appearances.\n\nThe only downside I see to this is the trivial amount of time it would take to ask the question and the effort of remembering people's answers, which hardly seems more difficult than remembering someone's name, once you've gotten used to it. \n\nObviously I think this would be difficult to do and would take a while to actually become mainstream (if it ever does), so an argument that \"it's just too difficult to do this\" would probably be unlikely to change my view. My argument is that a world in which this social norm exists would be better than a world without that, and that this is something we should at least strive for. \n\nI look forward to seeing what you all think!\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The katana is more impressive than comparable european swords + \n + There's been, for a while, a pro-Katana circlejerk among, mostly, anime fans. That's the origin of the \"glorious nippon steel folded 10,000 times\" meme, the D&D \"Katanas are OP\" meme, and others.\n\nThis has, inevitably, resulted in a counter-jerk. People noting, not inaccurately, that katanas were made from low-quality iron, were shorter and heavier than comparable swords from Europe.\n\nMy argument, then, is that katanas are impressive not because they are somehow significantly better than a European sword of comparable period, but rather, katanas are impressive precisely because of the limitations that resulted in their construction methods. It is much less impressive, to me at least, to make an effective cutting implement when you have easy access to high quality iron and steel, as well as a large area of trade from which forging techniques can be adopted. Despite all the limitations that went into their construction, a katana is still reasonably good at doing what it was designed to do: being a single-edged one-or-two-handed cutting sword, especially on a draw cut.\n\n(I also think they're prettier than european swords but that's subjective and only an aside to this CMV)\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The reason people are against sagging pants to the point of erecting laws against it has absolutely nothing to do with race. + \n + \n-------------------------------------------------\n\nI have been against it for years. Frankly I find it unsightly as well as unhygienic. Recently among the race stuff showing up in the media people tried saying this was one. Just another race baiting tactic. I\u2019m an open minded individual about lots things, but your argument has to be pretty damn good to CMV. If your ride public transportation or sit in any public area, during the summer especially, your bare ass is only separated from the seat by a thin piece of cloth. How could anyone with a shred of common sense find this okay? Its incredibly gross.\n\nJust look at it from a spectators point of view. More than 95% of people are appalled by this \u201cfashion trend\u201d that has also been widely proven to come from prison. Why would you want to give off that type of air about you. Who wants to look at someone else\u2019s underwear anyway? There is absolutely no other place where people show off their underwear in such a manner and get away with it. It is indecent exposure.\n\n**There are a plenty of reasons that this trend gets so much hate and none of them have to do with race.** Tell me one fashion trend that's as bad as this that gets no attention. You can't. I mean hell, black people aren\u2019t the only one\u2019s that do it. I guarantee that if there was a \u201cfashion trend\u201d as atrocious as this started by any other group it would get the same backlash. \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV : A man who tips waitress extra for looking cute is a chump + \n + I see the tipping drama on Reddit fairly often and i see guys commenting that they tip cute and hot waitress more for being cute. I think this behavior makes you a lesser man , a wimp , cuckold and creates power balance in industry where he could have had a male waitress doing the same quality service and he gets less tips for that than average service from bubbly hot 18 year old. ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Hip-hop songwriting is extremely underrated. + \n + Not here to wax poetic about how great hip-hop is, this is strictly about the writing. Rockstars like Lennon, McCartney & Dylan deservedly get hailed as some of the greatest songwriters ever, but you rarely ever hear the same of a rapper. Not saying a rapper should necessarily be above them or even in the same league, but it's weird that they aren't praised for some of their brilliant lyrics. Lyrics that are often co-opted by the masses, celebrities and even used as slogans for corporations. \n\n\nNow, this is obviously due to a bunch of factors - rappers aren't singing, hip-hop is still young & people still don't really respect it, other genres are more established, etc. However, rappers still compose lyrics and rhythms for songs, which by extension makes them songwriters. Empire State of Mind is a great example because many people have heard it and some could pass it off as just another mainstream song. Much of the song's acclaim was for Alicia Key's singing/hook (which arguably made the song what it is), but the writing on the verses are quite overlooked. \n\nEspecially the third -\n\nSo they can step out of bounds quick/\nThe side lines is lined with casualties/\nWho sip the life casually, then gradually become worse/\nDon\u2019t bite the apple, Eve/\nCaught up in the in-crowd, now you're in-style/\nAnd in the winter gets cold en vogue with your skin out/\nThe city of sin is a pity on a whim/\nGood girls gone bad, the city's filled with 'em/\nMommy took a bus trip and now she got her bust out/\nEverybody ride her, just like a bus route/\n\"Hail Mary\" to the city, you're a virgin/\nAnd Jesus can\u2019t save you, life starts when the church ends/\nCame here for school, graduated to the high life/\nBall players, rap stars, addicted to the limelight/\nMDMA got you feeling like a champion/\nThe city never sleeps, better slip you a Ambien.\n\n\nExcellent use of imagery & wordplay while still being fairly direct and evocative. This isn't much compared to some of the other writing on other hip-hop songs, but it showcases how good the writing is even on some of the biggest hits. I'm pretty sure that if some bands came up with even half of what some of the best hip-hop lyricists come up with, they would be endlessly praised. Might all seem very trivial, but I really feel hip-hop songwriting deserves more praise.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Piracy is largely indefensible and is base in a selfish desire for free entertainment. + \n + Darn typo\n\nEvery argument I see, in regards to piracy, is ultimately based in one and one thing only, a selfish desire for a free luxury, one that actively hurts small-time artists (not big corporations). \n\nI will begin by rebutting common pro-piracy arguments.\n\n1) *It doesn't hurt the artist!*\nEven were this statement true(it's not) it has nothing to do with morality(and thus, the legality) of the issue. It may very well help them, but it is without a doubt true that a pirate violates the owner's property rights, and the elements of the contract they sign.  Ultimately this argument can be ignore, because it is not just for someone to burn down another house just for petty revenge even if the ultimate result is a hefty insurance payment for the victim.\n2) *It's the freedom of information age!*\nNo, it isn't, since the information isn't free. Information isn't, nor should it be, inherently free. Classified military secrets, passwords, SSNs, browser histories, and credit card numbers are \"information\" but most certainly should not be given for free to anyone and everyone.\n3) *The poor wouldn't have bought it anyway. Besides, how do you expect me to pay for it?*\nAnother disregarding of morality, but let's address this directly. Information that is pirated, aka games, books, movies, etc. are luxuries. They are not necessities. Thus, while the poor may very well have not bought it anyway, they still violated property rights for something not in any way,shape, or form necessary for their survival or well-being. Stealing food, water, or money in order to purchase the former may, at times, be justified, but the theft of luxuries is not necessary for your survival. \n4) *We should transition to donation system.*\nThis is one of the more laughable positions I have seen and so often comes from the exact same people who argue that charity is not enough to help the poor(which they almost always claim they are). That argument, which I agree with, is especially true of art and copyrights. Why do you have to pay the electrician for the work he did to your house? After all, you never took anything from him, all he did was rearrange the bits in your house to work again, something you could of done yourself. All he lost was time, and that's not illegal to take, is it? So then why do we not hear of the same donation systems for blue collar workers like this? Because it's ridiculous.\n\nI am open to discussion on this. I can admit I'm wrong, but I just get infuriated with such selfish attitudes so common among supposed leftists; attitudes that are the catalysts for abominations like SOPA.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: If pro-life views are ever to become law in the future, it must be done by covering the costs of birth and contraceptives first. + \n + I am pro life obviously.  I offer a critique on the \"angle\" of the traditional pro-life lobby.\n\n* I believe the goal of centrist\\populist pro-lifers, so EXCLUDING the extreme\\radical holders, is to minimize abortions, not maximize children.\n* And thus contraception poses no ethical qualms with the above viewpoint.\n* Abortion is often a more financially advantageous position compared to putting a child up for adoption.\n* To nip in the bud a follow up to the above statement, I realize making it financially ADVANTAGEOUS (though way of say a credit for children born) would create a \"cobra market.\"\n\nI also believe forcing women who have been raped or are in risky pregnancies to complete their births is wrong.\n\nSo I believe for someone who is seriously pro-life, it should be seen as a step in the right direction to obtain that goal, by eliminating reasons why a person would or should choose to end a pregnancy. ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:Asking questions of a rape accuser to determine whether or not a \"rape victim\" actually exists is not the same as \"victim blaming\". + \n + In most cases of rape accusations, there is no witness to the alleged crime.  Accordingly, if the two parties to the alleged crime have opposing stories as to what events occurred, there is no on to corroborate either person's perception.  So the *only* way to determine which person's story is most likely to be accurate is to gather information from periods of time during which there *were* witnesses and compare those eye-witness accounts to the stories told by the parties to the alleged crime.\n\nSo if a girl says she was raped, and a guy says they had consensual sex, what types of information would be helpful from eyewitnesses?  Well, the actions and behaviors of the parties both before, and after, the alleged rape would be relevant, wouldn't they?\n\nWhile you can never know for certain whether the woman consented in the moment, any of her actions or behaviors that happened *before* the alleged rape that indicate \"interest\" in the guy or \"interest\" in sex would provide some indication as to whether or not the sex was consensual:\n\n* Was she hanging on the guy at a bar, or trying to avoid him?\n\n* Were they in a relationship that consisted of frequently going out to a bar and then having sex at his place?  Did they go out to a bar and then go back to his place in this instance?  Or was this a stranger that she met at the bar that night?\n\n* Was she making sexually suggestive comments to him earlier in the night, or was she rolling her eyes and his sexually suggestive comments?\n\nBy the same token, her actions and behaviors after the alleged rape can be indicative of whether or not the sex was consensual:\n\n* Did she leave his place in the middle of the night, or did she stay over, make breakfast for him and go out on a date with him again the next week?\n\n* Did she go to birthday party the next and a smile and laugh, or did she lock herself in her room for 2 days?\n\n* Did she call a rape crisis line the next day, or did she go out and buy a new car?\n\nNow let me be clear, just because you were hanging on a guy at a bar doesn't mean you consented to sex.  Just because you had sex with a guy previously, doesn't mean that you consented to sex this time.  Just because you make sexually suggestive comments to a guy, doesn't mean you consented to sex.  Just because you make a guy breakfast and go on more dates with him doesn't mean you consented to sex.  Just because you appear happy the next day doesn't mean you consented to sex.  And just because you fail to call a rape crisis center, it doesn't mean you consented to sex.\n\nBut there is no way, in most cases, to determine whether or not you actually did consent to sex or not.  And the answers to the types of questions enumerated above can provide support to indicate whether or not it was likely you consented.  And determine consent is the only way to determine whether or not a rape actually occurred.  And if there is no rape, then there can be no \"victim blaming\" by these questions because there is no \"victim\" to blame.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Employment background checks should be abolished. + \n + I\u2019ll keep this as simple as possible because I\u2019m at work. Someone commits a crime, they do their time, and afterwards, because of background checks, they can\u2019t get a normal job. Someone who may have had hope for a better life after prison will soon begin to feel hopeless after getting rejected each time the background check comes up. They already did the time for the crime. Why should they keep being punished afterwards? Not being able to find a job will only lead a criminal back to the streets, and inevitably back to prison, helping no one. I know the counter argument \u2013 would you feel safe working with a convicted murderer? No, I wouldn\u2019t, but our current system doesn\u2019t help either. \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:There are only three genders + \n + Okay, so this is something I see very often and sparks arguments fast. I've heard a lot about this \"sex and gender are not the same\", but that is not agreed on by all. Actually, if I have understood correctly (from Wikipedia, but ofc it might be wrong) the view is mostly held by those who study womens' studies/gender studies, and not even all of those. Sex and gender are used interchangeably in common speech in English, and do not have separate words in my native tongue.\n\nI do not mean to say that there are no such thing as trans people. But trans people are not their own gender. A woman who identifies as a man is a man and not a FtM-gibberishgender. At least I haven't met any transgender people who want to identify as something else than male, female or intersex. If someone is physically female and identifies as toothpaste, I do not know if that is a gender. \n\nThe three genders then would be male, meaning either strictly those with a penis, or anyone who identifies as a male, female, meaning either everyone with a vagina or anyone who identifies as a female, and intersex, either strictly meaning anyone who is not cis male or cis female, or anyone who does not associate themselves with the two other genders.\n\nI am myself in favour of the less strict versions.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think that individuals who identify as transgender have an underlying mental illness that should be worked through in therapy rather than corrected by invasive medical procedures. + \n + I'm going to try to attack this issue from multiple angles and I want to preface by saying that I am NOT trying in any way to attack the transgender community. \n\n\n\n\n-First off, I want to begin by discussing the very premise of labeling oneself as trans. I have an issue with transgender people saying that they are born with a [gendered] brain in a [wrong gendered] body. For many years women have been fighting for equality with men and in this light it is abhorrent to say that men and women have brains that are different. Feminists (both men and women) have fought hard to erase the entrenched beliefs of a patriarchal society. For example, to be a male yet be interested in feminine things and FEEL feminine is only upholding the belief that there are certain traits unique to and can only be possessed by females. This is the premise to my argument so bear with me. \n\n\n\nAlas, as stated above, I believe that being transgender can be one's own way (subconsciously) to mentally rebel against society's very deep and entrenched gender roles. \n\n\n\n-Secondly, I see thoughts of transgender individuals to be patterned similarly to the thoughts of individuals with the mental illness known as body dysmorphic disorder. Persons with BDD tend to have an obsession with a certain part of their body or facet of their personality that they blow out of proportion to reality. This obsession causes sufferers a great deal of emotional pain and can lead them to take extreme measures to remedy the perceived problem. Most people with BDD are adolescents. \n\nFor example, someone with BDD may be so obsessed with the shape of their nose that they seek surgery to reduce their concern and obsession. However, surgery is not a treatment for BDD. BDD is a manifestation of extreme anxiety and depression and fixing the obsession does not remove said mental illnesses from the person. Most individuals who do go to extreme measures as such tend to continue experience the anxiety and depression that manifested itself as an obsession with the shape of their nose.\n\n\n-Now, in that vein how are we to say that the plight of transgender people is any different? Feelings of extreme anxiety and depression directed at the person's gender, correction of gender and not a lot of resolution with the underlying mental illness.\n\n\nSee this study: [Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/) Research has shown that \"Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.\" \n\n\n\n\nThis is my case. Please change my view. \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Airshows are totally unnecessary + \n + Hello folks,\n\nAs you may have seen footage of a disaster in Sussex during an airshow, it made me think. I am always met with an argument that \"Anything can kill and you should probably hide in a bunk.\" or \"Driving is dangerous too\". Well, this is different. Driving is a necessity right now and I cannot wait for a day in the future where driverless car can save millions of lives. I can understand a show in a remote place where people consciously make the decision to take their kids and watch it. I am fine with that although it makes me question the human race. Are we so limited in finding ways to entertain ourselves that we're okay to risk lives of the pilot and innocent children who are not adult to make the decision themselves? People also bring the argument that the accidents like this are rare. A quick search on google tells me that such accidents happen every year. Again, how can you live with your conscience that something that you support and feel entertained has killed people and brought grief in someone's family. \n\nI am still struggling to find answer to this. How can you explain a show in Sussex where the people who died may not even be remotely interested in the airshow? It's a matter of luck. A brain freeze to a pilot and it's instant death depending where the plane might crash. Today, it's the road. Tomorrow it could be a school. Also, I have heard arguments that airshows provide money to the museum. Again, are we so limiting in our intelligence that we cannot find other avenues to fund the museum? I wouldn't lie that it's amazing to watch the feat we can perform in the sky and the adrenaline rush that people crave but when it has costed lives and traumatized people living in that city, it's one form of entertainment that we can totally live without.\n\nThank you.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: That congressman who delayed safe injection site in DC is in some important way responsible for the thousands of HIV cases / deaths that ensued + \n + So watching John Oliver last night, \n\n(yes Last Week Tonight is not a source of news - I haven't researched this further and in case some facts are off, treat this is more of a hypothetical)\n\na politician basically delayed DC's clean injection site for some number of years, with thousands of people getting HIV per year. Once that politician ceased blocking it (while the whole time he had solid data of its effectiveness based on it being implemented in his own state!) the HIV infection rates went down by 80% or whatever, of course. So, because of his blocking the safe injection site, thousands of people got HIV and many probably died.\n\nI think he is responsible for those deaths, to some degree, and should face some sort of consequences. I am not sure what they would be, or what the crime would even be (if an appropriate one exists (yet)), but he was surely negligent, deliberately acting against this proven life saving thing.\n\nThis obviously reaches toward some greater point about how responsible politicians are for the harm they cause, and a precedent here would have far reaching conclusions. For example, a politician who broadcasts to 300 million people that homeless people are merely lazy, will convince millions of people of that and cause poorer treatment of homeless people, which will lead to deaths in some threshold cases - how responsible is that politician for those deaths he clearly indirectly caused? \n\nI'm not sure what the right path is, but surely there is something more just than \"those people made their own free will choices, not his fault\" and \"well, just don't vote for him next time.\"", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: More bad than good would result from restaurant servers being paid a wage as opposed to working for tips. + \n + This is a relatively hot topic with all of the minimum wage reform in discussion. A lot of people think servers should be paid a \"living wage\" instead of working for tips.  Here is why I think this is a horrible idea:\n\n-Restaurant prices would increase.  In most of the country, servers are paid $2.13 per hour.  If it were raised to say $15, restaurants would likely try to make up the majority of this increase through increased prices.\n\n-People would lose jobs.  Restaurants would likely staff less servers. They would either do this by making servers work harder (for less money), or increased automation. \n\n-Servers like being paid in tips.  Good servers are making plenty of money.   I personally know servers who average $25 per hour, working 40 hours per week.  Yes, it all depends on the restaurant you work at but that goes with any profession.  A marketer will make more money with a good firm than a crappy one.  Same with lawyers; professors, mechanics, etc. \n\n-our current tipping system results in servers giving better service because they are trying to earn better tips. \n\n-The tip system works as a type of commission system for restaurants, as people generally too based off of their total bill. This encourages servers to \"upsell\" drinks, appetizers, desserts, etc. without this commission system servers are less likely to push these products as it won't directly affect their income. Restaurants will have to make up for lost sales somehow else. ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe all drugs, including prescription pills, should be legal without needing a prescription. + \n + This includes all of the currently illegal drugs like crack, heroin etc. People should have the right to be able to take whatever they want. Doctors, psychiatrists, and pharmacists will still be necessary for advising people on what to take.\n\n\n\u25cf In the US, our prisons are overcrowded with drug law offenders. Jails are filled with people who had a personal amount of weed on them. Way too many people have their lives ruined over a single pill, or enough weed for a week or two. \n\n\n\u25cf The amount of effort the police put into drug and drug related crimes would disappear, leaving more police to be able to respond to violent crimes and protection of property. The taxes we would save towards police catching people with drugs could be put into rebuilding roads, Bette public schools, ect.\n\n\n\u25cf Legalizing and regulating drugs would be safer for the consumer than goiing through the black market. If we regulate everything like our current over the counter medicine, ingredients, warning labels, directions, and safety labels would be in place. \n\n\n\u25cf We could focus our efforts towards education and rehabilitation instead of making the problem worse and putting them in jail.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: People who say sportsman should be payed less, know nothing about markets. + \n + So, I've recently came across a lot of people with the opinion of \"How can C. Ronaldo be payed millions to run after a ball and teachers be payed little money? Teachers should make even more money than Ronaldo.\" I agree with the, teachers should be payed more than they make now, part (Brazillian here, so teachers tend to be somewhat poor. Probably also applies to US and part of Europe), but I just have to disagree with Ronaldo should be payed less.\n\nFirst of, the market sets soccer players salary, secondly, soccer makes trillions of dollars a year worldwide, it is only fair that players get a cut. Third, they are adding value to people lives. When you pay 50$ for a ticket, you are expecting to get 50$ or more worth of value off of that, or even more. Sportsman hence, generate a lot of fucking value.\n\nTo give you a different example, music. Taylor Swift sold god knows how many millions of copies of her new album. That means that millions of people willingly traded their 10 bucks, or whatever that album cost, for copies. Nobody was forced to buy it, judging by her fans reactions all parties are satisfied with the deal. She (and her team) created millions worth of value to her fans, only fair they make millions.\n\nAnd last, to those who say \"it's fucking easy, no one should make that much money by running after a ball / creating generic tracks\", it fucking isn't easy.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: America's economy is destined to fail + \n + I'm young, so of course my biggest concern at the moment is the rising national debt, specifically student loans. College is inordinately expensive because loans are so easy to obtain. If I hadn't been able to get a 100k loan, I wouldn't be 100k in debt right now. I would've gone to a state school, and eventually appreciated that fact once I became more emotionally mature. Parents have a hard time letting their kid get a tattoo, but they let you get a HUGE loan on what is right now a big gamble? Please.\n\nNow, why is that relevant? Well, the economy IS doing well right now, but who exactly is in charge? A bunch of people who the future economy won't affect in the slightest. Since a large majority of millenials are bogged by debt, we can't afford to properly flourish the economy like we want to. The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting to be more poor. Someone's going to get fucked.\n\nTechnology is rapidly advancing, and many of the low-income jobs new grads have been forced to take are about to become obsolete. As there is no general income implemented yet, a LOT of people are about to be broke. The only really essential jobs will be things automation can't accomplish, e.g. unpredictable jobs. Almost any job in existence will likely eventually be run by a machine, I can't think of one that can't, there are factories in Japan that do maintenance on themselves.\n\nAs an American, I don't know much about other nations, as school taught me exactly jack shit about them, but I have to wonder if they're in a similar boat. The model on which our economy is built rapidly becomes more out of date every minute. Eventually we WILL have to make changes, and I doubt those in power at the time will have the competence or open mindedness to do so.\n\nOf course, none of this mindset was helped by [this book](http://www.epi.org/publication/failure-by-design/).\n\nPlease, PLEASE someone change my view. I really don't want to live in this country if I'm destined to end up homeless after defaulting on my loans.\n\nAny ideas?\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Common Core (esp. Mathematics) is a system that is fundamentally flawed and does not prepare students for the real world. + \n + To my understanding, Common Core is a set of standards of skills that a student should learn before graduating high school. Though I am still quite some years before getting there, what I have observed in my school's mathematics system shows that these skills rely heavily on memorization and calculation, much less on reasoning, and virtually none on application. I've looked at the Common Core website and seen that these accurately reflect the standards put out.\n\nLet's take the [Common Core Algebra standards](http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/HSA/introduction/) as an example. If you scroll down to the Overview, you see that almost all of the skills listed are to solve equations or something of that sort. This is calculation. Common Core currently spends too much time on this, something relatively easy such that computers can do it. Some of this time needs to shift to the other branches of mathematics.\n\nI believe that algebra, as well as much of the rest of mathematics, should be used as a medium through which logic and reasoning are taught. Though computers can use logic to some extent, the human brain is much more capable and should be used for what it is needed for. [Here is a purely algebraic problem.](http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php/1981_AHSME_Problems#Problem_30) Despite the concepts being purely algebraic, it requires high levels of critical thinking and reasoning in order to solve. This is the type of multi-step problem that should be taught in high schools, but is almost always not. Common Core does not require students to display this level of critical thinking.\n\nLet's take [Geometry for another example.](http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/HSG/introduction/) If you scroll down to the Overview, these standards are somewhat better, since they introduce the notion of proof. However, on close inspection of the Congruence section, only a few basic proofs spanning a few basic proof types are necessary. These do not cover the important proof by contradiction and proof by induction, two kinds of reasoning that can be much better applied to the real world. It is also never required that the student prove any algebraic concepts, such as the quadratic formula. Most theorems in Geometry and all in Algebra are not proven, and the student is forced to memorize them. We have computers for that. We need people to prove and reason.\n\nIt\u2019s also important for concepts like Geometry to be taught in conjunction with other areas of mathematics, such as Calculus. I took Geometry in 8th grade, and though that is a bit early for Calculus, the idea of limits and things like that should have at least been touched upon. Why is it that the volume of a pyramid is Bh/3? The idea of taking some function to the limit makes it easy to prove this. Common Core does not cover this.\n\nSo far, I\u2019ve touched very little upon the idea of application, and mostly because that\u2019s the most difficult one. We know that mathematics is applied in all sorts of STEM subjects, but what if the student is already set on taking a liberal arts major? They shouldn\u2019t be forced to study engineering with math. So, I think that the application of mathematics needs to brought back to its roots, being the application of logic. Programming is great way to apply this, and though maybe math class isn\u2019t the right place for this, every student already has a programmable graphing calculator anyway. Instead of forcing students to not use programs on tests like they do at my school, I think that the use of programs should be encouraged, since they demonstrate understanding of the basis behind all mathematics, which is logic. Maybe this is straying a bit far from the purpose of Common Core, and it shouldn\u2019t be implemented as a guideline, but perhaps as a suggestion it would be great.\n\nI\u2019ll be going through Common Core for a few more years, and I want to know if it\u2019s effective. Please CMV.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Nationalism/Having stromg National Pride is a good thing + \n + It seems like in this new age of politics, especially in the left wing, Nationalism and having a strong sense of national identity is often demonized and looked down upon. Especially when in times of war, natural disasters and other crises, having everyone work towards a single goal helps improve the people's state of life, equality for marginalized groups, and the country's economy. \n\nAmerican \"homefront\" in World War 2 and the 1950s, where demand for industrial production skyrocketed and most people in the US was working towards a single purpose to support troops in the war, which wouldn't be there if there was not a strong sense of nationalism and pride in their country. This industrial boom, guided by nationalist pride, made America a major player in the world economy.\n\nNow, i know some might say that it's foolish to be proud of your country because you didn't choose to be born in it, but i think that an overall sense of Nationalism will only improve a nation as a whole", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Cyberbullying isn't a problem + \n + I should start out by saying i didn't exactly word the title to the best of my ability, but it reflects my point of view better than any other way i could think of wording it. before i say anything else, i should set a general definition as to what cyberbullying refers to in this conversation. \n\nI don't believe this should be an issue at all, or at least not what the media makes it out to be. In the \"real world\", when someone is being bullied they cannot avoid it. this is usually because of two issues: 1. they lack the power to stop a bully. Ex: They are not strong enough to stop a physical harasser. 2. they cannot change the \"scenario\". Ex: A bully in the same class cannot be avoided.\n\nOnline, neither of those issues are present. Bullies hold no physical power and cannot touch you. If they continuously bother you, there are many ways to avoid them. simply by blocking them, changing servers (if present in a game), or by taking a break from using your computer.\n\nI want to make it clear that cyberbullying is different than using technology to ruin someone's life. Using a mobile phone to record something bad and blackmail someone would be physically bullying them. Telling someone to kill themselves on league of legends is \"cyberbullying\". \n\nI would love to hear what reddit has to say about this topic, i've always scoffed at the idea of cyberbullying and thought of it as another way people like to complain about nothing. Maybe i'm not seeing something. Is cyberbullying unavoidable? is it a serious issue? should anyone even care? Let's talk about it. \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: If national service was reintroduced to the UK, I would refuse absolutely to participate. + \n + There is talk of national service being reintroduced here, and I personally detest the idea. \n\n  My primary reason is simple- to serve one's country should remain, as it is now, a totally voluntary act. I would personally find it a deep insult if I had signed up of my own volition, only to find myself alongside those who had no choice in the matter. A voluntary act is always going to be worth more than a forced one. \n\nSimilarly I fail to see of what value it is to any young person to do national service. Things like discipline, physical and mental strength, \nteamwork, all these can be taught in ways which do not involve learning aggression also. I would prefer a non-violent approach where young people agreed to civil service, perhaps helping repair roads, plant trees, work on farms and so on, which would be far more useful as well as teaching key skills I've already mentioned. \n\nPlus given my own personal objections to the monarchy as an institution and also my country, I feel I should not be obligated to undergo an action which involves allegiance to it, given the choice of signing up to the army currently involves a pledge to do both of these things. \n\nFact is that I would rather be put into prison, or simply leave the country, rather than do national service. Can anyone CMV? \n\n-----\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I don't believe a $15 minimum wage will help Americans + \n + I'm not a fan of raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour for fast food workers, or anyone really. Sure, it's okay to want to be able to support yourself and family, but protesting the government for a 15 dollar minimum wage seems to be the wrong way to approach it. If I understand the debate correctly, people want to the wage raised from the current $7.25 to $15 an hour. If this is the case, that means every fast food worker, sales associate and the vast many jobs that pay under 15 will now be 15, and I just can't see this being good for the economy. I see many many jobs being lost, job availability shrinking, getting a job becoming much much harder, and the infinite loop of \"I have no experience because I can't get a job because I have no experience...\" becoming much easier to fall into for kids entering the workforce. Along with the ever growing likelihood of some jobs being replaced by robots and other service gadgets, I can only imagine raising the minimum wage that much will be more harm than good.\n\nI also see making a fast food workers job livable an easy way out of putting in hard work. I'm not saying fast food is an easy job, but an entry level job that requires no skill shouldn't be a viable career choice. I read an article saying that fast food is an \"uncomfortable rung in the ladder\", that ladder leading to what a person wants to do with his/her life. Making that rung on the ladder a place you can stay, has to be more harm than good to the economy and American workforce though. Please CMV.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Barack Obama has been an excellent president + \n + Sure, his 2008 campaign was filled with wild hopes and dreams which won't get accomplished, but what did get accomplished is remarkable. Lets go over his achievements-\n\n-Saved the US economy from what could have been a much longer and more severe recession or depression\n\n-Ended two of the longest and most expensive wars in US history\n\n-Killed Osama Bin Laden, effectively avenging the many Americans lost on 9/11\n\n-Started much needed healthcare reform in the US\n\n-Normalized relations with Cuba after over 50 years\n\n-Made enormous strides for clean energy, drastically reducing America's carbon footprint\n\n-Appointed justices that legalized gay marriage nationally, further improving acceptance of the LGBT community which has already improved so much over the course of his presidency\n\n-Could reach a nuclear deal with Iran, improved relations with Iran to a point where they haven't been in a long time\n\n-Will pardon scores of prisoners serving ridiculously overblown sentences for petty marijuana related crimes\n\nAll while dealing with the single most uncooperative congresses in history (shut down the government two years in a row, for starters). In my eyes, every good thing he has done absolutely makes up for every bad thing he's done (the only one I can think of is the TPP, which hasn't even passed yet) and has been the best president since pre-Reagan.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe psychics/tarot readers/ mystics and other similar professions are all frauds and potentially dangerous as well. + \n + Psychics/tarot readers and other similar \"professionals\" practice a combination of hot and cold readings, techniques that are well known and understood by anyone who has a passing interest in this kind of stuff. If you're unfamiliar I suggest you look at the wiki entry for both (I'll link in a few I'm on my phone). In fact books that explain performing tarot readings are basically explaining how to do cold readings, but in veiled language. Practitioners may claim (or in some case even believe) they aren't using these techniques but that's because they unconsciously developed these skills from practice.\n\nIm sure there are practitioners out there who believe they are helping others and giving advice in good faith, but I just don't see how that is ethical. They haven't had to training to give personal advice like a therapist would have recieved, and there's an uneven power dynamic between a mystic and a patron dissimilar receiving advice from a friend or family member. These are also professions that can possibly attract people with addictive personalities and become money sinks.\n\nPsychics/tarot readers and similar professionals are fraudulent and potentially dangerous. Cmv.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The United States lags behind other nations because of its size and heterogeneity + \n + Hello CMV,\n\nAs I'm sure many of you know, there have been a number of reports and studies that bring to light the lackluster ranking of the United States in comparison to other nations in categories such as [infrastructure](http://www.statista.com/statistics/264753/ranking-of-countries-according-to-the-general-quality-of-infrastructure/), [poverty rates](http://www.epi.org/publication/ib339-us-poverty-higher-safety-net-weaker/), [education](http://thelearningcurve.pearson.com/index/index-ranking), and so on. Usually, these show other nations, typically Scandinavian and other European countries, consistently coming out on top. \n\nThis leads to a somewhat negative and unhealthy perception of America for both citizens and non-citizens that I think is unfair. This is because, in my view, there are 3 factors which hinder America's ability to keep up with its developed nation counter parts:\n\n* Land Size\n* Population\n* Cultural Heterogeneity \n\nFirst, here is a top 5 list of the largest nations on Earth by square mileage, in order from largest to smallest:\n\n* Russia\n* Canada\n* China\n* United States\n* Brazil \n\nThe US is the 4th largest country on the planet, and as such, I think its ability to manage and update infrastructure is limited. A bullet train similar to those in Europe would be difficult in the US. Also, land from coast to coast is extremely diverse, ranging from plains, to mountains, to desert, to swamps, and so forth. Such a diverse biome requires diverse management of resources and is pretty difficult in my opinion. \n\nNow here's a top 5 list of countries by population, from largest to smallest:\n\n* China\n* India\n* United States \n* Indonesia \n* Brazil \n\nNot only is America massive in terms of land area, it has a massive population as well. This high population puts financial strain on social nets, public education, and other public programs that can lead to problems. (This is not to say America *wisely* spends its money on its people, but that is a separate argument for another day). And yet compared to the other 4 most populous nations, it still maintains a high standard of living, relatively low poverty rate, and economic mobility. \n\nThe only other country that hangs with America in *both* categories is China, which is massive in size and population. But America differs from China in one way, which is my third point -- a heterogeneous culture. \n\nThe US was founded by immigrants, as a nation of immigrants, and diversity is only growing into the future. America features such a mixing pot of ethnicity and culture that it makes it difficult to enact programs that benefit everyone equally. I think this is most evident in education, where the US has the difficult task of creating a system that benefits *every* child in the best way possible. In China, a largely homogeneous population with high value on education *should* produce high results. \n\nAnd yet, despite having all three of these factors to consider, the United States is ranked [5th on the Human Development Index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index) as late as 2014.\n\nSo, basically my argument is this -- The United States, being huge in size, huge in population, and having a heterogeneous culture, is at an instant disadvantage in comparison to other nations, and is doing pretty well for itself all things considered. \n\nCMV! \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Food stamps should not cover soda + \n + The purpose of food stamps is to ensure that even society's poorest households can obtain needed nutrition.  And, there's no need to deliberately deprive them of all palatable or enjoyable food -- \"you're poor, so you're stigmatized and condemned to subsist off protein gruel\" --  that's not what I'm advocating.\n\nHowever, soda is not food.  It provides no nutritional benefit, and causes plenty of nutritional harms.   While it is theoretically possible to conceive of a \"healthy\" soda, you could surely find the same benefits from other non-soda sources.  Somebody makes a veggie soda?  There are dozens more veggie juices.  Or, hell, you could buy actual vegetables. \n\nI am aware this careveout isn't perfect, since there are juices, candies and other grocery store items that can be \"just as bad\" as soda in some instances.  However, parsing fine distinctions between juices and snacks would require very detailed regulation that would be expensive to enforce.   \"Soda,\" by contrast, is a category that can be pretty simply defined and wherein almost all offerings are bad.\n\nSome people need caffeine to help them earn money? Fine -- coffee and tea are still allowed.  \n\nBottom line is, I see no reason that my taxes should be spent feeding the poor a carbonated mix of sugar and toxic chemicals.  Doesn't help the poor.  Doesn't help society.  Why is it a worthy expense?  CMV if you can.  \n\n\n[Study shows banning soda purchases using food stamps would reduce obesity and type-2 diabetes](http://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2014/06/02/study-shows-banning-soda-purchases-using-food-stamps-would-reduce-obesity-and-type-2-diabetes/)\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: A $15 minimum wage will increase unemployment, and remove entry-level positions. + \n + I'm not necessarily for or against a minimum wage increase (and if I were for it, not certain $15/hr should be the first step) but I do think that if we enact an increase too severe - and I have reasonable suspicion even $12 could be too much - we will lose a lot of jobs.\n\nI don't have a ton of reasons, it's just my view, I guess I'd like to see any facts or counter-arguments if possible. I did see that machines have been made that can produce 1 burger every 10 seconds or so, and that McDonalds already implemented automated cashiers in Europe. This is the kind of thing that I think will happen in greater numbers - more automatic cashiers at places like Wal-Mart, even a shift to automated cooks, and warehouse workers (I know there are already some warehouses where robots retrieve ordered packages for shipping).\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: We should be wary of \"Save the Boobies\" and similar breast preservation focused cancer awareness campaigns. + \n + I have a cousin and now a grandmother affected by breast cancer.  The former has had it for the better part of a decade now and has become very active in a number of breast cancer awareness campaigns.  I've become a little more active here to be supportive.\n\nI understand the positive motivations behind phrasings like \"Save the Boobies\" or \"Save the Ta-Tas.\"  I get that they're a more lighthearted approach to breast cancer awareness and survival, and that they draw in (presumably, or at least arguably) more crowds than their serious counterparts, and that not everything surrounding breast cancer has to be sober or grim.  I don't begrudge people for gravitating towards this approach.\n\nMy CMV basically revolves around the fact that I'm concerned this marginalizes women who either proactively got a mastectomy or did so precisely because they absolutely needed to to survive. I think these people have a strong claim to awareness and survival and that the focus of these campaigns should be those two characteristics and not making sure women keep their breasts.  This is understandably important to many women, and I appreciate that, but I am uncomfortable with the notion that keeping breasts is a galvanizing feature for broad swaths of people and that we might be unintentionally excluding/marginalizing a core set of survivors.\n\nA few things that keep me from swinging entirely in this direction:\n\n- I could be completely off-base and maybe most survivors, including those who have had their breasts removed, are okay with this framing of awareness.  I defer to people who have gone through this experience more than me as a casual observer.\n\n- Women presumably want to keep their breasts and there's nothing wrong with that as an aspirational goal that can be part of the survival package.  I don't want to paint the picture that I think this desire is wrong or superficial.\n\n- If it was demonstrated that this kind of marketing has generated so much participation, awareness, and fundraising that its practical effects off-set any implication that we, as a society, are preoccupied with women keeping breasts rather than beating cancer.\n\nCMV, please.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think Reddit should get rid of the downvote system. + \n + I've been on Reddit for a little over a year now. Ar first I really enjoyed the discussion and community. But the longer I stayed I started to notice more and more problems. My biggest gripe with Reddit is the downvote system. I think the upvote concept is good, but not the reverse. As I've noticed, the community tends to silence people they dislike, or have a differing opinion with. This to me goes against the whole concept of Reddit. Content should not be silenced simply because you have a differing opinion. This is why so much of the same content cycles back to the top every now and then. To truly spark discussion and promote diversity, the tool should be removed completely. Though the true problem lies with the users, since they maintain this environment. But just like laws to protect citizens from having their rights taken, equal opportunity to have your voice heard should be a priority. \n\nBut that's just me. Am I missing something? \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The pledge of allegience and other rituals of national identity are holding society back. + \n + Nationalism in general is harmful distinction amongst people serving only to encourage people to believe that (not necessarily even) the country they were born makes them more important /  better than others from different countires. This further highlights physical and cultural differences keeping race, creed and skin colour at the forefront of discrimination.\n\nYour land mass of preference is nothing more than a matter of circumstance and the nationals of your country are just as much of a burden on the planet as the foreigners these rituals imply are second rate.\n\n\n- Social economics\n- Patriotism vs nationalism\n\nIn terms of economics: Please assume any reference to this is intended to express public (and occasionally at a push, social) benefits. The reasoning for doing so is to hopefully highlight how national identity can be a) relative to your perceptions of \"lesser countries\". b) a productive of abusing of nations / collections of nations. e.g, DDT ban once the rest of the world no longer needed America for its production.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: If a redlight camera is enough to give a ticket for running a red light, then automatic toll systems should be able to give fines for speeding + \n + The basis of this viewpoint is that a system that does not require an official review (such as automatically giving out tickets for running red lights) would also extend to other laws.  That has set a precedent where it would be legally acceptable to issue fines to other violations without human input.\n\nIf a driver passes through toll A, then passes through toll B (10 miles away) after 5 minutes, it's possible to determine the driver's minimum speed as 120 mph. It's possible the driver went faster then paused before they crossed toll B, but it would not be possible for them to have traveled at a legal speed and still pass through toll B within that time.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Natural is a meaningless word + \n + The word \u2018natural\u2019 implies something derived from nature, separate from humans. But why is there this distinction? Humans are obviously a part of and are derived from nature. So unless you\u2019re under any religious persuasion, the word shouldn\u2019t have any meaning. It seems outdated and non-applicable. \n\nFor instance it\u2019s meaningless to me when someone says \u2018it\u2019s only natural\u2019. What isn\u2019t natural? \n\nSaying \u2018this happens in nature\u2019 is the same as saying \u2018this happens\u2019. Because everything happens in nature. \n\nAnd so on. ", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think that the standard of discourse on reddit would be higher if we were not allowed to root through other users' post/comment histories + \n + Whenever a politically charged subject comes up in a debate on reddit, someone will make a good point, and instead of countering it, people will root through his/her comment history and find that they post in X sub, which supposedly discredits their opinion. They even have bots for it now, like the left-wing /u/isreactionary_bot, and the newer, right-wing /u/iscuck_bot. These bots literally root through a user's comment history looking for posts in various \"flagged\" subs for the purpose of calling people out for posting in those subs. I believe this is highly detrimental to the possibility of having a rational debate on anything, because it encourages us to attack the user who says something we disagree with rather than what he/she is actually saying. It's also so tempting that I'll admit that I've done it myself on occasion. If post histories were hidden, or at least hidden for non-\"friends\" we wouldn't have this problem. \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Greece deserves all the shit they have coming. They have been living above their paygrade for years, dodging taxes and avoiding all responsibility for their country + \n + Let's see if i do this right, first time posting here:\n\nI just cant summon up any sympathy for the Greeks at this point. \n\nDespite Europeans trying to give them billions to fix their economy, they have done nothing whatsoever. They refuse to pay taxes, they blame Europe for their own fuckups and they are incredibly entitled and somehow expect everyone else to solve their problems for them.\n\nI know this is not a progressive or productive mindset, and i know it won't lead to anything good. But i just don't get why i should have the slightest shred of sympathy for the Greeks.\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe Reefer Madness is a thing. + \n + Allow me to clarify. I firmly believe that for many individuals, marijuana allows psychological issues one might have to surface earlier and to manifest themselves at a higher intensity than if that individual abstained from smoking in the first place. Personally, I spent my early life with a mentally unstable parent who smoked heavily in high school and to the best of my knowledge has been going to therapy and heavily medicated since early adulthood. I've watched my sibling get into pot, get depressed, attempt suicide, and have anxiety attacks. This all started once they began smoking. I have dead friends, \"burn-out\" friends and friends who smoke 420 blaziken MLG pro Monster blunts daily with minor anxiety and side-effects. My point is that while pot doesn't directly give people depression or anxiety etc. that don't already have a propensity for it, that it does help bring those (forgive my lack of better phrasing) \"disorders\" to the surface. \n\nWays to convince me: Reputable studies showing people who smoke are less likely to be depressed, anxious, suicidal. A fair-logical argument will likely win me over, since all my examples are generally first-hand.\n\n\nStuff that won't work- any argument saying \"you're only one person, this is a rare extreme\" \"have you ever smoked it?\" or \"Everything you said is objective etc. etc.\" I'm not saying that those pursuits are incorrect, just that it's not going to convince me.\n\n\nThank you, and happy CMV'ing\n\n\nGeneral Links:\n\n\n[Schizophrenia](http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/270262.php)\n\n[Depression](http://learnaboutmarijuanawa.org/factsheets/mentalhealth.htm) \n\n[Anxiety](http://www.leafscience.com/2014/03/07/study-explains-marijuana-makes-paranoid/)\n\n[Spooky side-effects](http://www.drugfreeworld.org/drugfacts/marijuana/short-and-long-term-effects.htm)\n\n[WebMD](http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-supplements/ingredientmono-947-marijuana.aspx?activeingredientid=947&activeingredientname=marijuana)\n\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: A minimum wage increase will hurt the poor and the economy, not help it. + \n + Over the past year, the idea of raising the minimum wage in Canada (where I live) and in the USA has gained popularity. Many states and provinces are either mandating, or in the process of mandating a minimum wage of ~$15/hour. While on the surface, this seems like a good policy for strengthening the poor/middle class I believe this will ultimately HURT, not help the public, and especially the poor. \n\nHere are several common arguments made in favour of the raising minimum wage and my response:\n\n* \"Average wages haven't increased despite an increase in production and profit in the economy\"\n\nIt's a common misunderstanding that wages are/should be directly tied to production. In reality wages are determined just like prices of anything else, through supply and demand. Most minimum wage jobs are unskilled and easily replaceable (through either humans or automation) making the supply of labour far larger than the demand, which equals a lower wage. The rise in technology that has resulted in higher production from labour has little affect on wages. \n\n* \"Current minimum wages are so low that they do not pay a livable annual salary, keeping the working poor in a perpetual state of poverty\"\n\nI would challenge the idea that most minimum wage jobs were ever meant to be sustainable for living. Most minimum wage jobs are unskilled labour (ex. factory work, assembly lines) or service industry jobs (cooks, janitorial staff, retail jobs etc..). At least to me, these seem like temporary work done by people in the process of finding higher paying employment (students, recent graduates, new immigrants etc...), and not intended as a career at all, so a livable wage is not required. \n\n* \"A higher minimum wage would increase the income of many in the population, boosting spending, saving and the overall economy.\"\n\nAs I said previously, the vast majority of minimum wage jobs are easily replaceable, outsourced or automated. If large companies are forced by government to pay high minimum wages, they will seek cheaper alternatives and replacements instead. For example, a McDonald's hamburger could very easily be made faster, cheaper, cleaner and better by a machine, [like this one, which makes a burger every 10 seconds ](http://www.businessinsider.com/momentum-machines-burger-robot-2014-8). If the minimum wage gets high enough that it costs McDonald's more to pay 10 people to flip burgers than one machine, they will simply replace the human labour altogether. This will result in an increase in unemployment. So while those who retain their minimum wage jobs will be better off, many will simply be replaced, leaving the unemployed workers in a WORSE position than before. \n\nHere are some things that would change my view: \n\n* Research evidence that demonstrates positive impact from countries/states that have already raised minimum wage\n\n* A justification that the minimum wage must be a \"living wage\"\n\n* Evidence that a wage increase would not result in the loss of unskilled jobs to outsourcing, automation etc...\n\n* Any other reasonable justification of minimum wage\n\n\nPlease change my view!\n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I am afraid that being politically active might harm my future + \n + I live right near DC. It's only a 30 minute drive and I'm always free to go any weekend. For some reason, I have this pathetic fear that being politically active might bite me in the arse someday. Like I'll somehow distance myself from the people around me by going to marches. In an age with no privacy(and as a person who heavily values privacy and anonymity), a simple picture taken by a stranger might bite me back. My family, church community, workplace, they might all view me differently if I decide to participate in a certain marches. This fear is so absurd, but it's exactly what's stopping me from trying to be a part of anything.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The gay rights movement only further serves to alienate gays and keeps them 'unequal' + \n + I believe that all the gay pride and gay culture (e.g. taking the rainbow as a symbol of homosexuality like a nation's flag) only serves to further separate gays who, in my understanding, only want the equal rights they deserve. I don't attend straight pride events, or talk about how excited I am about being a heterosexual all the time.\n\nI fully understand the dynamic of being out helping the individual accept who they are and invite those who are afraid and in the closet to come out and embrace their true selves which have historically been shunned, thus leading to the obvious fear one has about coming out. I believe gays should be treated completely equally and allowed to marry, raise children, and work in society just like any other human being. Homosexuality is naturally occurring and gay bashing is inherently wrong and incredibly destructive towards gay individuals.\n\nHowever, the 'gay culture', which is objectively manufactured and not natural (e.g. the gay lisp some gays, including two I personally know, force themselves to have in order to fit the model set by gay culture) doesn't necessarily force, but definitely pushes these already disoriented people who, because of society's structure, do not know how to express themselves or act relative to their sexual identity. I think embracing who you are is what they should be doing, but embracing an artificial culture of flamboyancy in order to 'fit in', which I think is what they were trying to do before coming out in most cases, can't be much better objectively.\n\nI could be wrong, and a good enough argument against this view I hold has yet to be presented to me. So go for it, Reddit. CMV \n\n\n\n----------------\n-------------\nOk, so I got a lot of replies that I'm grateful to get. If there's any confusion, let me attempt to clarify.\n\nI think that the gay rights movement is fantastic, and I probably worded my question wrong. What I was referring to is the individually accepted cultural of 'butch' lesbianism, or hyper flamboyance as behaviors. When I say these are not natural behaviors I mean in regards to the INDIVIDUAL displaying them. I feel like many are just filling a role they think they're supposed to fill because they're homosexual. I'm sure they aren't consciously aware of it, but gay culture is inherently different from, say, Hispanic culture or Chinese culture. This is not an ethnicity and not a set of behaviors gained from birth. In my observation it is a learned set of behaviors that many (not all) gays believe they need to conform to as part of their sexual identity. \n\nI am not referring to being openly gay and having pride parades, which are objectively good for closeted individuals afraid to come out for fear of social rejection or worse. I am referring to loud, incredibly in-your-face individuals who seem to either be seeking attention or, as in the argument, behaving as they believe they should because they have observed it in other individuals. They are almost like religious zealots, who as a population tend to be alienated by most.\n\nMy argument is that through enacting this persona of extreme flamboyance and borderline annoying overstatement of making their sexual identity continuously known these specific gays are doing more harm than good in terms of advancing equality and social acceptance of homosexuals and are creating a bad public image for the LGBT movement.\n\nA comparable example would be blacks & African-Americans who fill stereotypes of committing crimes and being civilly disobedient, rude and racist against whites solely because they fall into peer pressure or societal pressure to do so, feeling it is what they should do in their cultural sphere.\n\nI think these things are ridiculous and working against civil rights and undeniable social equality not only in legal terms but in the views of individual members of society as well as society as a whole.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I don't think people, banks, countries, etc. have a moral obligation to repay loans given to them with the expectation of profit to the lender if they are willing to accept the consequences. + \n + Banks provide loans for other entities with the expectation that they will profit from the interest on those loans.  They are not lending the money as a favour or to help the other entity.  Another important assumption is that it is in all parties' best interest for the lendee to keep paying the loans and the lender to not call the loan.\n\nTherefore it is the bank's responsibility to assess and independently verify the lendee's situation to verify these assumptions.  The degree of verification depends on the amount of money and other factors and may include viewing paystubs, audits and other due diligence, etc.\n\nBased on the above factors and assumptions, the lender determines the interest rate, penalties for not paying, etc. and creates a contract.  Once signed this is a business contract like any other.\n\nIf later on the lendee determines the \"default\" option in the contract is more favorable than continuing to pay, this is a perfectly reasonable business choice and would be no different than paying a contractor an early termination fee to get out of a contract with them.\n\nAll discussion of people/countries/businesses \"screwing over\" lenders etc. by not paying is just rhetoric to emotionally manipulate the lendees to pay, and has no logical or legal basis.\n\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: there is no legal or moral argument against allowing incestuous marriage that hasn't been thrown away in pursuit of gay marriage. + \n + To start: **I am *not* saying that homosexuality and incest are the same thing.**\n\nHowever, any arguments I would normally use against allowing incestuous marriage have been declared void. For example, you can't simply say it's disgusting, because a lot of people find homosexuality disgusting, and society has decided that people's rights shouldn't be inhibited by the disgust of others. Incestuous couples are more likely to have deformed children, but marriage is not about reproduction. Maybe there's some psychological affliction behind it, but homosexuality used to be classified as a disorder as well, but psychologists realized the error of their ways as it became socially acceptable. Of course, any religious objections are right out.\n\nSo with the last defenses against gay marriage dismantled, I'm left without any good reason why siblings should marry each other. CMV\n\n\n\nDeltas awarded to:\n/u/SquirrelPower for pointing out that there is a legal difference between types of classes. /u/the-friendzoner made a similar argument, that the sexual attraction of incest is different than an orientation. \n\nI don't consider these sufficient reasons to continue the ban, but they are distinct from the reasons given for banning homosexuality, so they fulfill the terms of my post.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Regular season games are boring. + \n + **tl;dr - Why do you find regular season games exciting?**\n\nI would describe myself as a pretty avid sports fan. I don't watch every game but when it comes to sports, I know more and watch more than any of my peers through work, school, or friendship. I like hockey, baseball, and the NFL. But regular season games are boring.\n\nBoring can be good sometimes. A casual baseball game on a lazy afternoon is amazing, and it's great in the background during a family gathering. Seeing a game in person is awesome and regular season games are perfect for that because if you miss a play it's not the end of the world. I find the NFL regular season *almost* engaging because of the short schedule. I understand that in the NHL and MLB you need to play more games so the gap between 1st and last is sufficiently large, so I'm not suggesting shorter schedules. I would just really like someone to make regular season games more exciting for me.\n\nThe NHL is my favorite by far, but I can't stand regular season games. Until the very end of the season it just feels like watching practice. There's no excitement. It's like a 10 cent bet. Until the end of the season, very little is on the line. I don't see the appeal.\n\nSo can someone explain it to me? When I ask my friends who do watch the regular season they get condescending.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Isn't 'brigading' kind of... what Reddit does/is for? + \n + when i first started using Reddit, it amazed me that it had the power to draw the public's attention to anything you could find on the internet. in an age where mainstream news is biased and groomed, things like the TPP, police brutality, corruption, and even small specific situations like the \u00e9lan school were brought to the attention of Millions because people upvoted it on reddit.\n\nWhen SOPA was on your front page, with senator's phone numbers in the top comment, they were most certainly 'brigaded'. because the necessary people were slammed with thousands of voicemails and millions of emails, a real difference was made. what about all the times we link to petitions, or laws that are being voted on? ever notice what happens to the comment section of a youtube video or news item that makes front page? this is all brigading, but it is not a bad thing.\n\nit's a bad thing when a group of people specifically team up to harass. but we shouldn't lump harassment in with voting... under this one term, 'brigading'\n\ni really enjoy browsing the debates on r/subredditdrama because they (usually) link to an argument without encouraging you to take a specific side or have a certain opinion about it. sometimes i'll read 30-50 responses in a thread and forget that i was linked to it from SRD and it really annoys me that if i cast a vote somewhere in there, i risk a ban.\n\ni guess the whole point is, it's silly that we can't cast a vote on a debate we are linked to within Reddit. especially when 'brigading' (bringing people's attention to something) is how Reddit has helped make the world a better place, in small but significant ways.\n\n\n\nwas i supposed to remove that?", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: If straight and cis people attend a Pride parade, they should spend some of their time there volunteering. + \n + Context: I'm a straight cis man with a lot of straight friends (as well as LGBTQA+ friends) who often go to Boston Pride Parade and NYC Pride Parade. I've never gone to one myself (always find out about it a few days after it happens), but I'm planning on going to volunteer at next year's Boston parade, assuming I'm home from school in time.\n\nI personally get a little uncomfortable when I see straight people partying hard at Pride parades. To me, the parades are supposed to celebrate marginalized social groups who are often shoved under wave after wave of oppression and hatred the other 364 days of the year and has this one day to fully let loose and celebrate in the face of a culture who still may not accept them in the way that they'd like. When straight people jump in, it almost feels like they're co-opting the one day in which non-straight people are finally in control. It seems to me to be similar to straight people putting a rainbow filter over their profile pictures - in theory, it might be OK, but in practice it shifts the attention from the LGBTQA+ people who deserve it onto the straight person who steps in. Almost like a \"Look at me, I'm celebrating pride! Look at how great I am!\"\n\nAnd, yeah, to a certain extent I think this display of solidarity is good. Gay/trans/queer rights won't move forward without the support of those already in power - straight people - and it's nice to see people united across gender and sexuality boundaries in order to celebrate how far we've come and prepare for how far we still have to go. That being said, though, I think there's a point at which a display of solidarity becomes less about the people for whom the solidarity is shown and more about the people who are \"showing\" the solidarity. I think that at a certain point, support for the LGBTQA+ community can transition into an exercise in self-promotion and narcissism, and I'm not super comfortable with that.\n\nThis is why I think that straight/cis people who participate in Pride parades should spend some of that participation on volunteering. The parades really run on volunteers, and if a straight/cis person spends time doing the thankless task of picking up trash, filling and lugging big containers of water everywhere, or making sure a first-aid tent is properly staffed, it helps show support for the LGBTQA+ community in a way that simply taking selfies with a shirtless parader will never be able to. I think it's a great way to be an ally to the community in a way that doesn't obnoxiously trumpet that allyship, and it might teach people more about what really makes the revelry run smoothly and give them a new appreciation for something many almost take for granted.\n\ntl;dr Volunteering is a helpful form of allyship for straight/cis people in a way that just going to the parade and celebrating is not.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Whoever is responsible for letting go Victoria from reddit (u/chooter) should be fired. + \n + CMV: Whoever is responsible for letting go Victoria from reddit (u/chooter) should be fired. If Ellen Pao, I will finally jump on the Pao should resign bandwagon.  /u/chooter [1] has been a fantastic, active member of the reddit community for years. It is due to her personal efforts that we can have so many good, verified AMAs. One might say that her work has made it possible for reddit to grow into what it is today with all of the publicity we get, especially from the Obama AMA. Reddit has made some really stupid decisions over the almost five years I have been a member. This may well take the cake.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Being gay is not a choice. + \n + Although some scientific arguments have been made that some women possess some elasticity with their sexuality, several scientific articles specifically state that makes are born and fully develop their sexuality by puberty. Furthermore, they have located a specific gene, xq28, that they believe is specifically linked to an inborn sexuality. Also, although one can change their behavior, doing so against ones true self can lead to long-term mental anguish, torture, depression, and possibly suicide. ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I hate seeing rich kids and rich Asian people at my college. + \n + I do not have lots of money. I got my AA degree largely because the state I live in pays for high school students to go to community college. I don't have lots of money and likely won't get lots of money (or any money) for quite a while. It greatly angers me, as a middle-class American, to see rich kids at my college. They all drive Jaguars and Mercedes and BMWs and have brand name clothes and the latest iPhone and it just pisses me off. I drive a car that cost $1400. I have to live frugally and with my parents in order to afford to go to college. Because of this, seeing rich students who have nice things upsets me a lot, because I don't have nice things (not many, anyway) and won't for a long time while they get to have everything now. Asian students also upset me for another reason. I have never considered myself to be racist, but when I go to my college, sometimes I can't tell if I'm in Seattle or Shanghai. There's lots of them and it seems as though all of them are rich. It's like they treat my state as a playground for rich foreigners and take advantage of my country without giving much back. They all drive expensive European luxury cars and it just irritates me every time I see them. I don't understand why seeing a Asian kid in a new Jag pisses me off, but it does.\n\nI don't want to be this way. I don't want to be racist and be irritated by rich people, but I can't help it. I just feel gypped since they get to have nice things now and I'm going to have to wait several years.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: If brothels were legal then the 'by-the-book' strip clubs would go out of business. + \n + Admittedly Strip Clubs have come to be seen as a fun and even ideal environment for partying. The 'by-the-book' clubs don't allow clients to have sex with the strippers, though of course it most likely happens a lot and many strippers are prostitutes, but not all. The two jobs aren't all that dissimilar (sex work), though stripping is more of an art and I imagine the best performers take it quite seriously and don't sell themselves (cheaply).\n\nOn the client side, I think the only reason strip clubs came to be is due to a crackdown on 'out in the open' brothels and the type of men who would go to a strip club would also go to a brothel if they didn't feel like criminals. If brothels were legalized I can see some of those businesses eventually reaching a similar level of social acceptance, thus brothels will become more than a series of dark rooms full of sex-slaves and may become the amusing harems and menageries of historical fiction. \n\nI find that not only will clients prefer the legal brothel with a nice entertainment budget. Why just go watch a girl dance around naked? Why not touch her as you like and even have sex? Or watch people have sex etc. The type of men who regularly go to strip clubs most likely only go because they cant get attractive women to pay attention to them and are willing to deal with teasing and stripping because an illegal brothel can result in infections or jail time. \n\nI even suspect that the performers will end up working in brothels rather than strip clubs. Seeing as there are women who will have sex with them without legal repercussions men won't throw as much money at a girl who is just taking her clothes off. No doubt brothels will end up having some of the girls strip to entice clients to go into the back rooms with them. The artistic side of stripping, which only exists due to the illegality of brothels and male willingness to throw money at attractive women, will lose a great deal of funding and talent. \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: \"Blackface\" is not Racist + \n + First, I'd like to point out that I'm well aware of the history of blackface, and the older utilization of it to offensively portray some awful stereotype of black people is racist. However, I don't think that has any bearing on blackface today. What if an actor of another race simply wanted to portray a black character, and so they darkened the color of their skin to make their appearance more accurate? There could be absolutely no mocking of race going on, and people will still shout \"racism!\"\n\nFor example, I know a white girl who tried to do an impression of Michelle Obama. She dressed up in blackface and made jokes about healthy eating and vegetables and whatnot. She got torn apart on social media for being racist. Although I can see how this impression is in bad taste, I cannot see how it is racist. She only made fun of Michelle Obama's campaigning, and she never once made fun of her race at all. And yet, it was still considered racist.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Ready to leave my family + \n + I'm done. Whatever I say it is presumed \"wrong\" just because I said it. Spouse. Kids. Always \"wrong\". Tried family therapy. Spouse refused to go. Therapist only told me what I wanted to hear at best; most times never wanted to talk about what I thought was relevant. (\"Do what makes you happy.\" Pretty sure everyone in the family doing that has contributed to the problem.) They even insist I am wrong when it comes to topics related to my job, a job I have held for 15 years. At the grocery store now. Spouse thinks so little of me to the point of saying, \"I was gonna ask you to get a table cloth but that's in a different part of the store.\" Excuse me? I'm so pathetic I can't walk to another part of the store? WTF?!? I'm done with them. I try and get ignored and/or treated like shit. I'm leaving. CMV", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Dark Side Of The Moon is a terrible album. + \n + Hi CMV!, First of all, (not that this makes my opinion more valid than anyone else's, just to give you my perspective) I am a musician, and have been playing for about 10 years now. I have tried to sit down and listen to this album twice now, and I just don't see the appeal, at all. I am constantly being told that I just \"don't understand\" or that \"You have to be stoned to listen to it\". It absolutely baffles me that it is the 3rd best selling album of all time. All I hear are a bunch of sound effects and what sounds to me like the engineer sat on the mixing desk and forgot about it. Please CMV or help me understand what I'm missing.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Sword Art Online is one of the best Anime of All Time [SPOILERS] + \n + I've recently subscribed to r/anime, and as a long time anime watcher and considering myself to have the appropriate amount of good taste, I feel that Sword Art Online is massively misrepresented as mediocre among fellow fans and otakus. Currently ranked [#459 on MAL](http://myanimelist.net/anime/11757/Sword_Art_Online), this show scores an average rating of only 8 out of 10 nerd points.\n\nI believe this is due primarily to *hater votes*. It should be in the top 50, if not top 25, anime of all time.\n\nIn fairness to the haters, the ALO arcs sort of ruined it with the whole sister romance harem thing. Japanese people are weird, but they sure know how to milk a hit show. For that reason, SAO II is not considered here; just vanilla SAO please!\n\nSome Background\n\n---\n\nI am a 30-year old male product writer for the web, and I am not what most would consider an otaku or weeabo. (I prefer Korean culture, if we're comparing asking, and I don't go to cons, collect or read much Manga, or follow every anime series.) I watch anime recreationally, and consider myself a reasonable self-styled critic. I've recently watched quite a number of shows, being bored at home, and I've watched and rewatched SAO several times and am familiar with it.\n\n\n---\n\n**Why The Show Is Good**\n\nCharacters: The cast is great. Voice acting isn't overdone or underdone, and the characters all feel like people from a real world stuck in a game for a long time together. It also makes sense that they're all there.\n\nPlot: The premise is not made of solid gold, but it's interesting enough to lend itself to greatness. If you die in the game, you die for real no quitsies. This has been done before in fiction, of course. However, SAO takes a different treatment of this premise. Normally, you would see horror, like in a show like Gantz, applied, or game aspects, such as in No Game No Life. \n\nSAO's goal is rather to show that a virtual world can be real and fulfilling. Its creators accomplish this by focusing not on the MMO aspects, which are limited to flavor, but rather on the interaction between strong characters and the tension of being trapped within this scary world. The story itself lends itself to a rich world, and the writers take advantage of the larger arc to fit in almost a dozen sub-arcs in 24 episodes. The show is *very* story dense for an anime; normally, a single sub-arc would take 4-6 episodes. These sub-arcs balance developing the world, fighting, and building relationships. The characters build on their strengths and flaws and often find themselves in situations partially crafted of their own making. (Example; Asuna is hard on her guild and pushy, and this results in a poor culture within the guild that causes problems as the series develops.) There are no unbelievable moments.\n\nIn the end, the heroes triumph, but it's not a boring triumph. They often sacrifice during the show and make many mistakes that weigh upon them. At the ending bar scene, you can feel the air of both relief and regret washing over all of the former players.\n\nAt the symbolic level, SAO is very symbolic of life itself. God puts us on this plant, and we don't get to leave unless we die. So we adapt to it and live in it, the same as in SAO's virtual world. This allegoric story pairs well with the show's many slice-of-life scenes, creating a very vibrant and real-seeming virtual world.\n\n**Writing:** SAO does not waste time or words. No episode is filler, and each main character is multi-dimensional and arrives naturally in the main story arc. Characters do not break character. Villains are villains. Episodes are succinct and *excellently paced.* This show is so clean that you can eat off of it.\n\n**Art:** The art direction is superb. Each character's outfit is suitable for their personality and status. Motion and combat is more fluid and direct as well as it was in Fate: UBW and other highly regarded similar shows. It was smoother than classic epics like Record of Lodoss War and Gurren Lagann or modern releases like Arslan. Admittedly, it probably had a bigger budget than those shows, but that shouldn't be a detracting factor at all. The only *fantasy world* anime I would give a higher regard to in art direction is Berserk, but in quality of animation, SAO crushes Berserk.\n\nThe only complaint you could make in the art department is that the show wasn't stylized enough to differentiate it from other fantasy anime.  For instance, the art direction in Kill la Kill was an incredible thematic rush of color with awesome hand-painted backgrounds. I'll grant that point, but can you name a fantasy anime with a better quality of animation offhand?\n\n**Avoids Most Awful Anime Pitfalls:** Fanservice, chibi conversations, people falling off of park benches or turning into paper; these are the marks of an anime breaking the fourth wall and ruining suspension of disbelief for the view. In short, they're signs that an anime doesn't take itself seriously. Almost no anime of any level of notoriety, excluding comedies, uses these generic tactics.\n\n---\n\n**Arguments Against**\n\n\nThe story follows Kirito, a regular guy with some Kendo training and beta test experience in an online game. Kirito earns almost all of his levels solo and is on par with the very best fighters in the game. He starts off with an advantage due to his experience, gets full exp. for the very first boss, and grinds pretty much every day from there on out to stay on top of the curve. He clearly earns his main character slot through a number of trials instead of being handed it by the divine will of the writers, such as in every other anime ever. He is given a unique skill, eventually, which is powerful, but it's relatively balanced because it's difficult to use. His backstory and skillset are reasonable, and given that there must be a \"best\" among all the players, it makes sense that the show would follow him.\n\nMeanwhile, in How to Pick Up Girls in a Dungeon, the main character is literally given a skill that says \"become overpowered against things you can't beat.\" It's shit like that which makes me want to throw my laptop.\n\n\nIn the first or second episode, another beta tester dies in Kirito's arms not because he was defeated, but because he turned down a potion. That guy was obviously a fuckin' idiot, and that scene could have been saved if he had just drank up and laid there. This is a fair criticism. Additionally, the army guild unit that marches in to fight the minotaur boss half dead is also made of retards. However, it's noted in the show that the reason they do this is because the army has been terrorizing its members. However, those deaths serve a purpose within the show and are not overtly distracting. The dumb beta guy's death serves to inspire Kirito to action and turns him into the MC. The dumb army guys are, much like the group that runs into the trap room early in the series, there to set Kirito on the right path and force him into action.\n\nIn the meantime, how will you excuse characters like Faye Valentine in one of your favorite anime, Cowboy Bebop? She's just there to be a plot instigator with a pair of giant boobs. Almost. Entirely. Fanservice. Many other very good anime have done much much worse with their cast and still rank top 50. Hell, Hajime no Ippo is fan ranked 20 on MAL, and although I won't disagree that the show is awesome, it's just following the formula of a hundred other sports anime shows like Prince of Tennis. OWARI NO SERAPH is even up there, and that show literally only has one redeeming character -- who isn't in most episodes. Hell, characters are invented out of thin air and people do dumb shit in Game of Thrones every other episode. Are you really going to say that SAO's weak point is a few serviceable plot blunders and side characters that didn't think through some obvious mistakes?\n\n\nThe ending probably irked a few of people because it was so sudden. However, that's really the magic of the series. It's a virtual world controlled by a nutty, manipulative scientist-god whose purposes are unknown. That's the driving mystery behind every episode. Why are they even there? Why is the NPC planted in the guild as the final boss? Why is the psychologist AI disabled?\n\nWithout that underlying tension, the series doesn't take shape. The story is about human actors making intense decisions, and the elusive creator adds another layer to the conflict. It makes the story feel bigger than it is and every victory seem hollow. This in turn allows our main characters to keep driving forward.\n\nPlus, they've already put in so many boss fights. I thought the defeat of the technically invincible guild leader was an awesome way to end, although it's obviously hedging a sequel.\n\nI'm tired of typing, so I won't bore you with more examples. Although I really wish they had done much more with the sequels, I believe the original series ranks among the best-produced, best scripted, cleanest, most heartfelt Anime of all time. I look forward to your spirited replies.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Public health should come before civil liberties when it comes to infection control. + \n + Quarantine has been used to manage the outbreaks of communicable disease since the 13th century. The \npurpose of quarantine is to separate from the general population those individuals who have been exposed to and are suspected of carrying a communicable disease but have yet to display symptoms. \n\nIn contrast, isolation is applied to individuals known or suspected to be infected by contagious agents. Isolation separates infected from uninfected individuals during the period of communicability, and restricts their movement to limit exposure of unaffected individuals. Additionally, it allows for the focused delivery of specialised health care to the ill. Quarantine and isolation may be either voluntary or mandatory.\n\nThe quarantining and isolation of people often raises questions of civil rights, however a utilitarian view has to be adopted so as to preserve the health of the wider community; else, pandemics can ensue. Where an individual carries a highly contagious infectious agent, the welfare of the public should come before the individual rights of the individual. \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: absolute majority in elections should not mean getting voted by way less than 50% of the total population + \n + I can't get why does this even make sense. For me it's easy. Usually elections arround the world go from 50% to 75-80% of participation.\n\nLet's say 75% for example. Out of that, a party gets 33% of the votes. Or even a 50% it doesn't really matter. And they get absolute majority (this OBVIOUSLY changes with countrys and stuff but many share a similar way of counting votes, as far as I know, which it's completly possible is not enough to understand this. But usually in Europe it's my understanding it works similar to this).\n\nSo 50% of 75% of participation (where I live it's usually WAY lower, for both %, but whatever), you get 0.375, 37.5% unless I'm mistaken. And with that alone, you can govern for 4,5, 6 years. \n\nVery few countrys have referendum to vote for stuff that happens between that 4 years so I do not get why this is a valid way of treating more than half of the population of a given place, that get completly ignored. Whether you voted or you did not, if you aren't part of that majority, you are ignored. Not even if you sum every other vote against that, you could get anything done (this one is more tricky and I guess it depends more on the region, but still, it should be easy to overun less than 50% of the total votes, let alone, less than 50% of the total population.\n\nSo cmv or tell me how it works in other places or why this makes sense or why does it seem so complex to improve this system.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: When captured and convicted, SWAT \"pranksters\" should receive extremely harsh sentences + \n + Although I'm conflicted about all aspects of Justice, Inc., I would be happy to see [this kid](http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/23/8648851/swatting-doxing-legal-case-canada-online-harassment) rot in a cell for decades.\n\nMaking examples of people like this is the only deterrent I can think of for /b/tards who think terrorizing people, risking lives, and draining public resources for no reason is harmless and hilarious.\n\nIt's hard for me to feel much sympathy when their /b/tard lives are permanently ruined, since they're practically never held accountable.\n\nAm I being a dick about this? Are you sure?", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Consuming fiction in any form (i.e. books, comics, movies, sitcoms, video games, music, etc) is a waste of time. + \n + Fiction merely provides entertainment. It doesn't help us grow at all. There are other sources of information that help us grow much better.\n\nIf that is so, what is the point of fiction apart from a source of entertainment that may or may not help us in the long run? If all it does is provide short-term joy, what is the point of it?\n\nIs our time not better spent trying to grow ourselves?   \nWhy waste our time trying to entertain ourselves when we could just use other forms of relaxation between sessions of growing ourselves? Is that not the goal of life? To improve and advance our lives and those of others?\n\nOr am I wrong? Is fiction truly of some use? Or if it isn't of any use, then should we still consume it? If so, why? Why not simply just exercise, meditate or sleep instead of reading fiction? What makes fiction a better alternative to those activities?", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is only one possible future worth considering, one with the existence of AGI, and not enough people are planning around it + \n + I believe that when considering the near or far future, there are only one possibility that is worth considering, and would be so transformative that worrying about anything else pales in comparison. That is the creation of Artificial General Intelligence or Artificial Strong Intelligence, whatever you want to call it.\n\nFirst, you have to contend with the issue of whether or not you believe human or greater than level intelligence can even be created. Which I think most people would agree that it is possible, or at least there is nothing fundamental about intelligence that requires it to exist only in humans, or a biological substrate as opposed to some other.\n\nNow, if you do accept that AGI is possible, you must then consider when you think it may be created and whether you or your direct descendants will be affected, if it happens 10,000 years from now, no one alive today would (or really should) care in the slightest. The issue is that unless you are directly involved in the field itself, coming up with a realistic timetable is a difficult problem. Fortunately for us laypeople (myself included), a survey was conducted at a conference of AI experts a few years ago, and concluded that the median optimistic year (10% likelihood) for AGI was 2022, the median realistic year (50% likelihood) was 2040, and the median pessimistic year (100% likelihood) was 2075. Now you are free to disagree with their predictions, but you'd better have damn good cause to do so and be takes seriously by other people. \n\nAll of this taken together has forced me to the realization that there can be no useful forecasting of the near or long term future without considering the impact AGI could have on it. But further to this, no one can even make a solid guess as to what might happen if one is created! There is speculation, some good and some bad, but ultimately this event, the singularity, has an apt name for a reason, we have no prior history or examples from which to learn from! And then, to top it all off, an AGI would likely quickly surpass human intelligence if given the resources, not to mention it may think in such a way that humans could not even follow its logic or reasoning.\n\nTL;DR: So all of this is to say, if you believe AGI is possible, and if you believe that it could come into existence in the nearish future, there is no way to make any easy generalizations about what the future might be like. We have no idea what's coming, and too many people are not factoring in the disruption an AGI could cause, whether for good or ill. Essentially, not enough people are taking this possibility seriously enough, and we're making plans about the future that are affecting people today without taking into account the most profound event in human history.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is currently an irrational stigma around using the search engine Bing, which it no longer deserves. In many cases, it is preferable to using google. + \n + Bing on the internet had a reasonably rough start. It launched in the period where google could do no wrong, was developed by Microsoft for the internet which related it to internet explorer -also known as the browser your grandparents use-, and spent a lot of time doing absurd and annoying product placement in movies. It quickly became the butt of jokes, and using Bing became the equivalent of having a hotmail account ending in \"2000\".\n\nAdditionally, there was a scandal where Bing was stealing from google, that brought on a lot of negativity.\n\n\nRecently however, Bing is pretty usable. It's not markedly inferior to google, and in many ways it is better. Specifically in its video searches. The video client has a lot of great search options, and I almost always find what I'm looking for more effectively using Bing. You can try this yourself, Google \"Kill la Kill opening 2\" in both Bing and google, and see which one is easier to find the actual non-altered intro video. being able to preview the video in the window is a nice feature, and the video browser is especially good for porn, as it takes away the need to actually visit the specific websites and streamlines and aggregates the whole process.\n\nIn general, it feels as though Bing has become stigmatized to other things like Comics Sans, or Nickleback, which have become more \"fun\" to hate, but the repulsion they face is disproportional to their actual lack of quality.\n\n\nBasically, I think Bing is not as bad as people say, and in some cases is preferable to Google. CMV!\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Video games offer the greatest potential for story telling + \n + Hello CMV. I truly believe that the platform that has the greatest potential for story telling is video games compared with other methods (books, tv, movies,theatre) \n\nAllow me to explain; with video games, unlike every other method of story telling, you are in control of your character (besides cut scenes). You control where they go, how they fight, even the camera. \n\nAlso some games give you choices, sometimes big, other times small, for instance think of mass effect, you choose to save or destroy entire races and more importantly whether to allow your friends to die to do this. Compare this to choices in say Arrow (tv show, if you have seen it you know what I am referencing). While the choice is made there you have no input on it, it is filmed as that so will always be the same result. \n\nMoving away from story driven games to player created stories. There is an fps that I play called planetside 2, hundreds of players fighting over enormous maps. Here you get stories forming naturally, someone takes command, you might be fighting, surrounded on all sides desperately trying to hold a base until back up can arrive. Let me tell you, there is real tension created there and a connection to the people you are fighting beside (hard to explain unless you have played the game)", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I don't see the end goal for 'Privilege' + \n + I swear I'm not a troll. I\"m honestly confused. \n\nI understand the concept of 'privilege' but I don't understand where it is heading. I listen to the countless videos, comics and messages that usually go along the lines of: \n\n\"my neighbour won't go to college because of his fathers drug problem. I will go because my father saved up for my tuition. I have privilege.\"\n\nor insert whatever subject you want into that. \n\nSo I get the concept. BUT what I don't understand is where to go from there. \n\nSome of the privileges that people attribute can't have anything done about them. Others are just who I am. \n\nLets take the famous 'white privilege'. (which I am. OH GAWD NO) I can't help but relate it to my christian upbringing where it was beaten (figuratively) into me that 'you were born with sin and must apologize for it! Seek redemption!' \n\nWhat good does shame help in any situation? How about pointing at the disadvantaged and say 'lets help them!' Instead of pointing at you and saying 'you better acknowledge that you're white/a sinner/privileged! FEEL BAD FOR IT.'\n\n...I'm rambling. I guess. \n\nI'm not an activist person. I don't go to rallies. I think I just have problems with someone having a hate laced finger pointed at me for existing if I'm not going out of my way to do something. If my sin is existing, then I don't see what progress you are trying to make by just shaming me about it. Religion/race/whatever the subject of it. \n\nlet me know if I'm way off. \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Western women cannot validly claim to be trying to look 'good'/cute/attractive \"for themselves\" rather than \"for men.\" It is *always* for men. + \n + The only reason that looking good/cute/attractive is important to women at all is because men have spent thousands of years coercing them into believing that looks are an important part of being a woman. No matter what your conscious reasoning, you cannot escape the fact that the reason you care about looking good *at all* is because you were raised in a culture where it is practically screamed in your face every day that \"A GOOD WOMAN IS BEAUTIFUL! A GOOD WOMAN IS ATTRACTIVE!\"\n\nTherefore, when a woman claims that she dresses/makes up so that she can feel good about herself (as opposed to doing it to please/attract men), it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what you claim because the end result is the same: you ARE pleasing and attracting men, and you are valuing yourself based on attractiveness. It doesn't even matter if you're not straight. You are doing what the patriarchal system has dictated to you that you must do, and in so doing you are reinforcing that system. After all, isn't it a mighty big coincidence that the thing you 'want' to do just happens to line up perfectly with what the system wants you to do?\n\nDISCLAIMER: I am not judging women who dress/make up. I do not care what you do, but I think this is an important distinction that must addressed, because the closest you can get to choosing for yourself is acknowledging the motivation for the choice (the part you can't control) and accepting it for what it is.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Being a 24 year old male virgin, Indian, having a small dick, having very little money, and not being as successful as everyone else makes me a woman repellant. + \n + Well the title is pretty self-explanatory but recently with seeing all of my friends being super successful and happy on facebook as well as in real life, Ive become super depressed and really need help changing my view.\n\nThe good things about me:  Im kind, caring, a good friend, and an overall decent human being.  I have my own interests and career ambitions, I take care of my physique, and I dress well.\n\nThe bad things:  Everything that's in the title.  The whole \"size doesn't matter\" \"money doesn't matter\" \"sexual experience doesn't matter\" isn't shit I'm willing to believe.  Size matters, money matters, and sexual experience = more confidence.  The fact that I have none of these things has led me to fall into a negative cycle that I can't break out of.\n\nMost attractive women of all races (even Indian women) aren't attracted to 24 year old virgin Indian dudes with a small dick.  That's not opinion, thats just fact.  Im not in med school yet either like the rest of my Indian family and friends, instead I got a research associate position at a med school doing cardiology research making a measley 35K a year before tax.  So its not like I have money or med school status either.\n\nPlease help me change my view that these negative beliefs aren't deal breakers for dating attractive women and that there are attractive women out there who are willing to see past all that.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Batman is a violent, fascist asshole + \n + Think about it this way: would you approve of federal funding to support a special task force of batmen in every major city in America? The batmen are well paid and highly armed with military grade technology. They can use theatrics to scare people. They operate outside the law, do not require evidence or due process of any kind, and suffer no penalty for excessive use of violence. The argument in favor of this is that the batmen can better intimidate, scare and ultimately beat up low level criminals, which will reduce crime.\n\nThis solution assumes that a) crime is a major problem, b) only bad people commit crime and c) they will only stop committing crime through the threat of violence. It does nothing to address issues of poverty, inequality, domestic violence, mental illness or any of the myriad of other social issues that lead to crime. Having batmen patrol the streets of any city is an absurd extension of a modern police state.\n\nI think this is really what the story of Batman is though. It romanticizes a lone vigilante who carries military grade weapons, uses theatrics to scare people, operates outside the law and suffers no penalty for excessive use of violence, which he frequently resorts to. He is trust-fund baby who is motivated by childhood trauma which he has failed to deal with in any sort of mature way. Batman is really just a mentally disturbed violent anti-social psychopath who is an agent for the wealthy elite and whose tactics resemble fascism taken to an absurd extreme. He is a villan, not a hero. CMV\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Polygamy should be legal in the Western world (United States, Canada, Europe and Oceania) + \n + I see nothing wrong with polygamy. The only problem I could see occurring in polygamous marriages is the destruction of traditional marriage, however this has been argued to have been a problem with same-sex marriage. Like same-sex marriage, I can see no ethical dilemmas brought upon by introducing polygamous marriages besides the religious. Our nation is not built upon religious foundations, we are a secular state, therefore using Christian morals to argue what is marriage what is not is not a viable reason to keep polygamy illegal. Prior to European colonization (headed by Christian leaders), many cultures from around the world practiced polygamous marriages for thousands of years. Now after decolonization, this has been shrunk to mostly the Middle East, Indonesia, West Asia, Myanmar and most of Africa.\n\nThere have been some that have argued in the past that polygamous marriages have a higher rate of abuse of women. However, if we look at who is practicing polygamy and where it is currently legal, can we truly say that the type of marriage is at fault? Most (if not all) nations where polygamy is legal are Islamic nations. The religion in and of itself is not known for being respectful towards women nor tolerant of them deviating from the wishes of their husband (or government). Can we truly say that abuse would become less prevalent in Muslim countries if all marriages were suddenly turned to monogamous ones? Others will point to certain cults that have split off from the main Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and speak of their abuse against women and even rampant pedophilia. This is once again a bad example. Who in the United States is practicing polygamy? More often than not; cults. Cults are often cults of personality, the worship of a single person; the cult leader. Can we expect a person who has made themselves out to be something of a prophet (or more) to respect their spouses or basic human rights? Probably not. Let's think for a moment and say that a nation like India happened to be the first to legally same-sex marriage. If there was a high amount of abuse among marriages, surely this would be seen in gay and lesbian ones as well. Could we then not point to India and exclaim that same-sex marriage simply does not work?\n\nSome argue that there are simply too few people interested in a polygamous lifestyle for people to protest its ban or for legislation to be passed to overturn it. This is true, however it does not change the absurdity of being against it. Many things are legal (or are simply not illegal) that few people practice. Does that mean that they should be illegal because they deviate from the norm?\n\nThis is does not exclude the possibility of non-abuse marriages by non-Islamic, non-cultist polygamous marriages. There has been the concept of non religious marriages involving multiple partners for men and women since the hippy era of the United States.\n\nWe are a free society, a free nation. Why should we decide how many a man or woman chooses to marry? Who are we to deny these marriages? Are we so morally superior that we can dictate that marriage must be between two individuals? I do not see the appeal of polygamous marriage, however I do not see myself as one to judge.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe the purpose of the military is totally to kill people and break things. + \n + I heard Mike Huckabee say this during the first Republican Debate, and until I went online the next morning, I couldn't imagine anyone would disagree with him. People were saying this was shameful, and embarrassing to the US military, a ridiculous simplification. To be clear, I am no fan of Huckabee, and I have nothing against our military or militaries in general. That said, I think he was dead on.\n\nI think most people who don't accept this do so because they think it's crass, and brutal. Well, yeah, but it's also absolutely true. That's why the military has all those rifles and artillery and tanks and battleships and bombs and chemical weapons and knives and humvees and machine guns: for the killing of people and the breaking of things. Sure, not every member of the military's job is to be a killer, but those people are there to support the killers. The cooks, mechanics, engineers, and secretaries are all there to let everyone else kill people and break things as safely and efficiently as possible.\n\nAgain, I have absolutely no problem with this from a moral perspective. I am certainly not condemning anybody, just stating facts. Most people I've seen disagree with Huckabee are just dancing around this. \"Soldiers exist to protect the United States and her interests!\" Sure, using violence or the threat of violence. \"The army doesn't just kill people, they developed the Internet!\" Yeah, as a weapon to coordinate their violence in the most efficient way possible. The internet we have now is just an unintended side effect.\n\nThe US military is in a bit of a unique position, since they haven't had a lot of opportunities to do their job recently. Our military is so badass, there are not a lot of people with enough courage or stupidity to take us on. Thus, a lot of time is spent running practice drills and handing out food to people after earthquakes. That's great, but it's all a displacement activity until they need to do their real job. It's a sideshow, a distraction. The alternative would be these men sitting around, waiting for something to need destroying. We don't keep our military around and spend billions of dollars for disaster relief. We keep them around to kill people and break things. That's their real purpose, simple as that.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:Michael Scott from 'The Office' is actually a really funny boss and most people would probably love a boss like him. + \n + Seriously, I don't understand why everyone on the show seems to dislike him or be fed up with him. A lot of his jokes/gaffes/mannerisms are genuinely funny even out of the context of the show. I think a lot of people would love to have a fun/goofy boss like him. I'm not even sure if the writers wanted to go for a realistic portrayal of office life, or write all the characters to dislike Michael for comedic effect. For example, I just recently saw an episode where he creates an orientation video for the new employees after the merger (Season 3, Episode 8 \"The Merger\") and the video is downright HILARIOUS, yet one of the employees straight up says he doesn't find it funny and questions wether it was even intended to be funny. I don't see this as even remotely realistic. \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe that Pixar and Disney and top 3D animation movie companies should create move adult theme movies, similar to Anime. + \n + Pixar and Disney make great films.  Most of the top 3D animation companies do make great movies.  But they are all kid themed.   Imagine if these companies could diverse their portfolios if they dealt with more adult themes.  Basically, the 3D companies could do what is done with Japanese animation.\n\nThis would great for the movie industry and they could use technology to do what you can't do with real actors.\n\nFor example, Pixar could have done a great Ghost in the Shell 3D reboot.\n\nSome of Pixar's top movies are 'Toy Story,Up, Finding Nemo' which are comedic and some have child themes.\n\nAnime in Japan as far as I can tell seems to have been very successful with exploring adult themes including topics such as science fiction, horror, crime dramas.  But the 3D animation companies that are American based only seem to focus on comedy or child themes.  It just seems that 3D animation and technology can create these amazing worlds, it is just unfortunate that the worlds are all targeted towards entertaining children.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: 'Privilege' is a pretty self-evident concept. People who deny it are being willfully ignorant. + \n + I legitimately don't understand how anyone could deny that 'privilege' (as a sociological concept) exists. To me, it's so obvious that certain groups receive beneficial treatment as opposed to other groups. On the whole, it's easier to be white than any other race, easier to be straight than any other sexuality, easier to be cis than to be trans, easier to be male than female, easier to be wealthy than to be poor. \n\nFrom what I hear, the most common argument from those who deny 'privilege' exists is that (to be reductive) a person with a particular privilege doesn't always sit on the top of the social hierarchy. For instance, a 'privilege denier' will say that privilege doesn't exist because rich blacks have better social outcomes than poor whites, or straight women face less discrimination than gay men. Therefore, white or male privilege doesn't exist, because these are examples of whites and men existing further down the social hierarchy than the people they are supposed to be 'privileged' above. \n\nI think this is willful ignorance. No one is suggesting that 'privilege' is a zero-sum game, or that some types of privilege are more 'valuable' than others, or that all privilege exists in all situations. Privilege is privilege. A wealthy black man may have a higher income, but that won't stop him being pulled over by the cops or detained when trying to enter his home. A gay man will be subject to homophobic slurs and threats of violence, but a straight woman will be cat-called and endure sexist jokes and sexual harassment.  \n\nUnless you're a black, gay, poor, MtF trans-person, you experience privilege in some portion of your life. You probably don't notice it, because it's the way things have always been. But it's willfully ignorant to say that you're not 'privileged' because some people are in a better station than you are. \n\nTo change my view:\n\nHelp me understand why people deny privilege, that isn't rooted in 1.) willful ignorance (citing Tumblr or other sources of bad information on the concept) or 2.) entitlement (\"I'm part of a supposedly 'privileged' class: why isn't my life amazing?!?!\") \n\nI'd like to stay away from arguments from so-called 'privilege deniers' as I think I've explained above why I don't think their arguments hold water, but if you think you've got an argument that dismantles the whole concept of 'privilege': lay it on me.       \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Raising minimum wage to $15 per hour would hurt anyone who already makes more than $15 per hour. + \n + I currently make $16 per hour, and I can see no reason why I should support a raise in minimum wage.  I have invested a lot of time and money in an education so that I can make this amount of money.  I recently started my current job, and I have experienced a significant increase in my quality of life due to my higher salary.  If minimum wage were raised to $15 per hour, all of my efforts to become a more valuable worker have been in vain.  My current salary would be barely more than minimum wage.  Soon after the minimum wage increase, inflation would revert me back to my previous quality of life.\n\nTherefore, there is no reason that me or anyone who makes more than $15 per hour should support a minimum wage increase.\n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Nickelback is a really great rock band + \n + I know they are universally hated, I know I SHOULD hate them and to all of my friends I have to say that I ironically like them but the truth is, I fucking love them. Great mixes with hard driving drums and base, good vocals, easy to sing along with... I think part of it is that while I am not a dude-bro myself, I fucking love that culture, it makes me laugh, I have fun when I am with them and every single dude-bro I have met fucking LOVES Nickelback. Maybe I am just a dude-bro but am denying it to myself.\n\nI dunno. I thought about submitting this question to no stupid questions but felt it would be pushing their limits so I figured I would just ask for help. I don't know if it is possible to stop me enjoying their music but I am willing to talk out reasons I should.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Communism is very inegalitarian. + \n + I shall start with an axiom, i thing what really makes the biggest difference between humans is : Physical attractiveness, money/social statuts, personal characteristics (the third is very tricky because sometimes it's interconnected with the two first : Example an intelliget person may make more money, attractive people are judged more intelligent. I think physical attractiveness is the most important but this is a personnal opinion that i won't add to the axiom).\n\nSo, IF WE accept that axiom, won't the fact of making everybody equal on economical grounds (even if it was a realistic goal, free of any abuses of those power), gives the attractive a very big edge ? Bigger than what they have now.\n\nAt least now, a man can compete against a more attractive peer in some circonstances by making more money, having a better status. That possibility would be gone in a perfect communist system. At least there is a chance of making money, it can be a really remote chance depending on the circonstances, but it's possible. Becoming attractive in the other hand.\n\nThe only way to make communism more egalitarian is to tax people more for physical attractiveness.\n\nIf you don't accept the axiom, you can also try to change my view.\n\nThanks in advance.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Sexting is morally wrong no matter the age of both *legal* parties. + \n + Huge emphasis on the **legal** aspect of this, as we were both old enough where it wasn't illegal. So I [20M] was talking with this girl [24] from a dating site when we decided to exchange phone numbers. Half of the country is between us (TX and NY), so any chances of a meet up were pretty much slim to none. We're talking and talking when she suggests that we exchange phone numbers. I say yes, give her my digits and we continue chatting. All of a sudden she wants to exchange naked pictures of each other. Sure we were talking each other up and everything, but I immediately got cold feet when I read that text. To me there has always been a fine line between just saying what you're doing and actually showing it off, you know? I guess my family brainwashed me into the don't post **any** pictures of you online mentality because of pedophiles, and my entire life I've followed that order. I've just always held onto the belief that sexting is wrong - period. I mean, yeah there's countless pictures of weiners and boobs all over the internet, but I'm absolutely frightened that my package makes its way to a billboard or something. Obviously that's a near impossible worst case scenario, but I hear horror stories of girls showing off their stash of pictures they've received, and that's enough for me to chicken out.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: College Tuition should not be completely government subsidized + \n + So, I'm writing this as an American, and one of the big crux points of Bernie Sander's policy is fully subsidizing college with government funds. I really think that's a bad for a few reasons.\n\n1. There are a ton of jobs that already require college degrees that frankly probably shouldn't. You don't even need a degree in the same field as what you're doing sometimes, they just want 'a degree.' This would instead put the burden of a nearly useless degree on the community, instead of the individual. Why should I be helping pay for someone who majored in one thing only to go work somewhere completely different?\n\n2. There are already government subsidized educations, such as federal service academies, ROTC programs, some doctors/lawyers that get picked up by the military, among other programs. They get their education paid for in return for service to the government. This makes sense to me, the government is getting people who are educated in a specific way that they need in return for paying for their education. You couldn't feasibly employ this type of program over the whole country because some people want to take degrees in something the government has no use for. \n\n3. This is essentially making college degrees completely necessary. It would be nearly free, or so cheap that almost everyone can afford it, even though some people are not going to be able to hack it. College is not for everyone, it's meant to push your boundaries and really develop critical thinking skills. What do you do for the people who are not capable of receiving a college degree? What if they go, and flunk out? Does the government still foot that bill? That would be a waste of money. Would they be forced to pay it back? That's penalizing someone who already is going to have a tough time making money. \n\nI am in favor of fixing how the system works. People who get a degree, and are successful (which isn't everyone) still have years and years of huge debts to pay off. We need to figure out a way to cap those debts off, make it more affordable. Not every college degree makes a ton of money, particularly some professions where a college degree is very necessary, so we need to work on that. I just really don't think a full subsidy is the wrong move. \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: People who are against racism on reddit should vote r/CoonTown posts to the front page + \n + Like many people, I want reddit to ban r/coontown and other subs. However, u/spez disagrees, saying [\"you can't win an argument with racists by silencing them\"](https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3f10up/good_morning_i_thought_id_give_a_quick_update/ctk9uk0). Well, if he really believes that, then I'm sure he'd be happy if r/CoonTown posts were on the front page, so that more people can \"engage in the debate\" about whether black people are in fact human beings. Maybe ordinary users and media outlets would then be able to engage in the debate as well, who knows. Obviously reddit is too afraid to ban r/CoonTown, so I say the next best thing is to put them on the front page for all to see. \n\nI believe the best tactic for those of us who are against racist subs is to bring them to the light of day. CMV.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Parents are not entitled to unconditional respect from their children just by virtue of being their parents. + \n + First off, I am not a parent. Maybe that disqualifies me from making any comments about this matter in the first place. Either way, I am a fairly objective person and I can admit when I am wrong.\n\nI do not buy into the whole argument of 'just because our parents brought us into the world, we owe them our lives.' Whether a child was brought into the world by choice or not, I don't think that being born should impose a debt of respect on the child. \n\nFurthermore, I think that this respect needs to be earned. I define respect in this context as 'regard for another person's rational ability, trusting that they can admit when they are wrong and that their decisions are well-thought-out.'\n\nThis is why I think that giving the reason 'because I said so' is a total cop out. If the parent is not open to having a conversation about the reason for their actions, then I don't think they deserve the child's respect. \n\nDon't get me wrong, I think it is crucial for a child to be told when they are wrong so that they don't grow up into narcissistic asshats. However, I think that they deserve a logical conversation with a parent until one side admits, of his own accord, that he is in the wrong.\n\n\n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: 'Triggers' aren't a real thing. We should all be able to overcome our issues and not project them unto other people. + \n + \n\n\nThank you all! :)\n\n----\n\nIn 7th and 8th grade I was a snob. This was probably because I am the youngest of five siblings and was fairly better looking than my classmates (before the acne, bad eyesight and crooked teeth kicked in) among other things. \n\n\nI realised this because of the way my classmates talked about me and treated me and I took the summer of 8th grade to transform into somebody else. I do not recall how exactly I did it but I did. Everybody was surprised, myself included, that the transformation was permanent and genuine.\n\nSadly, I was no longer a bitch but a pushover instead. I was bullied shortly after and had a horrible 8 or so years until I graduated from university. During those 8 or so years, my first love died in a car crash, my parents had a terrible accident leaving my mother unable to walk for a year, of course I picked up smoking, I started to serial-date guys and their treatment to me kept getting progressively worse all while I tried to do well at university because it was getting too expensive for my parents to pay for and getting a job wasn't enough for me to sustain myself.\n\nAdd to the above a religious struggle between myself, my society and my own mother who didn't talk to me for three months while I lived in the same house as her because of my religious and romantic choices (I was dating a black guy), and you get a fairly broken person.\n\nI didn't trust anyone, I was naive, nervous, insecure, a people pleaser, somewhat promiscuous and a smoker. I did things I never thought I'd do and was put in situations I never wanted to be placed in.\n\n\nI was even ashamed of my own psychologist whom I never went back to visit after a couple of sessions because of how fucked up I was.\n\nMy issues seem trivial but these are just the things that I haven't blocked out. My view does apply to individuals who have gone through everything but EXTREME trauma. \n\nMy POINT is: How can I, and so many people who have gone through worse, emerge as functional if not even better people than we were because of what we went through by using our own logic and reasoning, the help of others, counselling and other resources, while others simply act as if life is supposed to be somehow tailored for them and that whatever 'triggers' them by making them actually have to THINK about what they went through should somehow be erased from their lives?\n\n\nTl;dr: Shit happens in life and people should wade through the pile of crap and come out as functional human beings via their own logic rather than project their issues unto others and claim that whatever 'triggers' them to think about their problems must somehow be banished or banned. \n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Nuclear weapons could end warfare, at least between nation states. + \n + If every nation had a large nuclear arsenal, and was willing to use it if they were invaded, than no one would ever invade anyone else because of mutually assured destruction! In the Cold War the USA and USSR both hated each other, but they knew if they went to war nukes would start flying and both sides would be destroyed.  The same happened with Pakistan and India, they both hated each other, and fought several wars, but once they both got nukes, they stopped fighting because they knew it wasn\u2019t worth the cost of being nuked.\n\nWhen a nation has nuclear capabilities, no one invades them. If everyone had nuclear capabilities, than no one would ever invade anyone else because of mutually assured destruction.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I do not believe that there are real paid pro-Kremlin propagandists on reddit. + \n + This is an accusation I've seen hurled around the likes of /r/worldnews- someone will post something which is even *slightly* pro-Russian and you can guarantee that there will follow an accusation of being a 'Putinbot' or 'a shill', or paid by the Kremlin. \n \nNow I do not believe that, whilst there may be those sympathetic to Russia posting on reddit (such as myself), there is any reason to believe that any of these sorts of posters are in any way connected to the Kremlin. \n\nIf anything, reddit would be a pretty poor platform to do so, given that there are quite literally thousands of subreddits and even a concentrated effort by a large amount of these Kremlin propagandists would likely be diluted because of this, but also because of the down voting system. Most pro-Kremlin posts I've seen receive such massive amounts of down votes, they are buried. \n\nPlus it must also be said that even in default subreddits, such as /r/worldnews, Russian articles make up tiny amounts of total posts made, and so I cannot see the logic in any major organisation, and much less the Kremlin, throwing even moderate amounts of resources at tiny amounts of posts for propaganda purposes. \n\nI also believe cultural bias plays a part. It's a safe assumption a decently large amount of reddit users are either American or European. With this, this lends itself to cultural bias, and what I believe has happened is that given the nature of reddit, this blurs the lines to the point where few redditors distinguish between merely Russo-appreciative posts and plain silly, biased posts, and so every post which is positive about Russia is deemed to be the work of a Putinbot. \n\n  You also see this in news sources- the same redditors who immediately jump on posts referencing RT (Russia Today) or The Moscow Times are the same redditors who will show nothing of the same discernment for posts which reference sources such as the Daily Mail, HuffPo or other Western news sources which could be argued to be biased. \n\nSo, CMV! \n  \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The Witcher 3, if worthy of any note at all in regards to gender-bias, should be admired by Feminists - not scorned. + \n + POTENTIAL SPOILERS for both Witcher 2 and Witcher 3. I've completed Witcher 2 and act 1 of Witcher 3. I'll try and mark them, but I warned you.\n\nFor starters: I read an article today that really bothered me. [See here.](http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/05/31/why-feminist-frequency-is-dead-wrong-about-the-witcher-3/)\n\nIn summary: a pair of feminists apparently known as the \"Feminist Frequency\" are now throwing stones at Witcher 3. What I don't get is that, as far as I can tell from my non-Feminist masculo-mind, is that the game is almost a perfect representation of what so many people cry out for in regards to video games and breaking the trends of all of Feminism's buzz-words.\n\nThe McIntosh guy seems to be going on and on about how Geralt lacks emotion, men need to cry, blah blah blah - so on and so forth. See [his Twitter](https://twitter.com/radicalbytes). I have to agree with what Kain says in his article about McIntosh: either he hasn't played the game at all or he's intentionally choosing dialogue options to make Geralt a sociopathic murdering machine - in which case he needs to turn that all-powerful analytic mind of his in on himself. Geralt, despite the fact that Witchers are rumored to be stripped of emotions when undergoing mutations, is an extremely emotional and complex character with strong feelings for each of his companions. Hell, even the other Witchers you encounter throughout the game portray emotions as you explore conversation opportunities with them. I can honestly say I have never played a game that manages to make so many of its characters seem legitimately human. But this guy over here is screaming \"hegemonic masculinity!\"\n\nMeanwhile, Sarkeesian is going on and on and on about [gendered insults](https://twitter.com/femfreq). My only response to that is: toughen the fuck up. People call me a dick, people call me an asshole, I don't get up in arms about it or take any more offense than if they'd called me a bitch or a cunt. The game is *extremely* immersive, that's part of the thing that makes it so incredibly popular. Regardless of the monsters and ghouls, the game is set in medieval times and with that comes a certain environment. If anything it's a reminder of how far we've come.\n\nThey're cherry picking an otherwise excellent title is such not only because of it's *immersive* content, but also because it (from my understanding) fulfills so many of the things that I see people in other debates here begging for regarding video games. But here's the thing: look at the feedback on their shit. There's far and beyond more people supporting what they're saying than against it. So wtf?\n\n* I will concede that the main character is a male, and nothing you do can change that. However: there is some very serious character development around Ciri in which you get a feel for her personality. You get to play as her, and you play through her story just about as much as you do Geralt (as far as the main story is concerned). Not only that, she's tremendously more powerful than Geralt is.\n\n* Ciri is not an \"unrealistically gorgeous\" female, unless you're going to try and say that she's portraying women should all go out and get bad-ass scars on their faces in which case I guess I'd have to concede that point. She isn't running around doing back-flips with double D's. She doesn't wear revealing clothing, and she's got the same \"dirty\" look that the rest of the (non-Sorceress) characters in the game do.\n\n* **WITCHER 2 SPOILER** Speaking of sorceresses: there's a coalition of extremely powerful women who (at the end of Witcher 2) damn near took over the entire Northern Kingdoms with the end-game of taking over the world. Here we have a bunch of bad-ass chicks that no one is walking on top of, until the end at any rate when their plot is exposed and the entire Northern Kingdom begins a crusade against *magic,* not women.\n\n* **MINOR WITCHER 3 SPOILER** At the point in the story I'm at now, Ciri is not a sexualized character - *at all*. The one dialogue I've seen where it was implied things might get sexy... well, let's just say it doesn't. Hell, there's one point where all the females she's surrounded by are in the nude but her \"naughty bits,\" tits included, are still covered which to me says the developers were actively trying to ensure that you, in fact, *don't* sexualize her.\n\nWhat am I missing here? Why is Witcher 3 being lumped in with the anti-womyn games like it's the old-fashioned Tomb Raider with Laura Croft's lack of personality and basketball sized boobs? Am I just not looking in the right places to see this point of view? Or is it just that a couple mainstream Feminists are making a big stink over nothing, as it seems?\n\nSo, in summary, the Witcher 3 falls more into line with Feminism than most video games that have come out thus far and Feminists should embrace it, not shun it. Change my view.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think that private schooling and homeschooling should be made illegal, and everyone be forced to attend public school. + \n + I have never seen any benifit to private school. The only thing it does is creates social inequality from the start. The kids who go to private schools are usually rich white kids that already have a socioenconomic advantage. I was a regular upper-middle class guy who went to public school. I loved it. My school was great. We went on fun field trips, and even a trip to Europe. Homeschooling your kid is just insurance that he/she will be socially awkward, and disadvantaged. Lots of homeschooling involves religious indoctrination, and very one-sided opinions. In public school you are exposed to many different views, opinions, and types of people. These problems would be solved if everyone had to go to public school. Everyone would have an equal education, and equal opportunity.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Adam Sandler has not made a good movie since 2005. + \n + Adam Sandler used to be one of the hottest comedy stars in the 90s and early 2000s. Adam's early work was easy for the average viewer to watch, was funny, and was creative. Since 2005 Adam Sandler's career had taken a turn for the worse. While Adam Sandler's movies have always been low-brow funny, they have become flat out stupid in the last few years. A lot of Adam Sandler's new movies are crude and not relatable. The last 10 years of Adam Sandler's career have been unfortunate because it seems that he is not willing to take comedic risks and is settling more than anything.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: People of Color can be racist + \n + Background: I've often be told that people of color can't be racist because they don't have the power of systematic oppression.\n\nChallenge: So my immediate reaction to the question, \"Can People of Color be racist?\" is yes they can be. Here's why: I believe in the western world they can't be racist against white people, I agree with the background on that. I disagree that in general they can't be racist though. I believe they can definitely be racist towards other minority ground i.e. Black vs Latino racism. In this context one group could quite easily have systematic power over another simply by controlling trade in an area. As a concept this would essentially be, think about a neighborhood predominately black, with Black-run stores, if a Latino or Asian comes in to set up shop, I'm going to bet he's going to feel racism. \nThe next reason I believe people of color can be racist is foreign countries. I'm really unsure how someone can say in a country where white is not the majority the majority race cannot have systematic oppression against white people or any other minority race for that matter. I am aware that anecdotes are not good evidence, but I've definitely heard my fair share of them, either co-workers and bosses holding you to a much higher standard or simply not believing you can do as good of a job as someone of the majority race to being denied access to public spaces due to your race, it's quite common in foreign countries, even if you were born there and lived there your whole life. \n\nConclusion: Rather than saying people of color can't be racist I think it would be far more helpful to say the majority race can be racist.\n\nI'd love for someone to change my view on this.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: People should worry less about their personal info being stored by big companies like Google + \n + Many times I see people who refuse to use, say, a Facebook app, because it tracks certain personal information about them, or they argue that Google is taking too much of our personal information, and I always wonder why they worry so much about that.\n\nI mean, why would large companies care about the personal information of their individual users, beyond using it to improve the experience of their application/site or sell it to ad companies? They won't go around posting my information publically, as I'm sure the privacy policy forbids that (and what would they gain from that anyway? I'm just a number to them, among billions of others). Hell, I'm even glad my information is being used to personalise the ads that get shown to me, for instance; If I'm putting up with ads, I'd rather have products that actually pertain to my interests advertised to me than things I find irrelevant.\n\nEven if Google employees spend their free time somehow accessing the database to indulge themselves in the deepest and darkest secrets of their users' browsing history, it still wouldn't bother me haha. I couldn't care less about what a random stranger on the other side of the world knows about me.\n\nMaybe that's just me? In which case, please attempt to CMV!\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: It's not \"creeping\", \"snooping\", or \"being a creeper\" to browse social media content that presumably was put there for exactly that purpose. + \n + \nThanks\n\n-\n\nI don't know if this is much of a phenomenon, but I see it often enough that I have to wonder whether this is the way society's thinking is turning now. \n\nSuppose Susie makes a facebook page, and posts on it pictures of herself and her friends and their activities, some personal trivia, etc. Now her acquaintance Frankie from school mentions in conversation one of the pictures, something she'd said at some point, etc. Susie reacts negatively to this, and calls Frankie a \"creep\" for \"looking through\" her profile. \n\nI'm 24, but as I've been online since sometime during Windows 95, it's been long enough that I'm allowed to have \"good old days\".  And in the good old days, there was no such thing as \"creeping someone's profile\" online. Putting aside when a \"profile\" became a thing. We had web pages, with content we had written, that we wanted as many people as possible to see. We didn't spend all those hours perfecting Javascript mouse trailers and visitor counters and guestbooks for nothing, you know. On these web pages we might have listed all sorts of borderline personally identifying information, or in some cases, all of it. You can still find some super throwback web 1.0 vanity sites where people have straight-up posted their resumes, and more. \n\nSo the same thing happens now, except on Facebook or so, and the difference I can see is that, back when I was a teenager (xanga 4 lyf yo) and we were all doing it, we somehow managed to remember what we had posted on the public internet, and we didn't lose our shit when someone happened to know something that we had told them ... albeit indirectly ... by putting it online ...\n\nI feel like I'm close to the core reason behind this new perspective, but I'm not sure. It's like these people either don't understand how the internet and social media work and are meant to be used in a literal way, or maybe their own metaphors are getting in the way of seeing the reality. Maybe they want their Facebook to be like their high-school bedroom that they've decorated with posters of Ricky Martin, and they have a little diary where they bitch about their poor tragic suburban lives, and nobody else is allowed in there and if you go in and look at their photos or remember too specifically their words, you're a terrible creep, except instead of a bedroom they have erected a large bulletin board in the town square, started posting text and images to it, and got mad when people came to look at them. \n\nCMV? \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Politicians (specifically Presidential election candidates) deserve to be taken out of context. + \n + Recently, Hilary Clinton has been in the news ([x](http://thefreethoughtproject.com/hilary-clinton-the-sight-black-man-hoodie-scary-open-minded-whites/), [x](http://thefreethoughtproject.com/hilary-clinton-the-sight-black-man-hoodie-scary-open-minded-whites/)) after delivering a speech in which she said that \"for a lot of well-meaning, open-minded white people, the sight of a young black man in a hoodie still evokes a twinge of fear.\" Publications from across the political spectrum tore her a new one for this comment in perceived poor taste. The article from the Federalist was spread on tumblr, and eventually popular user katara [reblogged with the full context](http://hunty.us/post/125041947641/hillary-clinton-lets-be-honest-black-men-in) of the quote, and people started criticizing the people passing around the articles for taking things out of context / not doing their research.    \n\n(Here's where my opinion comes in.) I think that tumblr's reputation of false alarm and out-of-context sound bites isn't unique to tumblr at all, it's the way popular American media has operated for the last few decades- if not more. [Many](http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/09/18/just-the-scandal-of-the-week-or-a-turning-point/the-news-media-and-its-soundbite-culture) [people](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/byron-williams/our-sound-bite-culture-sh_b_93720.html) have discussed the \"sound-bit culture\" that becomes especially popular in presidential election cycles. Given that this is the norm for modern day news, I think politicians have a responsibility to avoid creating problematic soundbites.   \n\nSpecifically, I think Clinton doesn't deserve the sympathy she's getting from [people](http://bleecake.tumblr.com/post/125130165347/hillary-clinton-lets-be-honest-black-men-in) who feel as though the media took her quote out of context. Clinton has been a politician for DECADES, she's got more experience than practically anybody- she's gone through 2 successful presidential election campaign as a candidate's spouse and this is her second presidential campaign as a candidate herself. She's been in more controversy over the years than anybody can keep track of. She's got almost unanimous support from the Democratic party, and lord knows she can afford good speechwriters and campaign managers. So why in the hell would she deliver a speech with the sentiment of basically \"Black people are scary... is what a racist would say. Racism is bad.\" Surely, she knows people are only gonna take the first bit of that clip, and they're gonna run with it.    \n\nTo me, the fact that this \"quotable\" passed through all the levels of Clinton's campaign team is just an indicator of how little anyone working for Clinton (including herself) really gives a shit. She could wake up tomorrow and say she intends on starting a nuclear war with Iran, and she'd still get the Democratic nomination. Because of that, I think the media has the right (and responsibility) to challenge Clinton. A good candidate is a candidate who's speeches can't be misquoted/taken out of context.    \n\nWe (the American people) are not getting the candidate we want or deserve, because we keep tripping over ourselves to help out Clinton.\n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Rape on college campuses is not as big of a problem as it's made out to be. + \n + So that's a pretty bold title, and I expect to get harassed, doxxed, etc which is why I made a throwaway. I'm just asking that you remain civil. As much as I try I just can't understand the other side of this argument.\n\nBasically, I believe that rape is not a big problem on college campuses, the real problem is that no one agrees as to what consent is anymore. What sparked this was the recent news story:\n\nhttp://www.thecollegefix.com/post/23709/\n\nIn this story, the woman has sex with the man, then sees him kissing another woman and decides that she was raped. It is mentioned that the woman attended a lecture where the speaker (a college administrator) said that regretting a sexual encounter means that you were raped. I think that this is a horrible definition of rape and it hurts both men and women.\n\nThen there is the mattress girl story and the Duke lacrosse story and the Rolling Stone story, all of which were big name rape cases, all of which turned out to be false accusations.\n\nWhy does this keep happening? I believe that a large part of it is that people are operating under sexist definitions of consent and rape.\n\nIf a man and woman both get drunk and have sex, the woman can claim rape and it's all the guys fault.\n\nIf a man and woman have sex and the woman later regrets it, the woman can claim rape and it's all the guys fault.\n\nIf a man and woman have sex and the woman later is angry and wants to get revenge, the woman can claim rape and it's all the guys fault.\n\nNone of these situations are rape, but nonetheless, men have been punished for these exact situations.\n\nIn short, I believe that women are now taught to believe that if they have any regret about a sexual encounter, then it is rape. Other women have come to see that false rape claims are a powerful weapon. These cases inflate the college rape statistics. It is impossible for a man to have a one-night stand anymore without fear of being dragged through the mud and having his life ruined.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Captial Punishment is required by any civilized society. + \n + I believe that capital punishment is a requirement for any society to function and the arguments for its opposition are null. \n\nIf I had the power to change laws regarding capital punishment, I would expand the system and loosen the noose on what is regarded as cruel and unusual (ie hanging). When preformed correctly, hanging is effective and swift and a prisoner's pain (if any) is negligible. \n\nI would also change how quickly a sentence is carried out. No longer does a prisoner sit on death row for the majority of his life. Strap him down and hit him with the benzos as soon as legally possible. This would reduce strain on government funds, overcrowded prisons, and the tax payer's dollar. \n\nMiscarriages of justice in regards to capital punishment are often overblown and with with the advent of DNA evidence and other technologies are more than likely in decline. \n\nPeople who argue that it is a greater to punishment rot in a cell underestimate a prisoner's comfort. Three meals a day, a bed to sleep on and clothes on your back is more than many people have outside the first world and many prisoners have athletic facilities and TV. Following the logic of what is a greater punishment is foolish because it's not about the greatness of the punishment, it's about justice being served. If you think rotting in a cell is more punishment than death, the same logic would follow: torture is a greater punishment than rotting in a cell which I am opposed to. \n\nDeath and pain aren't mutually exclusive, but sometimes they coincide; and if that means the perpetrator of a heinous crime feels something human so be it. Not all of life is comfortable and the general public are grossly sensitized to death because it is feared, misunderstood, and unknown. \n\nI look forward to discussion! Thanks for reading.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe that in-game/in-app advertisements (popups) are useless and makes the user more inclined to swipe them away rather than read them + \n + I absolutely despise in-game ads. They get in the way of the game and never seem to take a break. I believe that they make the user more inclined towards hating the app they're being promoted on and the product the ad is for, rather than reading what the advertisement says. I know it generates revenue for the game developers, but surely there must be a better way. [The fullscreen ads in applications even annoyed Google](http://www.engadget.com/2015/07/24/google-interstitial-ads/).\n\nEven if I do read the advertisement or watch the sample video, I'll forget about their product after the ad finishes or goes away, as I'll go back to playing the game or using the app. It even makes the experience of using the app annoying. I used to play CandyFrenzy and after every 3-4 turns, a fullscreen ad used to popup and I had to swipe it away. After playing that game for months, I never paid attention to the advertisement, which shows how inefficient they were in putting the message across or gaining the attention of the user. CMV.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Jesus final choice was not only the logical one, but also a very easy one to make, therefore it's not very admirable + \n + First thing, let's assume the biblical Jesus is completely true. \n\nNow, I have a fair knowledge of the biblical tale, but if I say something wrong, feel welcome to correct me. I'll use the most \"accepted\" version of the story: \n\n*Jesus was one with God, part of the Holy Trinity and one day he decided humanity should be saved with the ultimate sacrifice: his own life. In order to do that he came to Earth and lived like a normal human, teaching his ways to others. 30 and something years after his human birth he met his fate. Tortured and humiliated he sacrificed his life to give humanity a chance of redemption, he was the Lamb of God. After that he was resurrected and went back to heaven to live like god for the rest of eternity* \n\n\nAlright, this is a big deal because a divine creature came to Earth to sacrifice himself for humans, an unthinkable act. Problem is, Jesus choices were:\n\n1. Save humanity and suffer a lot of pain for a couple months (if you consider the very act of becoming human a bad thing, then let's say 30ish years) and go back to Heaven\n2. Not save humanity and stay as god forever\n\nProvided you're not completely cold and oblivious being, 1) is clearly the only logical choice here, you are trading an infinitely small piece of your life for saving an entire race that you created, why not? Compared to eternity the suffering is meaningless. It's like if for giving 1 cent to a person Bill Gates could save that persons life. Of course he would. Anyone would. You don't need to be pure goodness to do that, not even close.\n\nSo, what is the merit of Jesus sacrifice? ", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The US Senate should be a ceremonial rubber stamp in practice, rather than a body that regularly blocks legislation from the House. + \n + The US Constitution was written at a time when states believed they needed a check on federal power. Requiring a body that represented all states equally to pass any legislation seemed to preserve those rights.\n\nHowever, this attitude is mostly archaic today. Representing every state equally allows small states disproportionate power in matters pertaining to the whole country. Why should they be able to block the rest of the country's people from deciding on federal matters? It's essentially saying that voters in North Dakota, Vermont and Alaska are more important than elsewhere.\n\nIf you can find me a purpose for the US Senate as an actual decision-making body in today's day and age, and not just as a vastly unrepresentative body that has the power to completely kill legislation that most Americans support, please CMV.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Papyrus is a much more annoying and useless font than Comic Sans. + \n + All fonts are in some way contextually appropriate. Comic Sans looks like crap on an essay or a official document, but in a cutesy letter from grandma or in a joking yet soft note. Papyrus, on the other hand, seems to have only one appropriate use: 5th grade projects on Ancient Egypt. The font isn't aesthetically pleasing: the capitals are far too large and the letters fit weirdly. Not that Comic Sans is good, but certainly the lesser of the two evils. And yet we end up with situations like [this](http://www.thepaperstore.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/store_front.jpg) or [this](https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3786/13919983212_d92fe40f8d_b.jpg).\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: In order for a society to exist, you need to help the poor otherwise they will take from the rich. + \n + In order for a society to exist, you need to help the poor otherwise they will take from the rich. History repeats itself and when the poor are hungry they revolt. Poor people need to be treated in society otherwise they will do things that the rich aren't willing to do. If the poor die then Rich people will split into the richer people and the rich people (the current rich people are now poor) so it goes full circle. \nTL:DR You need to care for the poor otherwise they will steal and revolt and not let a society grow. Thanks I'm open to all answers. My teacher talked about something like this at school today.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I agree with the Nazi 'Action T4' program. + \n + Hello. For a long time now I've felt that there are many people in hospitals and psychiatric homes who will never be able to function independently and will never work, create art and music, etc.. I recently discovered that the premise behind Hitler's T4 program is that anyone with a seemingly incurable illness that severely hinders their abilities should be euthanized. It sounds kind of awful at first, but these people absorb so much of society's resources. Think of how much better off we would be economically without them. I have a brother who is low-functioning autistic and his whole life he's cost our family so much money just so that we don't have to constantly watch over him. I feel sort of bad about this but I don't want to lie to myself about my own beliefs. CMV.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I don't need to show support or acceptance of Trans individuals + \n + Let me preface this by stating that I don't believe in judging, shunning, or harassing people because of who they are, I just don't know why their choices are a thing to be celebrated and supported?\n\nStories:\n\n* I was walking down the street in a large city and there was a homeless man sitting in a corner mumbling about how he was a starship flying through space.  I pitied him, as he (seemed) to genuinely believe that he was an actual starship, and assuming no drugs were involved, I expect most of society also does.\n\n* A young man who frequents a card shop I visit believes himself to be a wolverine.  Not the marvel superhero, an actual badger-like creature indigenous to the Adirondacks of upstate New York.  Most people treat him rather poorly, as he acts like a wild animal fairly often, but I also pity him as he truly believes he is a wolverine.\n\n* A previously homosexual, previously male friend of mine recently came out as \"trans\" meaning that he(now she) would like to live life as a woman.  Society seems to say that this should be celebrated, that this is a brave and good act.\n\nI view all these 3 stories as on the same spectrum and should be treated the same.  Either we treat all three as varying levels of delusion/mental illness, or we work as hard as we can to make those people feel right in society.  All three people think they are something that they are not, so I feel that societies responses should be consistent either:\n\n1. Treat all 3 cases as mental illness.  Realize that mental illnesses exist, and if there is no cure, it is something that must be managed, just as with bi-polar, multiple personality disorder, etc.\n\n2. Celebrate this, and have the person live their lives in their own manner.  My male (now female) friend can live and be treated like any woman, that young man (now animal) at the card shop can live and be treated like a wolverine, and that older man (now starship) can be free to pursue a career at NASA as a test shuttle or whatever. (It's an extreme example, so the metaphor doesn't quite hold up)\n\nNow I have no problem with any of the three people.  None are hurting anyone, and unless they are disrespectful I have no qualms about interacting with any of them.  But why is being a \"Trans woman\" (used to be man) so much more acceptable than any other form of delusion?\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Intelligent people cannot be sad because if they're intelligent they'll figure out a way to cheer up. + \n + Lately I've been a bit sad most of the time and I've thought that if I were more intelligent I wouldn't be sad because I would know what to do in order to cheer myself up. I have been thinking that intelligent people are happier than average-minded people because their brains tell them what to do for not being sad; however average-minded people don't know what to do and they may feel inferior in regards to smart people. In addition, I think that for an average-minded person it'd be very difficult to become as smart as a person who was \"born smart\". CMV please. Thank you.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Speedos (briefs) are by far superior swimming trunks + \n + We're getting into summer here so I've been swimming more. I think speedos (ie brief trunks) are by far the best kind of trunks to wear in the pool. But I gather that in America speedos are pretty lowly regarded except by competitive swimmers. I challenge you to persuade me speedos aren't superior.\n\nHere are my main reasons:\n\n**Cheaper**\n\nThey use less material so they are obviously cheaper than other options (like jammers, those trunks like cycling shorts).\n\n**Lighter**\n\nDon't weigh down your bag, especially when wet.\n\n**Less Bulky**\n\nRelated to the previous point but still worth mentioning in its own right. I can fit a pair of speedos in my bag and barely know they're there. I can roll them up with my magic towel and still fit the magic towel back into its plastic tube.\n\n**Dry Faster**\n\nSpeedos dry super fast and because there isn't much material they don't carry much water anyway. After swimming and a quick buzz in the spinning trunk dryer I can put my speedos in a bag with a book.\n\n**Help You Swim Faster**\n\nSpeedos cause way less drag than board shorts. It's true that the full-body suits can improve speed even more but not significantly unless you're a top pro--and the cost is prohibitive.\n\n**Help You Swim Better**\n\nDrag from board shorts lowers your legs in the water causing poor body position. This has a negative effect on technique.\n\n**Cleaner**\n\nPeople often wear board shorts on the beach and get sand in their pockets. When they swim in the pool the sand comes out and collects on the bottom of the pool. One pool I go to has this problem really badly. There's always sand in the pool. It's also skank when people walk around in their sweaty shorts all day in the summer and then wear them into the pool. (This is one of the main reasons speedos are comulsory in French swimming pools.)\n\n**Funky Tanline**\n\nIf you swim in an outdoor pool.\n\n**Feel Better in Water**\n\nBoard shorts waft around in the water and don't feel as good. You have much less restricted movement in speedos.\n\n**Good for Body Image**\n\nThe main reason people don't wear speedos in my experience is because they are embarrassed about their image/don't feel comfortable in them. I think that's really sad. Where I grew up speedos were compulsory and no one gave a toss because they were used to it. I think that's a much better attitude to have.\n\nTo be honest, given all these points I don't know why anyone would want ever want to wear board shorts. I challenge you to persuade me speedos aren't superior!\n\n(BTW I'm not arguing that speedos are better on the beach. I happen to think they are but I realise the fashion qualities of boardies may be more significant on the beach/when you aren't actually somewhere to swim.)\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: White people portraying other races without the use of cariacatures or stereotypes is not blackface. + \n + I have yet to understand why a straight actor can portray a gay character while can't the same be same for white people portraying other races. If an unknown white actor portrayed black character with a rounded story, un-cariacatural appearance, etc., and slipped under the radar, why should there be any problem if people find out the actor was white.\n\nEven though I understand why the minstrel shows of the past had been racist, if a black (or any other race) character had been thought to be well developed, not-racist without the context of the character, etc. I don't think it should be comparable to blackface.\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Hilary is the most qualified but Bush is going to be next US president + \n + * Trump and Bernie Sanders a popular fringe candidates that people like but wont really vote for come rubber meets the road\n\n* Obama was not down-low uncontroversial president, thus the people in the middle of the political spectrum are going to go with the Republicans.\n\n* The GOP (and people in general) have a *bizarre* tendency to vote for the best/older/serious looking guy.\n\n* Bush doesn't look as butterface as he used too and Hilary smiles too much as well as doing this weird thing where she opens her eyes more when she does smile. \n\n* Hilary has a long and solid career in top level politics and has a intimate insight to the white house; she serve as the Secretary of State which many people consider on par with the presidency in terms of work pressure.\n-**but* she doesn't look like she would last long in the Hunger Games.\n\nyay for the first past the post voting and the two party system\n\n\nyou guys may think I'm being cynical and overly condescending to the political process.... you're right\n\ncome back to me tho come Nov. 2016\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Divorce, no matter the kind, shouldn't punish anyone, and no one should be forced to pay the other being. + \n + Before I begin, I would like to point something out. I assume that this is bound to be brought up, so I will answer this first. \"That means that marriage isn't as special and you can just drop out freely whenever you want\". I don't see this as a viable argument, because if someone is going to leave, then they have a reason to. Even if its a bad reason, or a really good reason, making the person stay by the threat of losing lots of money and/or possessions will only make the marriage worse and worse and cause the couple to fight more and more. \n\nI see no reason whatsoever why anyone should be able to take legal action if their spouse decides to leave then. If someone leaves a marriage, it means they are unhappy with it, or have lost feelings for the other person. And like I said in my first statement, making the person stay in marriage until a joint divorce is (if ever) made by the threat of the person leaving losing a lot of money and/or possessions will only make the marriage worse and worse, leaving 1 or both of the people suffering for years. \n\nAnother reason why this is bad is if one person is unhappy in their marriage, and the spouse is forcing them to stay by means of threatening legal action, will leave the unhappy spouse in a terrible marriage for years, or possibly for the rest of their lives.\n\nChange my View Reddit!\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:I think toll roads are pointless + \n + I have lived in Columbus, Ohio my entire life and have now been legally able to drive for 5 years.  I have driven near and far and have never had to take a toll road.  I recently ventured into Pennsylvania for an internship and was absolutely flabbergasted by the toll roads.  I have always heard from people that they are good because they have higher speed limits.  A lot of the free highways i have been on have 70 mph speed limits and when I went into Pennsylvania, I paid $5.00 to go 40mph on a \"highway\" for a whopping 2 miles.  I also have gone through some other toll roads since my time here but that was the most obnoxious one.  Anyways I just think they are pointless because in no way did it make my travel more convenient.  Maybe I just don't know enough about them but please change my view!\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Self harm is not inherently bad or wrong + \n + I'm not asking anything about why we self harm\u2014trust me I've got many answers for that.  My problem is that everyone seems to agree that self harm is bad, but no one can give me a logical argument for why.\n\nSo far this is the logic I've heard again and again:\nSelf harm is bad because it is dangerous. It is dangerous because you could die, or could get an infection.\n\nThe problem I have seen with this is that you can replace \"self harm\" with so many other things and still follow the same basic structure.\n\nLacrosse is bad because it is dangerous. It is dangerous because you could get a concussion.\n\nCooking is bad because it is dangerous. You could get burned.\n\nTaking Lithium for Bipolar Disorder is bad because it is dangerous.  It is dangerous because it could give you kidney failure.\n\nSo I can not accept the false-logic of dangerous = bad. That means anything dangerous is inherently bad, and that is not true.\n\nIt is very easy to self harm without any danger.  Sterilize tools, clean and cover wounds, etcetera.\n\nOf course this can still leave permanent scars, but so can getting a tattoo or a piercing, so once again, self harm isn't inherently bad just because it leaves scars.  Lots of things leave scars, so scars aren't what's bad about it.\n\nOkay, but it's a symptom of a bigger problem.  Yes.  And the bigger problem is the thing that should be fixed.  But that *still* doesn't mean that the symptom is bad.\n\nIf you have a bacterial infection, you treat the infection.  You don't just cover any redness up with makeup to treat the symptom.  So self harm, the symptom of many mood disorders, isn't what should be treated.\n\nSo besides the ridiculously flawed \"it's dangerous\" argument, explain to me why self harm is inherently bad.\n\nTl;Dr, something being dangerous doesn't make it bad. Give me a real reason why self harm is bad.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: in the world there's only \"the good\" and \"the bad\". + \n + I'm not a native english speaker so excuse me.\n\nAlright, it seems like in this world there are only the good things and the bad things, the black and white, and though I believe the world is not black and white and there is a grey area in between, what is that grey area? I haven't been able to figure it out like, for example: a man steals food from a shop because he doesn't have enough money and he needs to feed his kids, then he gets caught and taken to prison. Though he did something \"bad\" (stealing) for a \"good\" cause (feed his children), he still did something bad therefore he gets a punishment. Where's the grey in that? I don't know.\n\nThat's one of my confusions, the grey between the black and white. To be clear, I'm not bigoted or religious and I understand there are diferent types of good and different types of bad depending on your context, where you live.\n\nThe other thing I'm confused about and that is fairly linked to the first one is if there's something besides \"the good\" and \"the bad\". I personaly live by trying to do the good but I also think that the bad is necesary until a certain degree.\n\nCMV!\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Giving other cultures sh*t about eating dog meat is hypocritical + \n + Hi all,\n\nSo someone just posted a video on my FB feed about [the Yulin dog meat festival](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=yulin+dog+meat+festival). It is horrifying...\n\nFor the purpose of this CMV, let's forget about how it's done (the way they get the dogs, they treat them... etc.) and concentrate **only** on the dog meat eating part.\n\nI love dogs, and yes, I find it horrifying that other cultures eat them. However, I also understand that for other cultures, it is horrifying to see us eat beef or pork.\n\nIn my opinion, the only situation where you are allowed to complain is if you are talking about eating animal meat in general. But if you enjoy eating a good steak, then it is hypocritical to criticize others for eating what they consider is \"just meat\".\n\nAgain, I am stressing the fact that this is not about the *animal cruelty* part. It's just about the meat eating. For the sake of this CMV, let's suppose that the animals are bred and slaughtered in the most humane possible way.\n\nSo... CMV\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: For the west to enjoy the lifestyle it does, subjugation of third world countries is necessary. + \n + The goods and services we consume are made possible by the abundance of cheap resources and labour that the west gets out of underdeveloped countries. The West has no reason to aid or allow the development of these poorer countries, since that would disrupt the ability to acquire cheap resources, thus diminishing the economic superiority of the west. All in all, people in the west's lives can only be \"good\" because people's lives in poor nations are \"bad\". With the current infrastructure on earth, it is only possible to make the west happy, not everyone. ", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Animal rights cannot be adequately addressed unless we recognize our cultural biases. + \n + - big game hunting \n- eating pork \n- killing venomous snakes \n- dog fights \n- eating mass produced meats and eggs** \n- wearing leather and fur \n- dog breeding \n- rat-baiting \n- horse racing \n- cock fights \n- fishing\n\nHow we see these activities, which all (can) hurt living things, is always influenced by culture AND personal values. It's not a mistake that the activities that are illegal and/or most popularly hated in the US are those associated with the poor or with cultures unfamiliar to most americans. Another factor is the cuteness of the animal (I have a soft spot for snakes and insects so I notice this)-- The popular, often almost gleeful, condemnation some of these activities is inseparable from hatred of outsiders and the oppressed.\n\nFor those who cherish animal life in a less arbitrary way it could seem like, this blood-thirsty mob has, for once taken, the correct side. But, this is an illusion-- we are are harmed by the inconsistency and emotion-driven fervor of these people who would suggest hanging as punishment for dog fights, then blithely eat chicken from a large producer, or smile at photos of their uncle posed with half-dead and suffocating sword fish.\n\nI think there are important questions here, I don't have the answers either. My point is not that all of these actions are equivalent, but rather that they have more in common than many people care to acknowledge. I would not be sad to live in a meatless, leather-free future, it might make me feel old, like someone's homophobic grandma who tries, but can't quite shake deeply learned prejudice. But, I think we have no choice but to recognize the cruelty in our own culture as, at least, similar to the cruelty found in other cultures. Most people I know personally who care about these issues already think about this rather deeply, so my criticisms are not for them. Many animal rights activists *do* see the parallels but it is hard to hear their intelligent arguments over the din consisting of little but mad-vitriol over certain animals (especially dogs) being harmed in certain ways. This level of anger that never seems to show up for pigs, snakes and fish-- or for the actions of male hunters (but women who hunt can get death threats) much of this comes from people who, like me, use leather, kill and eat fish (or think it's normal) and buy products like eggs or bacon.\n\nThis consistency issue is a big deal to me because calling an action cruel in one context but normal or a sport in another speaks to an unwillingness to contemplate life from diverse perspectives. And there are so many things we ought to be questioning... beyond the torture of fish.\n\nThis critical moral question about how and if we can end much of this cruelty deserves an answer from humans who recognize the common joys and failings of each other. It should not be arbitrary, the result of cultural preferences. \n\n** to produce huge numbers of hens to lay eggs vast numbers of male chicks are summerly ground up, alive. Some eggs are more \"humane\" but they are not accessible to all people.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: In accordance with but-for causality, it cannot be said that viewing child porn (without sharing it) causes harm. + \n + I anticipate that this is going to either be down-voted to oblivion or that people are going to try and go off on rants about the wider issue of harm that is caused to children by sexual abuse. I would greatly appreciate if you would take the time to read the following points before commenting or down-voting.\n\nI am not attempting to diminish the harm suffered by children who are victims of sexual abuse. I accept that children are victimised by the perpetrator of their abuse when the images are created and again when and if they find out that images of their abuse are being viewed. \n\n**My view is based solely on the idea that the causal link between the act (viewing the image) and the harm (the victim being re-victimised) is broken in these circumstances, and that it is impossible to therefore attribute this harm to the person who views the image.**\n\nThere is, on the other hand, grounds to argue that a person who actively views *and* re-distributes child porn *is* liable for the harm suffered by the victim. \n\nEach and every person who shares an image of a child being abused with another person, is ultimately responsible for the image remaining in circulation. Therefore, if a victim of child abuse learns that images of their abuse is being viewed online, then every person after the creator of the image is responsible for that image still existing, since they have created copies and re-distributed them.\n\nSomeone who has viewed the image (so downloaded it) but not re-distributed it, cannot be said to be responsible for the fact the image existed when they found it, or that it continues to exist after they downloaded it. Unless the person viewing the image pays to view it or offers a person some sort of benefit in kind other than money, such as for example praise, then him being a passive consumer has, in my opinion, absolutely no impact on the existence of the image on a distribution network. \n\nA person who views an image of child abuse is only responsible for their behaviour and not the behaviour of others who might view and distribute the same image. A good test of whether harm is caused by a passive consumer of child pornography is to take that passive consumer out of the equation and assess whether the same amount of harm is suffered by the victim. Since passive viewing does not impact upon the existence of the image, if you were able to stop every person who ever passively views but does not re-distribute an image, the image would still exist. The number of people viewing and re-distributing the images would still be the same and they would all still be liable for the harm if the victim in the image was to find out that images of their abuse were being viewed. \n\nPlease don't try and change my view by telling me how bad child porn is, I don't need to be told. My view could quite as easily be about any other topic, except that this appears to me to be the only case where harm is often attributed even though the causal link is broken.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Political candidates who refuse to detail their policies are making the right choice. + \n + Every election year this is one of the most popular complaints against  candidates: lack of detailed policy prescriptions. \n\n* \"So and so says he's going to reduce the budget, but so far he hasn't offered any specifics.\"  \n\n* \"Hillary says she has a plan for restarting the Israel-Palestine peace process, but so far nobody has been able to nail her down on the details.\" \n\n* Recently right here on one of the CMV posts about Bernie Sanders, /u/bayernownz1995 says that \"Sanders *does* have a solid page on racial injustice on his site, but it is a little weak in terms of actual policy prescriptions. Compared to O'Malley's page, Sanders has a lot of work to do.\"\n\nYou hear these complaints all. The. Time. In newspapers, on blogs, on TV news, in debates, etc. Candidate X offers no details, they're evasive in answering questions, they're canny, they give bland lip service to a problem and make happy talk about solutions, but they never *actually say what it is they're going to do if elected*. It's like the default setting of oppo research, a ready-made criticism to hurl at a candidate if you don't have any meatier, muddier dirt to fling their way. \n\nBut the thing is, there are very good reasons for candidates to be evasive. For one thing, if they were to offer actual policy details during a campaign, then they'd spend the entire rest of the campaign defending and arguing about those details. If someone found an error or mistake or potential pitfall, they might have to revise their plan -- revise a policy that doesn't even exist yet! Political opponents hire specialists in opposition research, and the more material those specialists have, the more they'll be able to distract and distort your candidate's plan in order to make them look bad. Giving them an entire piece of draft legislation, or an entire detailed budget document showing cuts and spending, etc. would be like a godsend to the oppo research people. And all for what? For an imaginary policy that doesn't even exist yet. No candidate in their right mind would open up so many vulnerabilities all for the sake of a policy that doesn't even exist outside of the candidate's website. \n\nSecondly, no political candidate is running for the office of dictator. Whether someone is running for President, Senate, Congress, Governor, state legislator, dog catcher, etc., the important thing to remember is that politicians have to work with other politicians, and agencies, bureaucracies, other constituents, etc. They have to work with other people to get anything accomplished. So if you get elected to office with a complete, massively detailed economic stimulus package combined with spending cuts and tax cuts, don't expect every other member of Congress to just roll over and rubber stamp your policy. Politics isn't beanbag, and you'd get crucified by the players in Washington (or any other capital). Oh, you promised you were going to cut the F-22 fighter? Well guess what, that's going to throw 60,000 people out of work in my district. And you want me to just vote for it because *your* supporters voted for you? How about f--k you?\" \n\nIf you got elected with a detailed policy proposal, everyone in the government responsible for putting your policy into motion would have you over a barrel. Every change they make to your policy would threaten to make you a \"liar,\" a judas, a traitor, etc. to the people who supported you, as well of course as your political enemies. Your policy details would become a millstone around your neck and a gun to your head. Your friends and enemies alike would be able to use all of your detailed promises on the campaign trail in order to wrap you around their fingers.\n\nSo that's my view: politicians would be insane to offer detailed policy answers to any given question, and they are wise to stick to vague generalities, advertising language, happy talk, etc. Can you think of a good reason for politicians to spell out their promises in detail? \n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: NYC sucks + \n + I used to want to live in NYC, but after travelling there multiple times and talking to friends who have lived/currently live there, I could not be more dead set against ever moving there. In fact, I have come to despise that place. As a quick note about the perspective I have: I'm a 3rd-year law student. I grew up in South FL, and currently live in Boston, MA. I'm not a stranger to life in a northeastern American city; maybe city life in general is not for me, although I do like Boston *much* better than New York. \n\nFirst, it's filthy. There is trash *everywhere*, the water is polluted, and the air simply does not smell clean. Being an old Northeastern city, it's filled with old buildings, many of which are in varying degrees of disrepair. It's just generally a dirty, sad place for me to be. \n\nIt's also crowded. NYC has ~8.5 million people crammed into around 300 square miles. To walk anywhere, you must wade through a sea of drab, disheveled humanity. The public transit is packed. Driving in NYC is one of the most hellish experiences I've ever had.   \n\nThe cost of living is exorbitant, as everyone already knows. Rent alone takes up most of my friends' paychecks, and their places aren't even that nice or spacious. New Yorkers seem like they pay through the nose for a standard of living that ain't that great.\n\nThen there's the climate. The winters are frigid and soul-crushing, complete with biting wind and extended periods of low sunlight or darkness. The summers are sweltering, and the heat only exacerbates the ever-present smell of rotting garbage. Plus, central air is apparently only for the wealthy northeasterners, because it is conspicuously scarce in most homes/apartments I've visited. \n\nI can't understand the allure of that city. The wealthy live comfortable lives while most everyone else pays through the nose to live wretchedly. People get an inexplicable sense of self-importance and accomplishment simply by moving there and living there for a bit, regardless of what they're doing. Maybe I'd feel accomplished too, if I paid $800/month to live in a cardboard box and resisted the temptation to commit suicide by antagonizing the psychotic, fascist police to which NYC is a home. \n\nTL;DR NYC is a crowded, dirty, dismal place and I cannot ever picture myself being happy there. CMV. \n\n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Hunting is an antiquated sport that should be banned. + \n + First, what I refer to as \"hunting\" is the killing or trapping of any animal, with the purpose of doing so, as sport, whether it be to eat them as food or keep them as trophies. I am not talking about the regulated hunting of threatening species or the killing of animals in situations where they pose significant danger.\n\nRecently, we've seen the story of Cecil the lion become big news across the country and in the world at large. The fact that we as humans hold dominion over all other earthly creatures necessitates the notion of a responsibility we have in keeping balance and order to the food chain, considering that humans are the top of it. \n\nKilling for sport is something--one could argue--not inherent only in humans, but we've taken it beyond what it means if an animal were to kill another animal for sport just by sheer organization. I'm speaking of our current gaming rules and regulations in place, meant to keep this balance--one would want to believe--but a system well beyond anything an animal killing another animal for sport could come up with, for obvious reasons. And, as the story of Cecil the lion illustrates, the system governing wildlife from being hunted and killed is flawed, to say the least.\n\nIn regards to the act of hunting, and then using prey as food, I would argue that in our modern society, this is completely unnecesary, given the obvious institutions in place all ready, i.e., the supermarket. \n\nThe bottom line may be that hunting exists because we as humans enjoy it, it is thrilling to us, but should that condone its existence? We condemn the murder of humans. Why view other animals any different in that regard?\n\nAdmittedly, the quandary I have with my argument is that I feel it should be banned all over the world. However, due to the problems and beliefs of other societies around the world, some of which being so underdeveloped that hunting game is a valuable source of income, I have to limit my banning to the United States alone. By doing this, I'm brought back to the senseless killing of Cecil the lion, which was done in a different country. I argue, though, that it was carried out by an American, one who believed in the sport of hunting, who willingly paid tens of thousands of dollars to do it, and that, had he come from a society that looked down on the sport, he might not have had such determination to carry out what he did.\n\nLastly, I say it is *antiquated*, but that is a reflection of my opinion based on the notion that hunting was a means of surviving which is no longer necessary in our current society. This definition recognizes that at one point, there was a reason at some point in history for its existence, however. \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: We shouldn't eat salted peanuts; they're inferior to unsalted peanuts + \n + When you're eating salted peanuts, it's sometimes difficult to taste the peanuts themselves. The salt completely dominates. This difference becomes extra clear when you try some regular, unsalted peanuts. They have a far more 'nutty' taste to them and simply taste more like peanuts. Therefore, they taste better. I can imagine someone has a preference for salted peanuts, but looking at it objectively, unsalted peanuts taste more like peanuts than salted peanuts. Which is the point of peanuts.\n\n\nBesides that, all that salt is a health risk. Westerners (of which I'm part) eat [too](http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/05May/Pages/Brits-eating-too-much-salt-sugar-and-fats.aspx) [much](http://consumer.healthday.com/public-health-information-30/centers-for-disease-control-news-120/americans-still-eat-too-much-salt-cdc-683236.html) [salt](http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science/Industry-must-help-Germany-to-cut-salt-intake-say-BfR). Cutting back on our salt intake by dropping the salted peanuts is a good idea.\n\n\nSo, why are salted peanuts not inferior to unsalted peanuts? What am I missing? Why do we still eat the salted ones besides the habit we have?\n\n\nNote: the salted peanuts barkeepers give out for free to make people drink more are understandable for economic reasons. I don't blaim them, nor do I see that as part of this CMV. This is about the personal choices we make when we're out grocery shopping.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Thinking suicide is selfish is wrong. + \n + I see allot of people say suicide is selfish since it leaves the rest of the people around you in suffering and needing to clean up the mes you left behind.   \nBut I tend to think opposite of this. thinking suicide is selfish makes you the selfish one.  \nThe person who committed suicide was obvious feeling bad and didn't want live on any more now I understand that the people you leave behind will suffer because of your death but them wanting you to not die is selfish because its them not wanting to lose you, that's just them thinking about themselves. \n\nCMV\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Bernie Sanders can't follow up on any of his points laid out in his agenda as long as the GOP remains influential in the Senate. + \n + Having one Bernie Sanders as President is one thing but I don't think it'll result in anything even close to what his supporters would hope. \n\nLet's cut the cynicism for a moment and let's say that Bernie Sanders is one hundred percent dedicated and accomplishing each and every one of his goals laid out in his agenda. \n\nGiven that the right hates this guy and the amount of corporate influence amongst the Senate (and it's not just limited to the right, I realize), I don't think it's worth being invested in who becomes President so long as the GOP remains as influential as they are in Congress. \n\nWe don't need one Bernie. We need 100 Bernies.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Times New Roman is actually a good font. People only hate it because of it's over-use. + \n + I got a slap on the wrist for choosing Times New Roman on a design project, and I had to take a stand. Times New Roman is not the Arial of serif fonts. Poor choice of angles and weight actually make Arial a difficult font to read. Times New Roman, much like Helvetica, is invisible. It's so readable that it does nothing to draw attention to itself, leaving only the content. The only reason people hate it is because it was licensed differently than Helvetica, leading Microsoft to decide to use it as a default instead of making a cheap knock-off.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: It is much more likely for humans to come into contact with alien robots than sentient organic life-forms. + \n + *\u201cWill robots inherit the earth? Yes, but they will be our children.\u201d - Marvin Minsky*\n\nSo firstly, this stems from a view that if humans are ever to survive into the far future (maybe even only a few millennia), it will be by integrating ourselves with technology and shedding our fragile organic bodies.\n\nWhat is the maximum typical lifespan of a sentient organic species? Humans have gone from the invention of writing to the capability to destroy our entire species in just 5,000 years. On a cosmic timescale, that is an instant. Will the Earth still be inhabitable for us in our current states by the time another instant passes? Luckily, we\u2019ve already started primitively engineering and augmenting ourselves, with genetic modification, prosthetic legs, hearts, ears, etc. The technological advances in just the last 100 years (as well as the damage we\u2019ve done to our planet) has been incredible\u2014 what will the next 5,000 bring?\n\nLet\u2019s assume for the sake of argument that the nearest sentient species developed on a planet 100 lightyears away. (Just FYI, a quick Google/Wolfram Alpha search tells me the fastest human spacecraft now being designed will go 200km/s, which means it would traverse 100ly in 150,000 years.) Let\u2019s say that, just by chance, this alien civilization achieved our current level of technology very near to us in time\u2014 only 10 million years ago. Do you think it's likely that if they existed today they would have organic bodies? Even an alien species so incredibly close to us on a cosmic timescale is almost unthinkably distant in the context of our lifespans as individuals and as a civilization. And organic life forms are just not well-suited for interstellar travel.\n\nEssentially, I think organic life is a means to bootstrap into existence truly immortal technological \u2018life\u2019. This is true on Earth and on every other planet as well. And just by the nature of cosmic timescales, it\u2019s much more likely to come into contact with the next evolutionary stage of an alien species than to be lucky enough to catch it in the minuscule period while it\u2019s still fully organic. CMV.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is a 'Normal' state and Homosexuality and Autism and the like are irregular states. + \n + \"Normal\"\n\n(adj.) Conforming to the standard or common type.\n\n---\n\nBy the above definition, we can be sure that there is a 'Normal' human being. Or at the very least, various 'Normal' states to make up a 'Normal' human being.\n\nAnything that is in the majority is a 'Normal' state. So, the 'Normal' human being is a Cisgendered, Heterosexual, Chinese man.\n\nThis means that states such as Transgender, Homosexual, Autistic etc. are not 'Normal'. They are in fact 'different'. and we desperately need to stop acting as if they are normal. They are different.\n\nThis does not mean they are worse, undesirable or negative. Nor does it mean they are better, desirable or positive. They are simply different.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Transgender people are still technically their original gender. + \n + Hi guys!\n\n\nTo expand:\n\nAlthough I would happily call someone who went from being a man to a woman (- for example) a woman to their face and when talking about them, I still don't believe they are truly that gender. Despite having surgery, having that mindset and having hormone treatment, I can't feel fully comfortable referring to them as a woman - just from a technical standpoint. I feel as though I'm lying to myself.\n\n\nDisclaimer:\n\nI am not homophobic or anything of the sort. I completely agree with people doing what they want to do and I completely believe people can be 'trapped' in the body of the opposite gender.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: if x is a logical outcome of y but x is an undesirable thing for people that want to do y, then those people will try to figure out how they can do y without causing x. + \n + This is a general response I have for slippery slope arguments or arguments that take the form: if you are Y, then logically you should also be X. My point is that if some undesirable outcome is a logical consequence of some action or ideology, then people who don't want that outcome, will try to figure out how to do that action or fallow that ideology without causing that outcome. I think that people and societies in general are smart enough and/or reasonable enough to know when it would be bad to fallow something to a logical conclusion and so they will stop before they get there. If that makes them a hypocrite, then so be it. I'm perfectly fine with people being hypocrites if it keeps them from doing something unfavorable. So tell me, am I wrong to see things this way?\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Reddit should ban whatever sub they want - they shouldn't have to accommodate for 'free speech' + \n + A lot of people seem to believe that Reddit should be a \"bastion of free speech\". I disagree with such view for several reasons. I believe Reddit should do whatever it wants to do regarding banning subreddits, restricting content etc for the following reasons:  \n\n1. Websites come and go - Whilst Reddit has been around for a while now, nearly nothing on the Internet is permanent. If people do really care that much about freedom of speech, they'll flock to voat or whatever other website pops up to fill the demand in the market. If enough people emigrate from Reddit, then it'll even whittle down Digg style. Personally, I feel even if there is a certain % of the userbase who leaves Reddit, I feel there will be a significant enough amount of people left to keep Reddit fully functional. Heck, it might even get rid of the nutheads and make Reddit a more pleasant place. \n2. The current downvote system doesn't guarantee open discussion anyway - The current downvote system is far from perfect. It might 'hide' the trolly comments but on certain subreddits, expressing a certain view will lead to a lot of downvotes and populist, sometimes circlejerky, comments often rise to the top. Many people use the downvote button as a 'disagree' button instead of a 'doesn't contribute anything of value' button. Can you really have an open, honest discussion in such environment anyway? \n3. Business reasons - I don't know about Reddit's financials in detail but it needs some sort of income. If they struggle to get advertisers due to PR reasons, Reddit should be able to do ban subreddits and limit content if they want to. Reddit is a private business afterall and not a public service. \n4. Majority of Reddit users don't give a shit - Now I have no proof for this and it would be interesting if there was some sort of poll. However, I genuinely feel the majority of Reddit users don't care whether Reddit bans certain subreddits. Like with many things, I feel there's a silent majority who really doesn't care about Reddit's user policy.\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: If people can \"decide\" gender identity, they can also \"decide\" racial identity + \n + First, let me start off by saying I placed decide in quotations to note that I recognize people do not choose their gender identity. I believe that it is possible for born sex to conflict with your gender.\n\nNow, with the recent news of an [NAACP chapter president possibly lying about being black](http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/12/us/washington-spokane-naacp-rachel-dolezal-identity/) there has been some outrage at her deceit. She has come under intense scrutiny and anger from people all over the country. Understandable considering the fact that the likelihood that she is lying is high. \n\nThat being said, what if one were not lying? \n\nSay that we have a child named Andrew. He's an orphaned white boy adopted by a black family who live in a predominately black neighborhood. Growing up he is surrounded by his black family and black friends where he experiences love and acceptance and comes to know nothing other than black American culture. \n\nWould it be unfair to say that this white boy when he grows up could claim he identifies as a black man? \n\n\nRight, but I feel like that makes no difference. Nature does not outweigh nurture. A man may have his penis but may feel like a woman. Their natural physical state is a man, but their mental state is a woman. Andrew was born white but feels like he is \"black\", so physical state of white and mental state of being \"black\".\n\n\nDon't be silly, you know what I mean.\n\nSo reddit, CMV.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is no such thing as subreddit ban evasion. A subreddit is a topic of conversation, not a person. + \n + All the hoopla about the FPH subreddit bans has resulted in quite a bit of conversation, but there seems to be little acknowledgement of the huge number of FPH *related* subreddits that have been, and continue to be banned despite not actually having broken any rules themselves. The admins seem to be acting as though these related subreddits are a form of ban evasion, and most people seem to agree. Meanwhile, the claim continues to be that they are only banning rule breakers, not censoring ideas.\n\nWhat disturbs me about this is that **there is no such thing as subreddit ban evasion.**\n\nA subreddit is not a person, it is a topic of conversation. If, after a particular subreddit is banned for breaking the rules, people go on to set up new subreddits with the same topic of conversation... shouldn't that subreddit have the same opportunity to follow the rules as any other? If those mods can do a better job, shouldn't they get the chance?\n\nOn the other hand, if simply setting up a new subreddit for the same topic is treated as ban evasion, and immediately banned as well, then isn't that exactly equivalent to *banning the topic?* If the admins are banning all subreddits for a particular topic of conversation, a particular idea, and for no other reason then being for that topic, being that idea... then isn't that objectively the banning of the idea?\n\nI am very disturbed at the thought that all those folks crying censorship might actually be right this time, and even more so at the thought that the admins might actually be lying to us. I don't want this to be the case, but I cannot see a reasonable alternative explanation. :(\n\nPlease, change my view.\n\n\n\nJust to be clear, I'm not necessarily saying they *shouldn't* have banned those subreddits (or that they *should* have either), I'm just saying that what they are doing is in fact entirely materially equivalent to banning the idea, which they claim not to be doing.\n\nAs for the question of evidence for the fact that they are in fact banning subreddits simply because of their topic, I'll use one unique example that proves it particularly well:\n\nConsider the fact that [they accidentally banned /r/whalewatchers for a short time](https://np.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/39g65l/reddit_bans_rwhalewatching_thinking_its_a_clone/), a two year old subreddit that's *actually about whale watching*, simply because trolls posted some FPH related content (which the mods would have obviously removed anyway).\n\nIf they were only banning rule breakers, how could /r/whalewatchers, a two year old subreddit that couldn't possibly have had evidence of rule breaking associated with it, have earned a banning *even if they did mistakenly think it was dedicated to hating fat people?*\n\nI can find no reasonable explanation as to how that mistake could *even have been possible* if they were only banning rule breakers and not banning ideas.\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think the New Horizons mission was a giant waste of money, and humanity would have been better off if the money had fed the hungry + \n + According to Forbes, New Horizons (the mission that just sent pictures of Pluto back to Earth) cost ~$700M. \n\nhttp://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2015/07/14/how-do-new-horizons-costs-compare-to-other-space-missions/\n\nNow don't get me wrong, I am a space fan. I think we should go back to the moon, I support the ISS, and want to see man walk on Mars one day. \n\nHowever, barring a close-up of ET, nothing that we find on the outer reaches of, or even beyond, our solar system is going to justify the money spent to find it. \n\nI also support Man's desire for exploration, but there are things about this planet that we have yet to explore. \n\n$700M would have fed a lot of hungry bellies. It would have housed a lot of homeless people. It would have bought lots of clothes, glasses, and shoes for people who need them. \n\nAnd quite honestly, I'm not even that charitable of a guy, but I see a large missed opportunity here that was exchanged for some pictures of a rock 4 billion miles away. \n\nChange my view. ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:Private business should be able to do or not do business with whoever they want. + \n + I believe that a private business should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason. For example, if a white-owned business wanted to deny service to all minorities, then they should be able to. As a private citizen, I can choose who I give my business to. If I'm a racist, I can choose to only give my business to my race.  If I personally want to give money to the homeless, I can choose to give it to one race/orientation/etc. or another. Why can't a private business make the same decision? The free market place should solve this problem because people would see a need to service those that are refused service and then start a competing business.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: \"Reverse racism\" is as real as any other kind of racism. + \n + Hey guys! Not too long ago, there was quite the controversy surrounding [this](http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/13/living/feat-boston-university-saida-grundy-race-tweets/), and it spilled over into a Facebook debate amongst my fellow BU peers. It is here where I was made aware of the fact that, apparently, the dictionary definition of racism is pretty much obsolete, and \u2014more shockingly\u2014 that women cannot be sexist against men, much like black people cannot be racist against white people. \n\nI feel that, like [Ludwig Wittgenstein](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/), the meaning of words lies on a shared commonality \u2014be it community slang, or dictionary definitions\u2014 not on an individual's decision; e.g. I cannot expect that exclaiming \"look at that magnificent fan!\" should be interpreted by people as 'fan' meaning 'double rainbow', because that is not the agreed upon definition of 'fan.' [I use this example because it just seems to me that someone (presumably from tumblr or some radfem blog) decided to change the definition of racism\u2014 how convenient.]\n\nSo, change my view/educate me, because to me, racism is racism\u2014 regardless of the aggressor's race/skin color.\n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:The media is unfairly excluding presidential candidates like Bernie Sanders. + \n + I like to visit news sites and ctrl-f candidates names to see who's getting the headlines, Clinton is being plastered everywhere but I see hardly any mention, still, of Bernie Sanders. I believe the media unfairly excludes candidates and this is detrimental to the election process, and a properly informed vote. \nWith that being said the only reason I care this election is that I support Sanders, an underdog candidate, whereas previous years I didn't. On a side note - I'm a Vermont resident and was well aware of Sanders before his reddit presence and presidential bid. \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Tougher gun laws would not have prevented yesterday's tragedy where Bryce Williams killed Alison Parker and Adam Ward + \n + Firstly, my heart goes out to the victims and by no means am I making excuses or defending any actions. Yesterday's events were a tragedy. Having grown up on Smith Mountain Lake and spent countless days on the very docks that the incident took place and having gone to the same school as Alison, the events hit really close to home. May Alison and Adam rest in peace.\n\nSecondly, I am not coming from the pro or anti gun legislation perspective. If I could remove all guns from the world and safely fill the sport and personal self-defense gaps with something else with a single wish, I would... after I wished for $1 billion and 22 year old Heidi Klum to be my wife. I wanted to talk specifically about premeditated murder and the role firearms play in them. \n\nWhile watching the comments role through in yesterday's /r/news thread, several comments mentioned the desire for tougher gun laws. However, I believe that in instances of premeditated murder (vs manslaughter or random acts of violence), tougher gun laws would not prevent these events. \n\nI am going to repeat myself a few times, but bear with me: \n\nDespite all of the reason for Bryce Williams not to commit yesterday's crime, he still decided to go through with it. Despite the consequences that he would face legally, he decided to go through with it. Despite the pain he would cause to the families of the Alison and Adam as well as his own, he decided to go through with it. Despite the hate and vitriol his memory would leave, he decided to through with it. Despite all of the reasons not to go through with it, he decided to go through with it. \n\nMy argument is, if guns were more difficult or impossible to get access to, Bryce Williams would have just added it to the list of hinderances he ignored and still gone through with it. Hypothetically not having access to a fire arm, I believe he would have still gone through the act of trying to kill Alison and Adam by another means. \n\nI so badly want to believe that we can prevent incidents like yesterday's from happening through tougher gun legislation or any other way, but I cannot see how. Please change my view. ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think I should go to private school to boost my grades + \n + I am currently not doing well at all in normal public high school with the difficulty of AP classes, and such.  The thing is, I really want to get into a good college, like University of Florida.  If I switch into a private school, I will be able to take a ton of high classes and get straight A's in all of them which will boost my GPA a ton, but I will not really be learning anything.  Some people have told me this is a bad idea, but I do not know why.  I am willing to have a discussion with anyone in the comments so please change my view!\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Any food past recommended daily values should be heavily taxes + \n + I'm not here to argue how this would be implemented. There would obviously be challenges in that sense but I'm sure rationing could be done in the digital age.\n\nThere's millions of people starving every day, yet in countries where people make slightly above average are permitted to deplete the world's food supply, waste food, and pretty much cut in line in front of others for having money. Food that could be used by poor regions is instead shipped out to feed those who can afford it. \n\nThen there's the fact that obesity has increased, at least within the US, in the past decade. Our only real solution has been to attempt to tax soft drinks or try to hurt corporations who make \"unhealthy\" food, but that does not directly treat the problem, which is over-eating. I'm sure we can all agree that if you become overweight that shows that your body has more food than it requires to live. When people are permitted to purchase as much food as they want, no matter how healthy the food ends up being, they will gain weight. This in turn causes more problems and costs money in healthcare. \n\nFood should be taxed/rationed. Based on what is factually calculated (for example, with a doctor's visit) on how much you need to consume, you should be *encouraged* (not forced) to eat the proper amount monetarily. Since eating excessively damages those who cannot afford food due to inflated food prices, as well as costs others by your deteriorating health, a tax is a reasonable/viable option. \n\nJust like you're not permitted to do harmful drugs (for the most part) or permitted to kill yourself or harm yourself (for the most part) this would at the very least be another measure to keeping people in our society healthy and from also damaging others. Since it would not be forced, you're technically still permitted to eat more food, however, you should be able to prove that you can afford your lifestyle that causes health issues and issues for others, and support the system by paying a tax, which could then be used to feed the homeless and fund welfare programs.\n\n\nHere's an article of something similar in place and proof that it's effective:\nhttp://mic.com/articles/84521/japan-has-cut-obesity-to-3-5-in-a-controversial-way-that-wouldn-t-fly-in-america\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I am over 10 years out of college and have a great career. I have a hard time accepting that a driven, intelligent person would fail in finding success. + \n + This is not meant to be a troll post, but an earnest attempt to determine if my views are incorrect or unfair.  I have two minds when it comes to the fact that so many people have trouble finding a job that pays a living wage and is something they enjoy.  On one hand I am very sympathetic and feel that I have been lucky in life to get to where I am.  On the other hand I got to where I am through taking calculated risks and then stacking the deck in my favor.  There was definitely luck involved, but not all the risks I took paid out and I had to move on to something else.  I feel like too many people aren't taking matters into their own hands regarding their own success, like I feel I did, and I simultaneously feel proud and callous in that belief.  I am unsure which one is more correct.\n\nExample #1\n\nI have been on the recruiting side of multiple companies (tech sector) and have been blown away by the low quality/behavior of applicants.  These are the people that get through the resume filter and are invited on site.  Now I never test applicants on specific details of systems, because in practice you look those up as needed on the job.  I asked about what they have done in the past or what parts of their training they were most familiar with and tested their understanding of it.  I have had people that came into interviews and tried to act like they were running the show, people who refused to answer questions I asked, and people not familiar with the most basic parts of what they said they were experts in.  I know this is anecdotal, but the fact that it was so difficult to find people that were remotely qualified in fields they had spent years studying completely confused me.  The bar for applicants was not high in most cases my team was very motivated to find someone to hire.  I could not understand why people seemed to put in so little effort to sell themselves.\n \nExample #2\n\nI once worked for many years at a company that was funded off of venture capital around '08, where all investors closed up shop.  There was a lot of pressure on the company and there were multiple mass layoffs that cut staff to the bone and then even further.  I survived all of them, and eventually resigned because I correctly predicted the company would fold in a month.  I was fully aware of the risk of me losing my job and I countered that by simply being very useful.  This was a win-win scenario, because I was an enthusiastic employee and was happy to improve my skills through working on any existing part of the system or try to develop new ones.  Because of this I was more valuable than most of the other employees and had a ton of work/learning experiences I could talk about with recruiters.  Anyone on the team that was remotely difficult to deal with got cut, and I saw their downfall much earlier than it happened.  Now if everyone is being the star employee it would be a different but I have never found a group where that is the case.  For any individual on a team, you don't have to work more hours than someone else to be more valuable than them; you just need to be more friendly, cooperative, and effective.  In my experience that just requires effort and not any special creativity.\n\nExample #3\n\nI started off with a lot of bad habits that inhibited my professional development.  I am very stubborn, so I tend to go down the wrong path for quite a while before I accept that it is wrong.  Despite that, I always honestly evaluated why other people were more effective employees/professionals than me.  In those cases, I would take a step back, forget my ego, and ask myself what they were doing that I was not.  I'd talk to close friends about this to analyze my conclusions and when I figured out what they were doing better I would work incorporate that into myself.  It seemed much easier to mimic the habits of successful people rather than come up with the behaviors on my own.  The fact that I don't see a lot of people doing this completely baffles me.\n\nMy experience has been limited to the tech sector but I don't see why this wouldn't generalize to other fields.  Now there are certainly fields where the supply of people overtakes the demand, but I were in that position I would give it my best shot and if it didn't work out I'd move on to something else.  Please tell me if I'm wrong.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Basic income is a horrible idea and anyone who has ever taken a basic economics class should know that. + \n + Let me start off by stating what I believe the reddit basic income theory is. From what I have read from /r/basicIncome, the idea is that in a future utopian society computers will take all of our jobs and there will be a huge number of people out of work. Basic income would be a government-issued wage that would act as a safety net for these newly underemployed/unemployed workers. \n\nI am not making this post to argue against future automation problems getting rid of jobs. Yes, jobs will require more skills and basic menial tasks may soon be replaced. But that is frictional unemployment, not structural. Its incorrect to say that because a McDonalds cashier got laid off because of a touchscreen order screen that said McDonald's worker will never work again. \n\nMany people on reddit would like to implement Basic Income today. They state that it would rid our problems with a complicated tax code, food stamps and other welfare programs. The huge issue is when you have a dead wage safety net you create a massive systematic disincentive to people to work. If people make a certain wage while working zero hours a week, why go get a job at the grocery store? The marginal value of a full time job becomes diluted. \n\nNext off, wages are considered elastic. Wages are often sticky, but they will still react to the market, especially new hires. If everyone is getting basic income, employers would simply cut costs and pay people less in wages because why not? Employees would be indifferent because they aren't netting less money, since basic income would make up the difference. Competitive wages would suffer. \n\nCMV \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think that students/workers who want to use adderall/vyvanse as an enhancer but don't have add/ADHD should be allowed to do so. + \n + So, I'm a senior in highschool right now. I fell really deep into senioritis (the condition where one has gotten into college but remains in highschool until graduation, and becomes exceedingly lazy) and managed to convince my parents that my bad grades (aka so bad I was close to NOT graduating) were a result of undiagnosed attention deficit. I've since been prescribed vyvanse. Now, the difference on this stuff is incredible. I am motivated, I am hardworking, and I am happy when I'm on it. I am a fully productive member of society when I'm on this stimulant. Furthermore, I've visited the adderall/vyavnse subreddits/forums and the consensus is mostly the same. Its a goddamned \"magic pill\". \n\n\n\nMainly, the users I read that dislike it are the ones who were put on the stuff at an exceedingly early age. Which I agree is a (for the most part) terrible thing. Especially if they never really had an attention deficit disorder.\n\nThe thing is, I don't see why we prevent people who don't have add from taking this (other than the potential for abuse). A lazy, unproductive person wants to turn himself around and become productive? I don't see why they shouldn't have the opportunity to take this. Someone needs to do some spring cleaning but can't get themselves to do it? Why *prevent* them from using this? \n\nOverall, I just see these stimulants as a tool. And furthermore, from a societal perspective, its use by people seems to be almost entirely beneficial.\n\nNow, there is the potential for abuse. I want to disregard this part for discussion, however. 2 reasons: 1) I only want to talk about the people without ADHD but who want to self-improve. 2) those who want to abuse can already do so in that its not extremely difficult to get it illegally.\n\nOne other point is that it provides an unfair advantage to students. Well, I see it as a choice. If you use it it is entirely up to the individual. The people who feel disadvantaged have an equal opportunity to get it (disregarding prices). There are already people without ADHD using the drugs, the only difference is that they pretend to have it. \n\nA final point that I think some people have is the \"zombification\" of students. I say that's bullshit though. Personally, I've never been happier with both my academics \"and* my social life. Never before have I had so much time to enjoy my free time because I'm no longer aimlessly procrastinating or taking forever to do simple assignments.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Zoos can be ethical + \n + It goes without say that mistreating zoo animals is no bueno, but I still think that zoos can be ethically justified:\n\n* The animals - especially endangered ones - can be cared for, either to preserve the species or ultimately release into the wild. If we're using the usual justification of animal rights - they can feel pain/have a life - then letting them lead a safe and happy life in captivity seems to be more moral than the dangers of the wild.\n\n* This is a less quantifiable good, but zoos let citizens see animals which they otherwise not, leading them to consider them - and the environment - when creating/voting on policies.\n\nWhile I guess the best way to C my V would be to provide overwhelming evidence that zoos provide lower quality of life for the animals than life in the wild and that there are more effective means of conserving/promoting endanger species, I'm mostly interested in values/premises I haven't considered. \n\nChange my view! :)\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe Pedophiles deserve the same rights as a Homosexual. + \n + For many years, homosexuals were penalised and even killed, simply for being a homosexual, regardless of whether they acted upon their urges or not. This still happens today.\n\nWe also see many pedophiles being penalised simply for being a pedophile, regardless of whether or not they've acted upon their urges.\n\nIf someone is revealed to be a pedophile, they are instantly put on the sex-offenders list. Even if they have not performed an illegal act.\n\n\nIt is my belief that only criminals should be punished for crimes. Intent =/= Action. Similarly Pedophile =/= Child-Molester.\n\nThere ARE child-molesting pedophiles, of course, and I do believe they should be reprimanded. They have committed a crime. Similarly, I do believe that possession and distribution of child pornography is a punishable crime. If there is a victim, there is a crime. Possessing child porn means you condone the acts depicted.\n\nThere are many pedophiles who have not committed a crime such as molestation or looked at child porn. Yet they are penalised if found out! What have they done wrong?\n\nIn a similar strain I believe lolicon (drawn depictions of child porn) should be legal, as there is no victim (so long as it wasn't traced from/inspired by real child-porn). Same goes for underage erotica (that is entirely fictitious). Both of these are protected by free-speech, and neither have a victim. If anything, they provide an outlet for sexual frustration. So why are so many websites banning such content on 'Legal Grounds'?\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: With the possible exception of the GBA incarnation, Mario Kart 64 was the worst iteration of the series. + \n + Necessary context: I am not old enough to have grown up with Mario Kart 64. The first console I ever owned (aside from my Game Boy Color) was a GameCube, and the first game I got for the system, aside from MVP Baseball '04, was Mario Kart: Double Dash. I've played the crap out of the GC, DS, Wii, and 3DS versions of the game, and have touched every other version to some extent (I own the GBA and N64 versions and play MK8 with my friend who owns a Wii U relatively often).\n\nHear me out on this one. I think Mario Kart 64 was the worst game in the series for a few reasons, some of which I'll outline here:\n\n**Course design.** With a few exceptions (Choco Mountain and Yoshi Valley, for example), I think the courses in MK64 are the most boring courses in the Mario Kart Series by far, not counting SNES and GBA. And while it's easy to make the case that course design steadily improved with each game as more material became available and more memory was available to devote to each course, I think that the courses in MK64, SNES MK, and GBA MK were significantly, significantly worse than any of the other games' courses. The courses in these games are often flat and uninteresting, not particularly dynamic in terms of interesting turns or bits of track, and (especially with MK64) far too long. I think it's possible to have relatively gimmick-light courses which are still exceptionally fun (courses like the DS' DK Pass and the Gamecube's Dry Dry Desert did this very well), and I think that most of the N64's courses failed to accomplish this - they were largely dull, slow courses which were too large and monotonous to stand up very well. (And no, being able to skip half of Rainbow Road very much does not make that course any less of an absolute slog.) It has some of my least favorite courses in any Mario Kart game - Toad's Turnpike, Moo Moo Farm, and Rainbow Road are some of the worst MK courses I've played. I'm willing to give the SNES a pass for poor course design given exceedingly limited memory and the fact that it was one of the first games to really play with 3D in such a revolutionary way (as well as the fact that it, well, started the franchise, and therefore was allowed to have prototype bugs). I'm also willing to give the GBA version somewhat of a pass, given that it was the first mobile title and was on a tiny screen, though I also really don't like the course design there. But the N64 version? Not so much. The differences between the courses in the N64 and Gamecube games is so staggering that it's tough to give the former as much of a pass.\n\n**Graphics.** Call me crazy, but I liked the SNES game's graphics a lot more than those of the N64's version. The N64 had some absolutely beautiful games for the time - Mario 64, Majora's Mask, and Banjo-Kazooie are all phenomenal-looking games. Compared to those, MK64 is flat-out ugly. The character models are very blocky and way too angular, the trails behind shells look gross, and the \"POOMP\" effects are really, for lack of a better term, \"immersion-breaking.\" Especially compared to the very clean graphics of the previous console's incarnation (SNES) and the beautiful graphics of the next version (DD), MK64's graphics are particularly egregious.\n\n**Rubber-banding.** It's bad in all Mario Kart games, but it's especially flagrant in MK64. In no other MK game I've played have I held a commanding lead and then literally seen second place *teleport* right behind me. They don't even do it the justice of speeding the player up - Wario or Peach or whoever will literally fade away and reform right behind me. I'm fine with rubber-banding (or more tolerant of, at least) as long as it's \"believable,\" and MK64's rubber-banding is one hundred percent not that.\n\nAs far as I can tell, the only thing MK64 really has going for it is its four-player multiplayer. This is huge, sure, but it would have probably come anyway - the SNES already had two-player multiplayer, and giving a game a pass just because four players can play it together doesn't mean all that much. Plus, I'd argue that pretty much every other game's multiplayer was better - what with online modes in almost every later incarnation and better balancing for all four players and some of the best battle modes we've seen yet in Double Dash and Funky Stadium in Wii, I'd argue that 64 was good multiplayer-wise but not good enough to elevate it above any of the other games (with the exception of the GBA edition, whose multiplayer was naturally near-impossible to implement).\n\nSo, CMV. I assume many of y'all feel pretty passionately about the quality of MK64, so this should shape up to be an interesting thread!\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: It is neither derogatory nor a promotion of sexual assault when heterosexual males express their desire to have sex with females. + \n + I believe that in our current society, heterosexual men are often shamed for expressing their sexuality. Obviously, any specific incident in which a heterosexual male is criticized may or may not be misogynistic based the context of the situation. So this post is mainly inspired by a recent event in the news when a fraternity was suspended for posting banners on their house. You can read about it [here](http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Virginia-Fraternity-Suspended-Over-Freshman-Daughter-Drop-Off-Sign-322740331.html) or [here](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/08/24/virginia-frat-suspended-old-dominion-university/32298193/) \n\nThe basic summary is that a fraternity posted signs with the following messages: \n\n\n\n\nin response, the university president made the following statement equating the posters to condoning sexual assault:\n\n\nIt is my view that the banners posted by the fraternity are merely expressing their desire to have sex with women, and never say anything about sexual assault. Equating the two is a fallacy, and is unfair to the men who made the posters. \n\nFurthermore, the Fraternity president made the following statement equating the posters to demeaning women:\n\n\nIt is my view that no part of these banners were derogatory or demeaning to anyone. They might be vulgar because they carry a sexual implication, but implying a desire to have sex with women is not inherently demeaning to women. Equating vulgar language with demeaning women is also a fallacy.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: r/cmv top replies are not usually disagreeing points of view + \n + Hey, I have been using this subreddit for around 2 years now, and I have some qualms about the community.\n\nMost of the top replies (the ones that are expected to change the view of the OP) usually disregard and ignore the original view.\n\nRight now there is a thread about bikers being assholes. The top reply is someone saying, \"not all bikers, there are some exceptions\"\n\nwhile that's true, I'd imagine that the vast majority of people still feel that bikers in general are assholes. [Even south park made an episode about them](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGyKBFCd_u4). \n\n\nThe top replies don't address the view of bikers being assholes in general. the response is \"not all\" but it doesn't change the view, and the exception is not the rule.\n\nI keep finding this issue, people find one little exception and then suddenly that's the most popular post. I rarely find a top post that addresses the whole of the OP, but rather takes one part out, nit picks it and that's what rises to the top.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Despite being very liberal otherwise, I feel strongly that we should have the right to bear arms + \n + In general, I understand that having guns around increases homicide rates and suicides and all that, but I don't think the answer is to ban guns altogether.\n\n1. I do think that criminals will get guns either way.\n\n2. I believe that a lot of the increased homicides that come from increased gun availability come from improper gun education. Too many stories of kids finding their parents' guns and getting hurt. In such situations, the guns should have been put in a vault or something.\n\n3. Crazy people are beyond reason. If someone comes into your home with a gun, being without a gun sounds terrifying. Sometimes it's the only thing stopping you from getting killed.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Fear mongers like (The Thinking Mom's Revolution and the Food Babe) and woo sellers like(Dr. Oz and Teresa Caputo) should be applauded and not disliked. + \n + This people are selling good feelings. Not really being able to talk to the dead or a magic pill to lose weight. They are like movies or video games. They sell a happy time and its not their fault if you believe them. If you watch Independence Day and really think aliens are invading Earth, its not Will Smith's fault even though says in the movie that aliens are invading Earth. They are entrepreneurs that have found a unique way of selling things. They aren't actually hurting anybody. People pay Teresa Caputo money and in return they get good feelings.  Nobody is being hurt by her.  The Food Babe may use psuedoscience and have people avoid food that doesn't actually hurt them, but people feel good about. They feel good paying extra money for her sponsors food then buying \"junk food\".  The Thinking Mom's Revolution gives answers to parents on why their children are autistic. Sure the information is wrong. But they feel better knowing its not their fault.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Free will cannot possibly exist in a universe in which there exists a god that is both omniscient and omnipotent. + \n + First off this assumes a Compatiblist view of free will. I believe that there is no \"natural\" free will. We are all chemical systems, and, as such, all decisions we make are really the inevitable result of the laws of physics. Even assuming quantum mechanics adds some amount of randomness, our actions are still the result of their nature, and not the other way around. Although this is the nature of the universe, I don't use it to inform my morality. It is just an observation of: What must happen will happen. To try and derive a morality from this would be fatalistic and essentially nihilistic in its practice. Since I don't think we know what will happen, in a lot of cases, that we can pursue what ought to happen and that that will make what must happen and what ought to happen become one in the same. And it is this ability to pursue that, with a mind that FEELS independent of nature that is the important thing. As long as we FEEL we can think independently of nature, we effectively can to it. And that's all that matters\n\n-\n\nThe other definition of free will, our ability to take actions independent of the intent of others, and independent of impulse, is alive, although not absolute. We are all hugely the product of the manipulations of other individuals. Our parents, our friends. We can deviate from them, but often we won't through pressure, apathy, or just our brain socially indoctrinating itself to fit in with its surroundings. But, to varying degrees, we each have free will, that is a will independent of the will of others. And some wills are more free than others, but all wills are at least a LITTLE free.\n\n-\n\nBut, if there did exist a god with omnipotence and omniscience, then I believe that it is logically impossible for free will of that second kind to exist in a universe in which that God exists. That second kind of free will can exist because of two things: 1: No will belongs to a conscious being with enough power, in either itself or the resources it controls, to completely control the will of others. 2: No will belongs to a conscious being with enough knowledge, in either itself of the resources it controls, to know how to completely control the will of others, or how its actions will effect the will of others. If either one of these conditions are met, then free will is severely compromised. And if both of these conditions are met then it is completely compromised. A God with omniscience will know EXACTLY how each of his actions is going to effect the universe upon which it acts. And if that God is also omnipotent, then he can cause anything he wishes to occur to occur exactly as he wants it. He would be able to and know exactly how to tailor the nature of any universe he creates or comes into contact with in such a way that the events he wants to unfold, must unfold exactly as he wants them to in that universe. He would not be oblivious to the consequences of any action he took, thus there could be no unintended consequences. Everything must therefore be intended by his will. But free will, as I said in the beginning of the second paragraph, is our ability to make actions that are independent of the intent of others. Therefore, free will cannot exist in a universe in which there exists a conscious will that is omniscient and omnipotent. OTHER than that of the god itself.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Zoos are morally wrong (animal rights standpoint not environmental) + \n + I believe that zoos are morally wrong. I understand that zoos do some good in taking in endangered animals, but only a relatively small percentage of the animals in the zoo are endangered in the first place and I don't believe that the majority of the animals should sufferer for the benefit of the smaller. Side note, sanctuaries exist for this reason. They are capable of handling one animal well and they can also make money from donations/tours.\n\nEven then, the endangered animals do not belong in a zoo. Endangered species are not sentient. The individual animal is. The individual animal has right to freedom, even if that means becoming extinct. Extinction in the wild is not an excuse to continue keeping individuals in captivity. The survival of the species does not justify the loss of freedom for the individuals in captivity.\n\nSecondly, animals in captivity experience many mental illness signs such as depression, PTSD, shakes among others. These are symptoms that aren't seen in their wild counterparts. Some chimpanzees have even been seen to self-mutilate, repetitive rocking and consumption of feces, which again, are not seen in wild counterparts.\n\nNow, these symptoms are usually seen in lab monkeys (which I will not be going into) however, this has also been seen in monkeys living in good zoos. All 40 of the observed chimps did some kind of abnormal behavior, ranging from poking their own eyes and other body parts, drinking urine, pulling their hair, bang themselves against surfaces and other things that wild chimps don't do.\n\n\nThirdly, animals are killed that have certain diseases. I can't recall the exact article, however there were a group of monkeys in a zoo (I think they may have been in England) they had a disease that was nonfatal to them. In the wild these monkeys would live normal lives and do monkey things. However, this disease is fatal to humans, and as suck they put them all down. Now while I believe this is a rather rare scenario, it can happen. \n\n\nLastly, and I *know* this will be brought up because it's brought up a lot. People always mention how good zoos are for showing children animals they would otherwise never get to see in person. While I do agree this is a good thing, and it makes children appreciate the world (and get into science more at a young age) I do believe that museums can fill this same role, and without the moral issues that I brought up. \n\n\nTo summarize, I don't think that the pros of zoos outweight the cons. You wouldn't say the that [insert hate group/military group] is good because they protect their own people. You can't subtract the bad because of some good things.\n\nIf I had to give this post a TL;DR it would basically be: Zoos are immoral places that do some good, but in the end, I believe that anything a zoo does well, a museum or sanctuary can do better.\n\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:I think we should define \"man\" and \"woman\" biologically relating to sex organs/hormones + \n + Yes, another thread about transgender people on CMV.Sorry, if this particular view was already expressed and I also don't mean to offend anyone. I am in full support of people living their lives as they please and transitioning if they please.I also believe that gender dysphoria is an innate trait related to hormones and genes like homosexuality/bisexuality.\n\n\nI had a discussion with one of my long time friends which was born with female genitalia and who identifies as male. This person often gets angry when people refer to him as \"she\" or a \"girl\"(this person looks female). To him, he is a male, a transgender male.\n\nNow,my understanding is that a transgender individual is one who doesn't identify as the sex they were assigned at birth.(Ex: feeling like you are a woman when you possess a penis and testicles)\n\nTo my friend being a man/male would basically be defined as the following.Personally, I found his definition circular,hence flawed, as it seemed he was using the very term he was trying to define within the definition.Man: Person who identifies as a man.\n\nThe arguments generally used against my stance of defining it according to sex organs are the grey areas one may encounter doing so, for example intersexed people.However, I'd argue a circular definition is worse than one with grey areas as it outright doesn't tell us what we're trying to define.Other responses seem to be that we ought to define according to neurology/psychology of individuals being more masculine/feminine, hence not using the \"X: Person who identifies as X\". However, I feel that a psychological portrait ( and hence neurological portrait) is going to generate a greater amount of grey areas than a general physiological one.I also don't understand why we would reject an account based on physiological properties like sex organs/hormones, but then use the brain instead which is a much more complex and less accessible system and hence harder to use for classification.\n\nDefinitions are not objective facts ,they are subjective association that we make between terms and concepts for the sole purpose mainly to facilitate discussion and communication. There is no logical reason \"a plane figure with four equal straight sides and four right angles.\" as to be the term \"square\" anymore then it has to be term \"carr\u00e9\".\n\nI personally agree with what somebody else said on the issue of definitions in general \"there are no good or bad definitions just useful ones\" which. A definition should be as clear as possible, we should favor definition which are less vague. A definition should not be circular as it doesn't really tell us anything, how could we understand the definition fully  when the whole reason we are looking at it is because we're unaware of the sense of one of it's components?\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Lying to the FBI shouldn't be a crime unless it actually covers something up. + \n + Currently, [it is a crime to lie to any federal officer.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001)  It is an astoundingly severe crime too, carrying a maximum sentence up to *five years in prison.*  Under the current law, it is a very serious felony to make any materially false statement to any federal agent.\n\nThis law is routinely abused by the government to give them leverage over defendants.  [Ken White at Popehat describes how:](http://popehat.com/2011/12/01/reminder-oh-wont-you-please-shut-up/)\n\n\n\nI think there should be no crime here unless it can be proven that the falsehood actually impeded an investigation in a meaningful manner.  Also, I think the penalty should be much less severe, more like a misdemeanor. \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I don't support GMO's. I believe altering Mother Nature is wrong and could cause (and probably already have) serious problems. + \n + \nI do not support GMO's and do not want to consume them. Many other countries have restricted GMO's because they don't consider them safe alternatives. I personally don't believe that we should mess with the composition of the natural world. Especially on this level, where about 80% of our food is GMO in the U.S. We don't know enough about it to widely accept them in the country, as there could be long-term effects. We already know cancer, obesity, heart disease, autism, mental illness( especially anxiety and depression), and diabetes is a growing problem. \n\nWith this whole GMO labeling issue going on right now I definitely think everyone has the right to know what they are eating, because not everyone wants to consume food that's in essence a science experiment. ", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: White North American Jews have an irrational persecution complex + \n + Growing up Jewish in Canada, I was taught that Jews are always under threat of extermination - whether by the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Persians, and more recently the Nazis. While fear of extermination would indeed be justified in 1930s Europe, fear of extermination by Islamic terrorists continues today even in Canada and the US. I've even heard that ISIS is going to exterminate the Jews, even though ISIS has not killed a single Jewish person to this date.\n\nThere is a widely-held view in Jewish circles that the UN is inherently anti-Semitic even though the majority of permanent members of the UN Security Council are very pro-Israel. UN troops never interfere with Israeli military operations and one of the first UN resolutions was the establishment of the State of Israel. Still, extremist groups like the JDL (Jewish Defence League) attract support from mainstream Jewish organizations, despite their classification as a terrorist group.\n\nThe Jewish community seems to think that their politicians at home persecute them as well. I know so many liberal Jews who will vote for a right-wing party just because they scream their unwavering support for Israel the loudest. Currently, every single major candidate running for President of the United States or Prime Minister of Canada has declared their staunch support for Israel; even left-wingers like Bernie Sanders and Canada's frontrunner Tom Mulcair.\n\nMeanwhile, white cops are killing black kids at a horrifying rate but the Jewish community is still focused on their own supposed persecution. When the Charleston shooting broke out, my synagogue had one moment of silence then continued with its Israel fundraiser. My theory is that North American Jewish culture has developed an irrational persecution complex due to past persecution ritualistically retold every Hanukkah, Passover, Purim, Yom Ha'Shoah, etc. I realize this may come off as anti-Semetic and indeed my own family has called me a \"self-hating Jew\", although I think this only reinforces my point. Will someone change my view?", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I am personally against sunscreen and it is a fight with my wife about using it on our daughter. + \n + In my life I only remember getting sunburns on the days that I wore sunscreen.  Throughout my life this has developed a dislike of sunscreen.  I doubt anyone would ever change my mind about my personal usage (I believe mild amounts of sun are beneficial and if you have planned prolong exposure you can 'build up' your ability to withstand the sun).\n\nI would love to change my view about sunscreen on my daughter though (as its the source of a huge fight with my wife), but I don't see how slathering her in lotions and salves (no matter how safe/organic) is a more effective course than cycling exposure with in sun time and no sun time, etc. and building up exposure times if a trip or such deems necessary.\n\nIf we were planning on taking a trip to the beach or somewhere else with extended sun exposure I would much rather dress my daughter in protective pants/hoodie.  I would definitely prefer to put a loose mud all over her body than sunscreen.\n\nCan someone convince me that I NEED to allow my daughter to wear sunscreen\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: faith is a force for evil in the world + \n + For the sake of discussion I will be referring to this definition of faith. \n\nFaith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof\n\nor in simpler language\n\nClaiming to know something without evidence or proof.\n\nI am modifying the definition to make clear that while there may or may not be evidence for something, it is not about there not being evidence, it is about you not having it when claiming to know something. \n\nEvil will, for the purposes of clarity, be something which diminishes wellbeing. Good would be something which promotes wellbeing. \n\nIn a wide variety of different areas we can see different ideas playing out, with many different views in direct competition. Religions make claims about the universe they cannot back up, scientists don't know all the answers to everything but are conservative in stating what they do know. Homeopaths claim their magic water has a memory and can fix any issue, but can't show it to be true. Chiropractors claim that the spine becomes misaligned through subluxations and this inhibits the flow of the vital force, causing illness, yet when asked to show a subluxation they can't show anything, and more interestingly conflict with each other. Acupuncturists claim that points on the body correspond with other places, and that piercing a point with a needle they can create theraputic results, but they can't even agree on which points to use. Terrorists, politicians, homo economis economists, and so on.\n\nAll of these groups use faith as their primary epistemology and therefore are immune from correction. When you use faith as your method for knowing about the world you can never get closer to the truth and therefore become opposed to someone out there. \n\nI think this leads to much if the conflict we see in the world. \n\nSo, my contention is as follows. Faith, claiming to know something you don't have evidence for, is a force for evil, and therefore degrades human wellbeing. ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: No matter how cool Bernie Sanders seems, he will accomplish none of his campaign promises because Congress. + \n + Bernie Sanders is running a campaign on promises like free college and getting money out of politics. Nearly everything I've heard his campaign promise requires congressional action. As a congressman Bernie Sanders knows that.\n\nFrom the [Huffington Post](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/26/bernie-sanders-2016_n_7446570.html) : \"Among the specific items on his campaign platform include establishing a $15 minimum wage, closing the gender pay gap, investing $1 trillion over five years to rebuild infrastructure, and overturning the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision\"\n\nEach of those things requires new legislation. With 16 years in the House and 2 terms in the Senate Sanders should be familiar with the limits of each branch of government. This makes me think he knows he can't win so he is recklessly promising absurd things. When he inevitably loses and the winning candidate fails to deliver on the impossible goals he set out he can say \"I would have done it differently\" but we should know better. Even if he wins, he'll blame Congress for blocking his agenda. The only way he can possibly accomplish anything he promises is if 1) He wins the presidential election, 2) Like-minded democrats win a majority in BOTH houses of congress. Which, while it would be cool, is only possible in some incredibly unlikely fantasy land.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Constitutional \"originalist\" interpretation of the Eighth Amendment cannot justify taking inflation into account, and thus any bail or fine that the Framers and/or Americans in general would have considered excessive in 1791 should be considered unconstitutional by originalists. + \n + Originalism is a constitutional interpretive doctrine in which one reads the provisions of the Constitution to retain the meaning that they had when they were originally adopted.  Thus, an originalist (such as Justice Scalia) would say that if the First Amendment was not understood to prohibit public school prayer in 1791, it should not do so today; and if the Fourteenth Amendment was not understood to guarantee a right to same-sex marriage in 1868, it should not do so today.  The rationale for this is that the people, through their representatives, only actually properly ratified those original meanings, so those are the only meanings that should be considered law.  I take no position, in this post, on the correctness of this general originalist philosophy or its underlying justification, except that at the very least I don't think it's blatantly *un*-reasonable.\n\nIn interviews and concurrences/dissents, Scalia often brings up the Eighth Amendment in explaining his philosophy, and his frustration with the idea that current Supreme Court precedent applies the \"evolving standards of decency\" test, which he passionately opposes. As I understand it, the standard originalist argument against the extension of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments clause of the Eighth Amendment to, say, the death penalty, goes something like this:\n\n* The people adopted the Eighth Amendment in 1791, and thus forbade \"cruel and unusual punishments\".  \n* Another amendment (the Fifth) adopted at the same time specified some rights of a defendant charged with a capital offense.  Captial offense means one you can be executed for.\n* Moreover, they kept on executing felons afterwards, and no one really thought this was incompatible with the Bill of Rights they had just passed.\n* Thus, the Eighth Amendment can't possibly prohibit the death penalty.\n\nOf course, this is entirely correct, assuming principles of originalism.  So, thus, the originalist-interpreted Eighth Amendment prohibits only those punishments that were considered \"cruel and unusual\" in 1791.\n\nNow, I think it has to go the other way, too.  So if, hypothetically, the modern government wanted to torture someone as punishment, I think any originalist would have to call that unconstitutional as well, even if there was popular support for it, since that was clearly one of the things the Eighth Amendment proscribed when it was adopted.  \n\nSo, it seems to me that the proper originalist reading of the Eighth Amendment is one where it prohibits some discrete set of punishments (such as those involving torture), a set whose elements are defined as those punishments that the Framers and/or American society would have found \"cruel and unusual\" (compared to the crime) in 1791, and that set cannot ever change, regardless of how society or the Supreme Court or anything else changes.  Nothing can be added to or removed from that set without a Constitutional amendment.  \n\nFine.  But what basis is there, then, for not using the same rule when interpreting the *other* provisions of the Eighth Amendment?  If the same logic is used, the Excessive Bail and Excessive Fines clauses should be interpreted as forbidding a discrete set of bail amounts and fines (paired with certain crimes) that were considered \"excessive\" by the Framers and/or American society in 1791.  **And that set can never change, regardless of how society or the Supreme Court or anything else changes.**\n\nI can't think of any reason why inflation, which I think can be fairly described as \"evolving standards of currency\", should be seen as fundamentally different from the same \"evolving standards of decency\" factor that Scalia and other originalists object to so strongly.  During oral argument in *Hollingsworth v. Perry*, Scalia asked the respondents' attorney when prohibiting same-sex marriage became unconstitutional.  Scalia's own answer to that, of course, would be \"not in 1868, obviously, which means never\".  In that same vein, though, when did it *cease* to be unconstitutional to set bail at $1 million, which would surely have been considered ludicrously excessive for *any* bailable offense in 1791?\n\nI don't think most originalists actually hold this view, but I really don't see a principled reason why not, and so as a result, this is my view.  That said, I honestly do believe there likely is such a reason, and that I just haven't thought of it.  So, CMV.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think the United States should confiscate the estimated $32 Trillion hidden from Uncle Sam in Tax Havens + \n + I think that the [$32 Trillion](http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/22/us-offshore-wealth-idUSBRE86L03U20120722) could be put to much better use than tax dodging, white collar crime, money laundering, terrorism, and drug cartels that characterize it now.\n\nThe plan could be simple.  Let Marines keep 1% of whatever they confiscate ($320 billion), let the DoD keep 5% ($1.6 Trillion) and tell them to use it to stop all future tax haven schemes, let 4% go to foreign aid to pay off the complaining countries and let others in on the deal to make sure it's popular internationally ($1.3 Trillion).  \n\nThen you have 90% left.  Let 53% go to zeroing out the total US government debt ($17 trillion).  Now you have 37% left.  Let 7% of it ($2.2 Trillion) go to rebuilding infrastructure.  You still have 30% left.  Let 25% of it ($8 trillion) go to sure up Medicare and Social Security.  You still have 5% left.  Use that for discretionary funds.\n\nThe US would be in fantastic shape.  Well enough to move into the next century stronger than any other nation by far.  \n\nI can't imagine a good reason to leave this kind of crooked cash on the table.  It's estimated that $900 billion of it is owed in taxes to the US anyways.  There's no reason to be utilizing these havens if you're obeying the letter and spirit of the law.\n\nEven if we just went after taxes due and issued sanctions, we'd get a cool trillion out of it, which could be used to great effect.\n\nWhy are we just leaving all this money in crooked little unarmed taxhavens without putting up a fight?\n\nIran never robbed us for hundreds of billions of dollars.  Grand Cayman did...\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Turning right on red from the \"outside lane\" or \"left right turn lane\" should be legal in most cases. + \n + As can be seen in [this image](http://mediaassets.naplesnews.com/photo/2014/05/20/0716_NCLO_Know1_4963231_ver1.0_640_480.JPG), in most places in the U.S. (and maybe elsewhere that right-on-red is allowed?), it is legal to turn right on red from the inmost lane, but if there is more than one right-only turn lane, all others are prohibited from turning right on red.\n\n\nI do not see why this is.  If it is legal to turn right on red after checking for incoming traffic from your left in one lane, why would it not be in another?  I don't think there is a significant likelihood of cars from more than one turn lane crashing into each other.\n\nI also don't think it likely that a vehicle turning right on red from the leftmost right turn lane would be more likely to collide with oncoming traffic.  Surely he would check both lanes of traffic before turning, just as the inside lane would check the rightmost incoming traffic lane as well as whether there is anyone that might be changing lanes into his lane before the intersection.\n\nHowever, I imagine that someone somewhere had a reason for making this a law, so I am quite willing to change my view if given reasoning as to why turning right on red from anything but the inside lane is predominantly illegal.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Burritos are better than sandwiches + \n + Now, I understand that there are places where sandwiches are the better option, namely in the land of toasted bread, but overall I feel that most any sandwich can be made better by becoming a burrito/wrap.\n\nBurritos are much more transportable, being easily held in the hand and having an aspect ratio more close to that of the human mouth, are much easier to eat without making a mess.\n\nThey are capable of holding a wider array of fillings, not being limited to things which will hold together under their own tensions, such as rice, beans, chopped lettuce, peppers and so on.\n\nTortillas are \"healthier\" than equivalent bread (as required for filling security). Of course this is entirely dependent on the types etc, taking a 1 to 1, assuming your \"average\" tortilla/wrap is equivalent to 2 slices of bread, it's fewer calories in the tortilla (in general).\n\nSo, why aren't burritos as good as sandwiches?\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Parents of fat children should be prosecuted just the same as pet owners who over feed their pets. + \n + In the UK we view cruelty to pets as terrible and prosecute and even ban pet owners from keeping them because the pets are vulnerable and cannot regulate their meals and feed themselves.\n\nThis is exactly the same for children. Parents dictate the child's diet and over feed and choose the wrong food types. If they consistently do this the child becomes obese and this has massive implications for the rest of their lives. Eating habits that have been learnt or not corrected , even right down to \"fussy eaters\" then gets passed on through generations and is the route cause for a massive percentage of the population.\n\nWe skim past the obesity argument because we don't want to offend and then because we turn a blind eye nothing gets fixed.\n\nPunish and educate the parents just the same as a fat cat owner.\n\nChildren are more important than pets.\n\nChange my view", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:Climate change should be the dominant international issue for politicians and activists today. + \n + Scientists widely accept that climate change is real. Consequently, they say that it will lead to extreme weather, a raise in the sea level, increased acidity of the ocean, reduced sea and ice cover, and drought. These effects will in turn impact not only human's general well-being, but will also displace coastal settlements and cities, negatively effect food sources, destroy ecosystems, and more.\nFurthermore,\n\nThus, I think the number one concern for the human race as a whole should be climate change, and I find it hard to justify any other causes. Yes, human rights and the economy are important, immediate concerns--But, in the end, it won't matter in if the planet becomes uninhabitable. So climate change and efforts to reverse or combat it should be the dominant issue in the world now. Instead, of focusing on raising the minimum wage or gay rights, we should devote most of our resources and energy to solving climate change.\nI'm liberal. I think there are tons of important issues that we need to address--education, gun control, mental health, women's rights--but these issues should be secondary to protecting our home.\n\nChange my view!\n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I don't believe a person can be truly compassionate before having experienced a prolonged state of egolessness. + \n + I have a general feeling about whether a person has experienced living without ego or not by observation of where they place the importance of their own wants against the needs of others. From this, it is my belief that a person cannot be actively compassionate in every day life when they have not experienced the falseness of self because the ego is the only self they are truly aware of.\n\nCompassion being defined as being able to possess a love for all beings that is as great as that for the self and the closest people in their lives.\n\nTruly compassionate being defined as actively compassionate in every day life for all those that they can have an effect on.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The reddit-famous \"Correlation does not equal causation\" cop-out needs to be revamped. + \n + Just a while ago there was a post on /r/athiesm I think?  About graphs that showed similar heat signatures on a US map of where the bible belt was and another map of something negative that was pronounced in the same area.  The argument being that being religious was a cause of this other negative attribute.  While I do agree that those maps aren't \"necessarily\" related, they *could* be, and one of the top comments being the famous \"Correlation does not equal causation\" was posted to refute it.\n\nOkay I decided to stop being lazy and [found it.](http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/3a5yid/these_3_maps_seems_to_be_similar/?ref=share&ref_source=link)\n\nIn my opinion, this is a popular cop-out reasoning that is posted and highly valued on reddit as truth, and it needs to be re-vamped to say \"Correlation does not necessarily equal causation.\"\n\nMy argument is simple and is portrayed through an example: My workers have been moving slower and are less productive recently, and I post a notice on the bulletin board that someone will be fired by the end of the month if productivity isn't increased.  I look at the end of the month and productivity *has* greatly increased .  Now, it is technically true that it could be possible that me threatening them to speed up wasn't the causation to them actually speeding up, even though it was correlated, but lets be realistic. It is only in these simple scenario's that the blurred line is a lot more simple, and in ones like the reddit post above, the information given is far more complicated.  But just because the information is more complicated, doesn't mean that we should imply there isn't a possibility of the causation *actually* being correlated by making the bold statement \"Correlation does not equal causation\" as opposed to \"Correlation does not necessarily equal causation.\"\n\n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Obesity is caused by potassium deficient food. + \n + I proposed it here to show how implausble the high-carb theory is, but it actually seems to look less and less crazy the more I look into it and I would like to know if there are any obvious flaws that I've missed.\n\nIt fits the epidemiology much better than anything else. People start getting fat soon after they start eating food grown by modern agriculture, no matter what kind of food it is.\n\nIt's easy to save on potassium, since it only affects quality, not quantity of crops, unless the deficiency reaches extreme levels. Even when it does, the symptoms are easily mistaken for drought or pest damage. Large quantities of K are held in the soil, so it may take decades until the symptoms show and it's more profitable in the short term to not fertilize with K or at least add less than is being removed. K fertilizers were reportedly piling up during the recent economic recession, since nobody was buying them.\n\nPotassium and sodium salts were only distingushed by modern chemistry, so presumably table salt often also contained potassium in premodern times. (this is further evidenced by some ancient sources recommending adding salt to fertilizer for better tasting fruit, but KCl is used for that purpose, while NaCl is harmful to plants)\n\nIn America, the depletion probably already started early during the industrial revolution, when the importance for soil fertility was not understood and the ash from cleared fields was collected for potash and exported to Europe.\n\nPotassium rich foods were the first to be obviously affected. During the 20th century, vegetables became popularly known as something basically inedible, that you force yourself to eat because it's healthy, rather than something that is added to food for flavor, or even (carrots) as a sweetener.\n\nSupermarkets and fastfood chains further made it worse by caring only about cost and not quality. While the taste of low potassium food is different, it looks the same. It explains why fast food is associated with obesity, despite the food often not being inherently unhealthy. A piece of ground meat, vegetables, mustard and a bun is nothing unhealthy, it actually looks like a balanced diet. Other things like HFCS could also be associated with obesity only because they are commonly used to make low quality food palatable.\n\nIt explains why rich people are usually spared and why obesity is associated with low quality food, rather than any specific kind of food.\n\nIt explains why animals are affected.\n\nIt explains why switching diets helps some people, but with no observable pattern, except that the food is \"higher quality\".\n\nIt explains why most people seem to remember that food used to taste better, why western grown food is associated with poor quality in many so far less affected countries and why it's trivially easy to grow your own food that is literally incomparable in taste with most store bought food.\n\nThe fact that people strongly prefer potassium rich food itself suggests it's in some way important for us, otherwise there would be no reason to evolve the ability to taste the difference.\n\nRats too have been shown to be able to taste and seek potassium when deprived of it.\n\nThe symptoms of potassium deficiency also closely resemble many obesity related diseases - feeling weak and tired, depression, muscle pain, dysregulated blood sugar levels and pressure, heart problems...\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Transgender is a form of Body Dysmorphia + \n + Ok, so let me start off by saying that I have no problem with the LGBT community, I feel everyone should be able to make their own decisions regarding their bodies.  This is more of a curiosity than a set in 'view', but is Transgender a form of Body Dysmorphia?  If you look at the primary issues in a case of Body Dysmorphia it involves a person not satisfied or sometimes even disgusted by their current physical body.  This often leads them to making surgical corrections to feel more comfortable with themselves.  Isn't this the same as a person who is Transgendered?  They feel uncomfortable being the physical sex they are because they feel that they are the opposite gender, so they seek out surgical alteration to feel more at ease with themselves.  Is there a difference here that I'm missing?  Please change my view.  ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: People who drive loud cars and motorcycles are inconsiderate assholes + \n + It's my view that people that drive motorcylces and cars with those loud mufflers are simply inconsiderate in that they don't care about other's peace and quiet.  \n  \nI've always found them annoying, say you're reading or studying at a cafe and they roar by louder than an invading Mongolian horde. God forbid they stop at a light since now you're stuck listening to that ungodly chortle for a good minute or so.  \n  \nI'm a single parent now and live by a fairly well travelled road. They wake my baby up consistently, and he has a hard time with his sleeping habits.  \n  \nIt's a choice to make your vehicle that loud, not a necessity. On top of that, the rider or driver does not have to hear his most of his own racket since most of the sound is projected backwards.  \n  \nThese people are assholes. I wish I could wake them up every 15 minutes with their own stupid vehicle.\n\n  \nI had no idea this post would get this big and, as much as I'd like to, I can't possibly hope to discuss this with all of you. Thank you to everyone, on both sides of the issue, for your reasoned and very interesting replies.  \n  \nThe argument that got me closest to changing my view was surely that of safety. Other people are saying being loud is not as important for safety as actually driving well on a motorcycle, and this seems to be coming from cyclists as well, so unless I see some sort of peer reviewed study over anecdotal evidence that line of thinking isn't doing it for me.\n  \nMy favorite arguments were those along the lines of \"It's a free country, you're the one that's being inconsiderate by expecting the riders to be silent.\" The image of some tatted up Hell's Angel roaring through town and impinging on the hearing of 500 people and then screaming \"IM BEING OPPRESSED\" when someone suggests he tones down the throttle is simply delicious.  A special thank you to everyone who called me a pussy via PM. It's good to know you care so much.\n  \nI also learned that the sound that irritates so many of us so well is the sound of straight pipe exhausts. Cheers all!  \n  \n  \n/u/ToastitoTheBandito did manage to change my view on this. [Here is the link to his comment](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3bfrve/cmv_people_who_drive_loud_cars_and_motorcycles/csmj6kc)  Thank you Toastito, and thank you for being considerate to others.\n  \nJust a caveat here, there's a few comments in this thread that highlight the problem with some drivers very well. I'm not gonna call anyone out by name but the gist is that I'm annoyed over a minor inconvenience and I should get over it, people like driving loud cars and they're gonna keep doing it.   \n  \nI don't think any new parent would call it a minor inconvenience after spending 30 minutes putting a baby to sleep only to be woken up 5 minutes into his nap by a purposely loud vehicle. **But this post isn't JUST about me, or my baby.** These drivers drive past countless people. People who are gravely ill. People who own dogs that will shit on the carpet because they're scared of the sound. Nursing homes. Someone with a migraine headache. People who work the night shift. And all these little acts, each one is a little fuck you from the driver. And all these little fuck yous add up to one huge mega fuck you to your community. **People with empathy get mad at this not just because it inconveniences them but because they know it inconveniences many others as well and the act is seen as grossly disrespectful because of that.**  \n  \nOne PM I got said:  \n  \n  \nHe doesn't take the time to think, \"How will my actions affect those around me? Is there any chance the thing I am about to do will harm someone, and, if that is the case, should I still do the thing?\" No, this person doesn't give a shit. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the very essence of being inconsiderate. ^and^an^asshole\n ", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Direct democracy is more sustainable than representative democracy. + \n + My main points against representative democracy are:\n\n* People vote for their own interests, and representatives are no different.\n\n* At some point(probably due to the accumulation of too much money in too few hands) the desires of the smaller group of representatives clash with the desires of the many. People get fed up with living under plutocracies that they feel they can't trust.\n\n* If democracy is a scale from 1-100, where that's a percentage of who gets to vote, so a dictatorship would probably be 0.000029%, and representative democracy might be 0.05%, then it implies that people who are partial towards democracy would prefer the ideal state of 100% democracy. If you prefer less than 100%, then you inherently think *some people don't deserve to have their desires represented*, and are by definition against the ideas of democracy.\n\n* There isn't a practical selection process whereby we could choose people to do what's best for others. A meritocracy is unachievable, because there is no good process to select them. Which leads us to -->\n\n* If we think that people are smart enough to elect representatives, why are they not smart enough to vote on legislation directly?\n\n* Participation in sites like reddit prove that people want direct democracy; which in government would be the ability to create and vote on legislation as if it were a post. \n\nWhich is why representative democracies everywhere seem to have devolved into plutocracies. People are getting fed up with it, and starting to support non-establishment candidates or parties.\n\nWhich is exactly what we're seeing, in new political parties like the pirate party, podemos, syriza, which all tend toward direct democracy. Even countries without strong direct democracy movements, are having candidates trending in that direction: bernie sanders and jeremy Corbyn. \n\n\nIt seems inevitable that our governmental systems trend from power being concentrated in one person, to becoming more decentralized. If autocracy is at one end, and direct democracy is at the other, then representative democracy lies somewhere in the imperfect middle.\n\nTL:DR; People get fed up when the desires of their representatives clash with their own, and revolt against any concentration of power.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Most spies or spy agencies in most recent spy movies would be horrible at their jobs in the real world. + \n + In the recent spy movies we've had, there are very few spies that would make good spies. \n\nRecent films:\n\n* November Man: Senior CIA operative is involved with his target and tells no-one, creating a massive conflict of interest. It makes him go against his CIA superiors.\n\n* A Most Wanted Man: Covert ops spy gets his cover blown by relatively minor political attach\u00e9 *working for the same government*.\n\n* RED series: zero stealth on the part of agencies in the films and the team of spies. Operative methods seem to be to blow/shoot shit up.\n\n* James Bond Series: Gets things done but in a usually very apparent and traceable way. Prone to get dangerously sidetracked from the mission by things that really don't matter. MI6 is infiltrated pretty often in the series, and there seems to be an issue with operational stealth on their end too.\n\n* Mission Impossible: See James Bond. Substitute MI6 with whatever Hawk works with.\n\n* Kingsman: See Mission Impossible. Substitute MI6 with \"The Kingsmen\".\n\n* Cold Light of Day: Agent tells a bunch of people he's an agent. \n\n* Bourne Series: Agency who is supposed to track Bourne is pretty bad at tracking Bourne, is infiltrated, is corrupt... Also likes to blow things up.\n\nSpy movie is too often synonymous with action movie, and it pisses me off, since spy work is almost exactly the opposite. *Tinker, Taylor, Soldier, Spy* was a good one though. Most spy movies are more about super soldiers than super spies.\n\nCMV!\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Our society should be run by the rich. Your voting power should be dependent on the amount of taxes you pay. + \n + Voting without paying taxes is a conflict of interest. Why should I get a say in how something that I don't pay for is run?  I could just vote myself more and more money without bearing any of the expense.  I lost my job last month and I\u2019m on unemployment.  Why should I get a say in how much money I get when I am living off the work of others?  This is just like when you are a child.  You don\u2019t get to make the rules because you aren\u2019t paying the rent, and you don't get to set your allowance.\n\nMoney is a medium of exchange it is received when you provide a good or service of value to someone, and spent when you take a good or service of value from someone else.  Therefore the more wealth you accumulate, the more net value you have provided to society.  These people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.  \n\nAlso this would be for the best since rich people are generally smarter and more competent than poor people, and would choose better politicians that don't just appeal to emotion.  ", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: No sport takes less skill than golf + \n + I am a fan of many sports, and all of them seem to take a lot of skill. But golf has always been the one I hated. It's always been boring to me, and it seems that when compared to other sports, golf takes the least skill. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying professional golfers aren't extremely talented, golf is not easy, but compared to anything else, it's nothing. In every other sport, your skill set has to be very large, and you have to be very good at many things. Baseball for instance; you need to be able to bat, field and run. In soccer, you need to be fast, be able to pass, and shoot. In basketball, again, you need to be fast, be able to pass, and be able to shoot. But in golf, you just have to be able to hit a ball towards the hole, and you can only do that one way.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe a Palestine state should be established in the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt + \n + The state of Palestine has 4 million people residing within Isreal. The West Bank and Gaza strip together have 6,000 square kilometers of land. The North Sinai Governorate alone has 27,000 square Kilometers of land, that's more land than even Isreal has (22,000 sq km).\n\n[Here is what a State of Palestine could look like on a map, either with only the Northern part or the full peninsula.](http://sinaimaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/governorates-sinai-egypt.jpg)\n\nOne could argue that the Sinai Peninsula is mostly desert and unfit for people to live in, but Israel was mostly desert when they began immigrating to the region too. Irrigation, agriculture, forestry, and artificial canals have been known to combat or reverse desertification.\n\nThe people already residing there can be promised equal citizenship rights in the new state of Palestine. Egypt could even allow for the people there to have duel citizenship, so that they can choose to either stay in the new state or easily move to inland Egypt. If necessary, Egypt could offer incentives for Sinai people to move inland prior to the establishment of the state.\n\nIf a \"buffer\" line/zone were felt to be necessary, it could be jointly run by Israel and Egypt stationed outside the borders without much issue from the Palestinians. The U.N. Security council could send peacekeepers to the peninsula to monitor the region's development. There would be very little reason for any of the Security members to veto this decision if Egypt, Israel, and Palestine all agreed to this.\n\nAlbeit, it's extremely unlikely this will ever happen, but I think it would be a good solution. Which is why I'm here, what is wrong with this plan?\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Strip clubs are a waste of time and money. + \n + Let's say your friend comes up to you one day and suggests you come to this unique restaurant with him, one where all the food is lavishly and decoratively displayed to make sure that it looks and smells as delicious and mouthwatering as possible. However you're not allowed to actually touch or eat it, and in fact there's no eating allowed whatsoever in the restaurant, no eating the food on display and definitely nothing you brought in. And your friend insists that this restaurant is really special because if you pay extra -about the price you'd pay for a pretty nice meal elsewhere- they'll bring you to a private table and bring you the dishes you think look and smell the tastiest. And they'll arrange them right in front of you in gorgeous arrays, and you can maybe play with it a bit. Stir or move it around with your fork or spoon, handle the dishes themselves a bit, and -this is why it's a *really* special version of these restaurants- you can even taste it a bit, swish the drinks around in your mouth a little. But still absolutely no eating the food whatsoever. \n\n\nSo at the end of the day you're absolutely starving after paying some good money for the experience of being teased with some delicious looking food for an hour or so, and now you've got to go home to eat whatever lacklustre stuff you've got in the kitchen or go to another restaurant where you can actually buy something to eat. \n\n\nIf your friend said you should go to this restaurant you'd think they were retarded. But if you don't want to go get blueballed at a strip club for an hour or so, for some reason you're the weird one. \n\n\nSo I don't get strip clubs, they seem like a complete waste of money and time. CMV. ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:It's okay to pay money for a Tom Cruise movie + \n + My wife refuses to watch the new Mission Impossible because she hates Tom Cruise.   I think we should go. \n\nMy points:\n\n* I don't care if someone believes something silly.  It's America, we all have the right to believe what we want.\n* Scientology is probably no weirder than other religions.\n* I read Tom Cruise is probably going to leave Scientology anyway.  \n* Tom Cruise is a great actor who has usually amused me in the past. \n\nSaturday night is Date Night in my marriage. \nCMV so I can see eye to eye with my better half.   \n\n\nUpdate:  Great responses so far.  Be back in a few hours.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: A $15/hour national minimum wage is a really bad idea. + \n + I run an animal hospital, we have a small kennel, a cleaning staff and a bunch of technicians. \n\nCurrently, the average staffer makes about $12 per hour. Raising the minimum wage would increase my payroll by 20% and I'm not thrilled with that idea. Why not?\n\nBecause the people I hire are often inexperienced, uneducated and/or have some restrictions on working (kids in school, they can only work these hours or those hours, limited mental capacity, etc). Hiring these people is okay with me because the jobs like cleaning cages and walking dogs and mucking stalls are very simple and require very minimal training. Some of my employees don't make much but they aren't asked to do very much and their hours are often very flexible. Work with animals in this way can be very forgiving and is often very rewarding. I find most people in my employ seem to like the work.\n\nIf I have to pay $15/hour, well, I can probably get better (more qualified, more experienced, better trained) people for that much. If my bare minimum is $15/hour, then suddenly it makes sense to ignore the high school dropouts and part timers and inexperienced folks. For this new minimum wage I can get experienced assistants and certified techs. Why should I pay so much to others? This doesn't help people who have a hard time getting a job, it hurts them. I'll pass them over for somebody who can do the job for real. For at least $75K (rough estimate) a year in additional costs, I can do better than what I've got.\n\nWhy wouldn't people like me just start ignoring the folks who made the old minimum wage and instead go for more qualified people who want the job at this higher minimum wage? \n\nAnd before anybody tells me what a bad person I am for making money and not caring that people make less than I do, please remember I went to school for a decade and incurred a mountain of debt and I bear all responsibility for what happens in my hospital. I put in the most work, I bear the greatest burden, take on the most risk, am financially responsible for a dozen other people, and for all that I get to make the most money. So please help change my view without making me feel like a monster.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I'm really happy that coontown was banned + \n + I realise that this is a meme one itself nowadays, but as a black man I have absolutely no sympathy for any redditor who was on coontown. These people hate me, and I hate them, plain and simple, and I am happy it made their lives even slightly worse. \n\nHowever, the main response to it from neutral people has been that it sets a bad precedent. But again, I don't care if all hate subreddits are banned. People have said that it is the issue of how to define what a hate subreddit is, but I just think that this is a diversionary argument of semantics. The difference between, say Coontown, and Shitredditsays is light and day, and anyone who says different needs to walk a mile in other peoples shoes. \n\nThe final argument against seems to be that the banning of coontown was for reasons of brigading, and that this was wrong. If this is the case, then Shitredditsays should be banned too, and I certainly wouldn't miss it, but I really wouldn't argue that Coontown should be brought back. \n\nFor obvious reasons. \n\nSo reddit, what am I missing? Change my view!", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Genres are good and being very specific with genres is a positive thing. + \n + Something I see come up a lot in music discussion threads, whether on Sputnik Music , /r/Music, or even a more niche sub like /r/PostHardcore, is that being very specific with genres is an annoying thing. This is an especially large joke in extreme metal discussions where there are multitudes of different sub-genres.\n\nI think these are great. If you like a band with a specific sound and you want to find more bands like them your best bet is to search for bands in the same genre. Being vague or broad with genres is a great way to not find more bands like the ones you're looking for.\n\nFor example, say I like Protest the Hero and want to find more bands like them. They have a lot of influences in their style but could be chalked up into the umbrella genre of \"metal.\" If I search \"metal\" I will get a *ton* of bands that sound absolutely nothing like Protest the Hero. Even narrowing it down to \"Progressive Metal\" still gets a lot of bands that aren't very similar, like Opeth. But if I search for \"Mathcore\" which is a lot more specific I can find bands that sound a lot like them.\n\nThere's no reason for the disdain of genres. No one complains about when movies get a million genre tags ([Example](http://i.gyazo.com/03027ec62e9f2efce7990a56ad3c79e2.png)) but when bands do they get annoyed and I can't see why. \n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Reddit and our societies standards on religious/philosophical tolerance is inconsistant and hypocritical + \n + Im probably going to ramble on and such so i will make my point clear from the way i see it. Also my rhetoric is not going to be nice because its sort of half a rant too. I guess this is directed at a sort of liberal/progressive crowd, but can apply to right wing people too.\n\nEver since atheism and anti-theism movement sprung up on reddit we have been bashing it. Some of those reasons was correct. I believe atheists used too much rhetoric such as \"free thinker\", \"skeptic\", \"reason\" and \"logic\" to push their agenda. And we used to (USED TO) have neckbeards spewing some obnoxious shit. And i agree they come off as cringy. But in general, mockery of religion is fun, really fun and FAIR! We laugh at bullshit ideas all the time.\n\n\"im an atheist but please be tolerant, let them believe\" or \"People believe different things\" or something similar.\n\n-We have such an agenda of tolerating christians because in the west because the majority is still christian, this also influences \"tolerant atheists\" subconsciously\n\n-We tolerate Islam because \"that is the religion those people in them middle east believe in\" so it would make us racist to criticize it. Like i get it Fox news is racist, but i dont have to be racist because i critizice Islam. Its like the people who try to tolerate Islam somehow think its racist to criticize it, failing to see that there is a diverse spectrum of people who believe in Islam and not just middle eastern people. Calling people racist for critizicing Islam is such a high level of mental gymnastics that i cant even. \n\n-We cant critizice Jews because that would make us literally Hitler. (I actually understand this one though)\n\n-Mormons are made fun of, but mostly they get the same treatment as christians \"let people believe what they believe\".\n\n-We dont respect the views of other-kin, astrologists, parapsychologists, flat earthers etc.\n\nBecause?\n\nThey are not a majority, nor taught to us before we could write. That is what i think most people choose to ignore. We dont have people spewing tolerance of religion because we have some genuine need to spare someones feelings. Its because christianity is popular, based on faslehood and people feel like their beliefs are under attack.\n\nWhen was the last time you saw someone going out of their way to defend a person who claimed to be a wolf? Oh, wait they get laughed at and mocked universally. Guy claims to believe hes literally drinking the blood of christ? Someone mocks him and gets labeled a fedora neckbeard.\n\nLike seriously if someone tells you they believe in unicorns you can probably laugh in their face like \"HAHAHA, you believe that?\" and no one would bat an eye. However, have long debates where you try to go into detail of the problems surrounding religion and trying to debunk it? Richard Dawkins and speakers like him get called intolerant. As if a desire to uphold truth is somehow wrong because people get their little feelings hurt.\n\nThe way i see it religion is as fake as astrology or unicorns. But there is no one defending the latter. Religion is bullshit with good PR. I would prefer to keep laughing at people who think they are wolfs, but with a world where no one is trying to pretend like religion needs some sort of handicap from society to not \"hurt precious feelings\". I should be able to find religion absurd without being labeled \"Euphoric\" or \"fedora wearing neckbeard\". \n\nI wish we could call out bad ideas no matter how many people believed in it. I want eqaulity when it comes to mocking things. The way i see it now religion has some sort of taboo of criticism that is protecting it. The way i want our society to change its view is  for people to watch all three videos  below and laugh. Just for the sake of equality. Sincerely, i live in Norway so i recieve minimal damage from religion. I just wish religion did not have to have some protective shield and having it be taboo to criticize it because they will cry the loudest when mocked.\n\nPeople mocking stupid beliefs:\n\n-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtH7l-dhHZQ [1]\n\n-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlMiKrwCRQ0 [2]\n\n-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea6w3zp-dYY [3]\n\nPenn Jillette: Why Tolerance Is Condescending\n\n-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpNRw7snmGM [4]\n\nWhat would change my mind is either:\n\n-A huge amount of people going out of their way to prevent people from critizicing bullshit ideas such as Astrology, para-psychology etc. (people can believe what they want, tolerance, does not hurt you)\n\n-A huge appeal to mock christianity from its own communities.\n\n-Some source proving society not having a total hypocritical view of what bullshit ideas we are aloud to mock and not\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: If the Civil War were fought again today, the South would win. + \n + For the purpose of this CMV I'm defining \"win\" as they would be successful in breaking away from the United States. They would succeed to secede. \n\nI believe this for several reasons. \n\nFirst, the population of the North has very little taste for war. If the South were to break away, extremely few people would have the stomach for a fight that would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of citizens.\n\nSecond, the South is motivated, and the North is not. If the South were to break away, it would be because the population has a great desire for their own independence. People in the north have no great motivation to keep the union together. I doubt that there would even be a fight.\n\nThird, if there was a fight, the outcome would be totally different than the first time. The South is in a much better position to defend itself than it was in the 1800's. The large population centers of the North would be more of a disadvantage than an advantage in a modern war. \n\nFourth, the only plausible way that the North could \"attack\" the South would be economically, but that could leave both countries in an economic ruin. There is just simply too much to lose to risk starting an economic war.\n\nSo, TL;DR.. The South would likely be able to secede without a fight. If there were to be a fight, they are much more motivated. The North would have too much to risk to try to stop them. ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: We should be deregulating everything for the same reasons we are deregulating Marijuana. + \n + Some of the strongest arguments we, as consumers in a market, make for deregulating the sales of marijuana can be morally, and empirically applied to nearly any facet of the market the government currently regulates.\n\nI'm open to real evidence pointing to alternatives, but as far as history would have it, regulation on a consumer good usually is bad for the people the market serves. The negative repercussions vary widely in scope, but are almost always worse than the alternatives to deregulation. \n\nAn easy example is tobacco. A cash crop like weed, and the same basic stigmas attached to it. I understand the scientific discussion about the toxicity of both, but why not let the market drive the success or failure of the products based on their perceived dangers and benefits? And if pot is safer, couldn't it be a safer and more sought alternative than tobacco? Isn't this more effective than simply regulating tobacco? The most common argument for legalizing pot I see is that we should be able to choose our own safety for our own bodies.\n\nWell, why not live by this logic? What about regulating airbags in cars? Shouldn't there be alternative choices for my own personal reasons? \n\nSame with the practice of medicine. Why does the AMA decide an adequate doctor? Shouldn't I have as more say in a doctor's value than a license board?\n\nI've truly yet to hear logical arguments against this, other than emotional appeals. I'm open to good insight into these topics!\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Racism doesn't exist, it has to do with a difference in cultures and it's not worth getting rid of + \n + I'd like to start off by summarizing my view first:\n\nRacism is the \"easy way\" of distinguishing between cultures, which is what actually bothers human beings and makes them be racist. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that shows humans are capable of being racist due to skin color. It's just a generalization we have made to make the issue easier to define and by doing so we're making it harder to actually ever get rid of racism. However, to get rid of racism, we have to blend our cultures too much and I personally feel that the positives don't outweigh the negatives, because I'd rather have humans continue to be diverse.\n\nSo now let's get a little more descriptive on why I think this way. I think a good place to start is slavery. This occurred mainly because it was something that was done by Africans. They sold prisoners off and there was a demand for nearly-free labor. It didn't matter that these people were black. It was just where the slaves happened to come from, and throughout the years, the way the system worked, it just became synonymous to black people being inferior because it was easier to generalize it that way.\n\nThen let's go to Nazi Germany. I feel like this a better example, because Jewish people have a sense of strong culture and stuck together. This helped them do better than others during the depression and they also easily became the scapegoat by having a different culture and kind of being the \"weird kids\" that never integrated properly into society. This still occurs in a lot of neighborhoods, where Jewish people like living in communities together. For example, there are Jewish neighborhoods in Toronto and New York. And of course, there's an entire country. \n\nThis is where we get into the general picture. Each country has their own culture and that's why they're different countries. The laws, the people, and the past all make up this culture. Even within a country there will be different groups of people who were either forced to be segregated or segregated themselves to preserve their culture. This difference in culture or fear of other cultures that we do not understand is the core of racism. There's no such thing as racism and most people who do not fall into the bandwagon of associating an entire race with generalizations aren't \"racist\" but people can and should have different cultures and even frown upon certain negative aspects of other people's cultures.\n\nBy mixing all cultures, we can effectively get rid of racism. If everyone's the \"same\" then there's nothing too different that would put you off from an entire \"race\" of people that are similar in some way. However, this is not worth it, in my opinion, because having different cultures is what makes people and the world interesting.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think the Internet has become a place where free speech is severely damaged. + \n + So as I have searched the internet for places where I can have sensible political or topical discussion, and have been grossly disappointed. Places like imgur, reddit, 4chan, news media, etc., have all become ultra politically biased places where I am drowned in hate whenever I post my opinion. These places seem to have a dreadful \"hivemind\" mentality. Even if its really a basic thing, like my thoughts on next years elections. I feel as though I cant find a place that is not a complete hate/ circle jerk (just look at the disaster of tumblr for all real discussion). \n\nI identify with the Republican party. OK, simply my opinion. But whenever I want to state my opinion, I am often shot down by the masses. And, I guess I could add in the aspect of government surveillance hurting privacy also, and limiting what I wish (feel safe) to discuss online (politics, guns, etc.).\n\nWhenever I challenge groups of my own belief (because moderacy is good right?) I also am ostracized. \n\nI feel as though the internet is no longer a place for reasonable discussion. Change my view.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Believing that free trade is bad despite near universal consensus among economists that it's beneficial is no different than believing that climate change isn't real despite near universal consensus among client scientists that it is. + \n + Free trade yields positive results for every country involved, and this is an established economic fact. Consumers in richer countries get to purchase goods at lower prices (which raises their standard of living) while poorer countries get capital investments and higher incomes (which raises their standard of living). Personally, I like that I can wake up, sip my Costa Rican coffee as I sit on my Swedish furniture and watch my Japanese TV before checking my Korean phone and getting in my German car to go to work for an American company that gets 90% of its revenue from overseas. If those goods all had to be made in America, they would probably be of lower quality because global competition is unequivocally good for consumers.\n\nDespite this, \"free trade\" is still a controversial political topic. Reddit's two most popular politicians, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, have both promised to help stop jobs from being shipped overseas and have both been very critical of NAFTA, claiming that it has hurt America and has cost it hundreds of thousands of jobs. However, actual [peer-reviewed analysis](http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/trade/effects-of-nafta-on-us-employment-and-policy-responses_5k9ffbqlvk0r-en?crawler=true) that studied NAFTA after it was implemented suggested it had a negligible impact on American jobs (and a paper by Matusz suggested it had a very small but positive impact).\n\nIf a person doesn't believe in evolution or climate change despite overwhelming empirical evidence and expert consensus to the contrary, then they are being anti-science. And I believe that if you think free trade is a net negative despite overwhelming empirical evidence and expert consensus to the contrary, then you're being anti-science. \n\nSo, CMV and explain why free trade is a bad thing. \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Removing the \"Confederate Flag\" Means You Should Remove All Confederate Memorials and Statues + \n + \n[Note:] Sometimes I will refer to the \"Confederate flag\" by its proper name, the battle flag of Gen. Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia (it was never actually adopted by the C.S.A.)\n\nWhen I first heard of the \"Confederate Flag\" flying on the grounds of the S. Carolina Capitol, I was surprised how many people thought it was actually flying from the Capitol *building*, [when in fact it is flying from a 20 foot pole next to a 30 foot memorial to Confederate dead.](http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/22/416548613/the-complicated-political-history-of-the-confederate-flag)\n\n\nI later heard of [Washington and Lee University in Lexington, VA removing the \"Confederate Flag\" from Lee Chapel in 2014.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/washington-and-lee-university-to-remove-confederate-flags-following-protests/2014/07/08/e219e580-06bb-11e4-8a6a-19355c7e870a_story.html) Lee Chapel is a chapel, museum, auditorium, and crypt where Robert E Lee's body is actually buried. I thought it odd that people would be offended enough to push for the battle flag of Gen. Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia to be removed from the building that houses Lee's body and bears Lee's name, on the campus of a private university that also bears Lee's name but that they weren't offended enough to push for his body to be removed, or for the chapel or the school to be renamed.\n\nThis made me think that **if the argument for removing the \"Confederate flag\" from public view is that it has been so thoroughly tainted by slavery, the KKK, and the Dixiecrats that it cannot even be used in memoriam of Confederate dead, or even for the one general by whom the flag was actually flown, then we might as well just remove all government funding for Confederate memorials, physically move them off public and government ground, and even go so far as to purge places like Washington and Lee University of all \"Confederate taint.\"** \n\nThat to me seems like the logical conclusion and most honest position to take. I'm open to being convinced that Confederate memorials and statues should be permitted to remain on public ground, even government ground, and maintained with taxpayer funding and that private universities don't have to completely remove all evidence of Confederate influence. **I'm also willing for someone to CMV that people who push to remove the \"Confederate flag\" (but not the monuments, etc) do so because the flag is an easy target and they lack the conviction to push for a full purge....*not* because they actually have thoughtfully concluded that there is a substantive difference between the battle flag of Gen. Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia and the Confederate memorial it flys by.**\n\nAs a sidebar: I'd also be interested to see if anyone who thinks the \"Confederate Flag\" should come down believes that it is possible to design a memorial in such a way that treats the dead with respect without glorifying the cause. Something like a Vietnam War Memorial for the South? Or, **is it simply impossible to have a memorial for Confederate dead without being as insulting and divisive as flying the \"Confederate Flag\"?** I think that's an interesting discussion no one is having.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I don't think it's worth discussing politics in public. + \n + I've been trying to figure out where I fall on this, but I don't think it's worth potentially ruining a relationship with another person (a friendly relationship or other) by discussing your political views in person or online.\n\nI live in the South, and recently there have been a lot of stuff going on with the Confederate Flag being taken down everywhere and the recent gay rights ruling by the Supreme Court. I think these are both great things, but the majority of my peers on Facebook/Twitter are aggressively against it gay rights and the fact that the Confederate Flag is now in the spotlight and being frowned upon. A part of me wants to speak my mind about it and tell them how I feel to reason with them a bit, but the other part of me thinks its a bad idea. Being vocal about my views could potentially cut off half of all people from even giving me the chance of meeting them and potentially being friends with them just because of my political views. I know a lot of people I consider friends that have political views that I don't agree with at all, and I don't know if letting everyone know how I feel about these situations is worth ruining that.\n\nI have also heard quotes about how doing/saying nothing is worse than being against it, and that during the civil rights movement most people were silent which was definitely a bad thing, but I'm not sure if it's worth speaking up.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: If casting white actors/actresses as traditionally minority roles is not okay, casting minority actors/actresses as traditionally white roles should not be applauded either. + \n + This is something I've been struggling with for a while. There have been a few headlines lately that brought this topic up, namely about the new [black Human Torch in the upcoming Fantastic Four reboot](http://comicbook.com/blog/2014/02/22/fantastic-four-why-casting-a-black-actor-as-the-human-torch-might-make-a-better-movie/), and the casting of [Emma Stone as Allison Ng in *Aloha*](http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/03/entertainment/cameron-crowe-emma-stone-aloha-apology-feat/). Now, I know both of these examples aren't perfect opposites, but the reception has been wildly different. When Michael B. Jordan was cast as the new Human Torch, people were thrilled. Despite the Human Torch [never once being black in the comics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_versions_of_the_Human_Torch), people said this was a good step forward in the superhero film community, and even that changing the typically white role to an black role would add levels of complexity to the story. On the other hand, critics called Stone's casting \"culturally insensitive,\" despite Cameron Crowe stating that the fact she's predominantly white, and has to constantly explain her \"unlikely heritage,\" was an actual aspect of her character, based on a real life redhead with 1/4 Chinese heritage.\n\nI don't mind casting people of color in typically white roles. I think it's good and it should be as inconsequential as POC involvement in other areas of life in the 21st century. In fact, in areas dominated by white characters, like the Marvel Universe, I'm completely open to the idea of adding more roles for POC. But when usually white roles are filled by POC, there's a lot of praise for reaching out and involving other races. Why not just focus on either creating films that feature black or other minority characters, like the [Black Panther](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_(comics), or even start creating more original POC characters to reflect the changing racial landscape? Why is the casting itself of a mixed race character portrayed by a white actor \"insensitive?\"\n\nI'd love to hear other thoughts. I've only seen these two issues (minority casting of white roles and white casting of minority roles) tackled separately.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: \"Not All X\", such as \"Not all men\" has a small, but important place in gender equality discussion. + \n + Hi! I'm trying to learn feminism -- which is a huge topic, and like all huge topics, has it's good and bad. I was recently introduced to the scathing disdain for the \"not all men\" sentiment. \n\nI'd like to start out by establishing a few things, because it's important to know that I don't support using this sentiment broadly.\n\n1. Where a victim is grieving, confiding, venting, or however else they are dealing with a problem, it is an inappropriate time to use \"not all men\". The focus belongs on the victim and their healing at that time, not nitpicking their wording.\n2. \"Not all men\", in the way I'm using it here, is actually \"not all X\", where X is any group in a discussion that has a broad, negative statement said toward their group. We see it most frequently thanks to the (most often deserving) scorn targeted at the \"not all men\" sentiment, but I do mean Not all X, where X is any group.\n\n###The value of accurate language\n\nAs a young boy, when I said \"women are bad at math\", my father corrected me. He said \"some women are bad at math\". When my brother said \"you never let me go to town,\" he corrected him by saying \"I usually don't, but here are the times I did\". My father took issue with \"global\" language, as he called it, no matter what form it came in, because he saw it as harmful.\n\nHave you ever felt a burden to prove you're some blanket statements that was often leveled against your kind? \"Women are bad at math\", or \"women cry so easily\", or \"blacks are stupid\", or \"feminist hate men\". For me personally, when I saw \"men are so shallow\" growing up I felt a sense of hostility from the statement. It felt like a judgement against me, and I felt like I had to carry the burden to show people that even though men are shallow, I'm a man and I'm not.\n\nThe point is, if we use careful speech, like \"I hate it when men are shallow / some men are so shallow\", OR \"It really bothers me a woman cries over the smallest thing\" and \"some women cry so easily\", we avoid creating broad, negative labels.  These labels can create a great sense of shame in the targeted group, and this shame fosters a sense of otherness. Instead of the shamed person feeling included or a part of something, they feel excluded. This, and the shame can also sabotage a person's self value and chance at success.\n\nBy biggest concern is the sense of otherness it can create, driving away potential allies, and by god we need a lot of allies to address the institutionalized racism and sexism in most western nations.\n\n**Therefore**\n\n1. I believe it is in the best interest of those seeking to address an oppressive culture to use accurate language in order to be inclusive to as many as possible, to maximize their efforts\n2. Just as it is the responsibility of the privileged to not use broad, negative language to describe the oppressed, it's also (far down on the priority list) the responsibility of the oppressed to not use broad, negative language to describe the privilege. Because, really, it's a human's responsibility to a human to not use broad, negative language against a human. To a reasonable length, of course,  and I d not believe adding \"some\" before men, women, asians, etc, is much of a stretch.\n\n###Picking an appropriate time\n\nAgain, the time to say \"not all X\" is not when a victim is trying to overcome their harm. But in casual conversation, as a small aside, it is good for all people to correct others when they use this harmful, broad language.\n\n####Conclusion / TL;DR: No matter the group, broad language assigning negative traits to another group is harmful, and it is our responsibility as humans to take reasonable efforts to avoid propagating this harm, starting first with ourselves, second in mild conversation, and never while a victim is trying to overcome harm. We should never become comfortable using broad, negative language.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think a 'twist' in a movie, however well done, is a cheap (but nevertheless amusing) way to appear 'smart' (SPOILERS) + \n + A multitude of films have twists in the plot, for example Gone Girl, Memento, a lot of films of M. Night Shyamalan, the Usual Suspects, Shutter Island, Fight club, well I can go on and on. [Here is a list of 100 twists](http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070836741/). \n\nIt usually consists of a plot that advances, but with hidden information not completely revealed yet. When the information is revealed, it will heighten the liking of the plot. It feels 'Mind blowing', the movie instantly goes deeper, it is suddenly a more complex movie, and twists are ideal for deep analysis and allegories. \n\nAdding a twist to a plot can make it everyone say 'Wow' and that one guy say: 'I knew it all along'. \n\nI think an analogy of showing why people like this so much, because it is abit like being in the plato's cave and then suddenly showing the light and deeper meaning. \n\nHowever, and this is my point, it is a simple and cheap way to make the movie much smarter than it initially was. I think there is also a high amount of plot twist movies in the IMDB top 250 (By no means a standard, but a good representative what is liked by movie-goers). Adding a well written plot twist makes a movie ripe for people to laud it, even though it is done to dead.\n\nBasically my point is that it is a too simple way to make a movie 'smarter' and an overdone method of 'blowing peoples minds'. It instantly adds points for movie-goers. \n\nAs I said in the title, my point is not that is a non-amusing 'plot device'. But it is a simple way to add layers in a movie. \n\nWhile watching a movie myself I always seem to like a twist (I thought Gone Girl did this very well and it sincerely surprised me) but afterwards when I am out of the cinema and more rational again I think 'hmm, just another twistmovie'. And apart from the twist nothing really interesting going on.\n\nA well regarded movie where I didn't like the twist was 'The Usual Suspects'. The cinematography and acting was obviously well done, but only looking at the plot I thought it wasn't impressive taking away the twist. I am probably triggering now a couple readers, for that I am sorry. However this is not a critique of this movie, but more of an example.\n\nI also think this is the reason why M. Night Shyamalan was so well recieved in the start of his career and now he is way less regarded than at that time. Because he does it all the time, and then it surfaces that it is a cheap movie 'plot device'. If he did it only once or twice people wouldn't have noticed it significantly. \n\n(I am sorry for spelling mistakes, I am not a native speaker)\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: It makes more sense to prioritize suffering over death than the other way around. + \n + You can't experience nonexistence.  You can experience suffering.  When people don't exist, they don't have the capacity to want to exist.  When people suffer, they want to stop suffering.  Shouldn't this mean that we should be more upset over suffering than we are over death?\n\nSay, for example, that a person was so depressed for so long that she decided to kill herself.  It's typically only after someone commits suicide that people get really upset, even though the deceased no longer has feelings to empathize with.  The concerns expressed by survivors are typically along the lines of death being tragic or death being a waste.  When someone is stuck in their own personal hell, however, people's reactions aren't nearly as dramatic.  They usually try to comfort the depressed person and often get so frustrated from the futility of it that they give up on them.  Often, the advice given is to not die.  Isn't this like looking for the forest through the trees?  Isn't there a greater tragedy than death right in front of them?\n\nAnother example is of what is considered dangerous.  Many situations are considered non-dangerous simply because they probably won't result in death.  For example, it's often argued that gender dysphoria isn't a serious condition because it doesn't directly result in death.  This is argued despite the fact that the condition renders many people unable to even want to live.\n\nI've brought up suicidal ideation twice, now.  People often kill themselves because they feel that their suffering negates the point of them living.  Society tells us that these people made irrational decisions, but did they really?  Is death really more important than suffering?\n\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Women are inferior to men in most aspects of life. + \n + I understand that this is a very controversial thing to say.  Perhaps my view comes from the women I am surrounded by, which is quite a small sample size. I look forward to hearing another point of view.\n\nMy main points:\n\n1.) Physically.  Men dominate sports and physical events.  I can't think of one sport that women are better than men at, in general, and if there are a few, that's only a few, and men dominate the rest. \n\n2.) In the work place.  This is the most controversial part.  Women want equal pay, but from what I've seen in my limited 8 years in industry, is that women are not as good as men at their jobs.  My industry is oil refining.  99% of the plant workers are men, why?  I work in the Engineering office.  There are no women engineers, only secretaries, and some of them baffle me at how incompetent they are. (Admittedly our one secretary is excellent at her job, and does far better than I ever could.  But my point here is that a man could do that job just as well.) \n\n3.) At home.  This is where most of my point lies.  It could just be a gender roles thing, but why am I so much better at everything than my girlfriend?  I'm not saying I'm great, but rather most of the girlfriends I've had are completely incompetent at a lot of things.  Things like building an Ikea cabinet, she can't do it.  Small, mundane challenges like un-stacking and re-stacking a sleeve of solo cups.  We had to do it as part of a challenge, and I was much faster at it.  She couldn't figure out how the gear shifters worked on a newer mountain bike after riding it for 10 minutes.  I had never seen this type before, but figured it out in 10 seconds.  Not because I'm clever, but because it is simple and something I believe should be easy for any adult to figure out. \n\nThese reasons are why I hold this view.  I look forward to being completely flamed for this view, and also for another perspective.  Thanks. \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Game of Thrones is a terrible show with a cheap strategy of evoking basically one emotion\u2014sadness. + \n + I would warn against spoilers now if it weren't for the problem that the spoilers are really bloody predictable and if you haven't realised a pattern, you should have by now. By the way, I would like to also mention how addicted I am to the show, without knowing why. This is the point of the CMV...I want to know if the show is actually good, or if this is just my one stupid show I can't not watch.\n\nAll this show does is build characters and engage the audience for a little while before the same old rubbish happens\u2014someone you love dies horrendously. It's just so cheap on the level of jump scares in a horror movie. Only the horror movie's central plot is based around a few cheap jump-scares. That is what Game of Thrones is, only it's filled with mildly entertaining bits in between, and some steadily-improving CGI.\n\nYou know it actually reminded me of [SEASON 1 SSSSSPOOOIILLLEERRRRR] the f**king torture scene where the guy helps Reek (forgot his actual name) escapes with the help of that guy, only for it to turn out to be part of the torture, as he is brought back to his captor and his hope is crushed to dust (and his dick is chopped off). We, the audience, are constantly given hope that the good people will triumph and everyone will get justice (which sometimes happens, admittedly) and live happily ever after in a peaceful kingdom. Then that does not happen. Gory shit happens to out beloved protagonists. \n\nWhat kind of entertainment is this? Where you get your hopes built up and crushed repeatedly? An entertainment for psychos? In conclusion, George Martin is a psycho.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Being pro-life is not \"forcing my ideas on others\" + \n + I have recently been told that my pro-life position is \"forcing my ideas on others\".  I believe that it is not or that if it is then it is necessary.  This \" forcing ideals on others\" is an argument I hear often and I just want to understand it better. I believe that a fetus is a human being. I confess, that is my view, not everyone's view. I believe an abortion is the murder of that child. This is still my view. Not everyone's. United States law entitles all humans to life. Passing legislation opposing abortion is simply following that idea in my way. I am not forcing anyone to agree with me. I am simply making sure the law is followed as I read it. \n\nFor a hypothetical:\n\nIt's 1870 and there is a white who believes that black people are subhuman (not so uncommon at the time). If I say no they are not subhuman. They are human beings and I will prosecute you if you kill them am I \" forcing my ideals on them\" or am I simply protecting what I believe to be human life. And even if I am \"forcing my ideals\" on the man isn't it necessary to do so?  \n\nThe abortion debate is a matter of whether the fetus is indeed entitled to the rights of a living human. It has nothing to do with a group forcing it's ideas on another and such statements are only used to unjustly vilify the pro-life movement.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: While PirateBay is a very handy site to use I ultimately see it as illegal/unethical. + \n + So, let me start off by saying that I have used thePirateBay a number of times to download programs, ebooks, software, ect. However, I view it as something that is \"good while it lasts,\" meaning that I will use it until it ends but when it does end will see that it had too. \n\nIt is sort of like when a store wrongly prices a product and I can by it cheaper. I will by the product, but when the store realizes and corrects the prices I come to the conclusion that the prices were wrong and the correct price is 100% fair. To mer there is no debate on whether the lower price was fair; it was not! In order for the store to make a profit and employ workers they need to have the correct prices. Also if they dont correct the price they may have to stop selling the item from the manufacturer and that may cost more jobs. Jobs that normal people like you and I have. It does not matter how much the manufacturer/store makes in a year, it is still their money that they can use for raises, expansion, health care, ect. Could you imagine if we lived in a world where your wealth made it ok for people to steal from? A world  where I could come to your house and steal your car because you have too much money anyways, and dont need that much money.\n\nIMHO the whole freedom of speech argument is a total cop out. To me that is a totally non issues. It reminds me of when slave states in the US turned slavery into a \"states rights\" issues when it is clearly a racism and money issues. Also, if I was to make a website on how to steal senior citizens social security but label it as \"educational only\" I would 100% see the merits of it getting pulled down. Technically it is \"free speech\" but it is speech aimed solely at stealing someone's hard work.\n\nThere is also the argument that because thepiartebay does not host any files and only directs, they are in the clear. However, there have been countless times that someone has been convicted of a crime for being an acquaintance, and some states even have bystander laws to punish people for not stopping a crime. If I was to drive my buddy to a bar house where he kills a man, than I will be indicted on aiding a murder. Sure I may have the right to drive where I want to  but that argument will never hold up in court. Even though I only directed to murderer to the scene and will be held partially responsible \n\nLove to hear your thoughts!\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Taxing the rich more isn't necessary, reprioritization of where taxes go is. + \n + Many people say the wealthy should pay higher tax rates because the utility they get from their money is much lower than than a poor person and that we should use this money for things like free college and more social welfare programs to improve equality and equality of opportunity.\n\nExcept, in the US the top 5% pays more taxes than the bottom 95% and the US has the most progressive tax system in the OECD. I don't think that the rich not paying their share is really the issue here. \n\nThe real problem is that more of our taxes get spent on corporate subsidies, the military, and on the War on Drugs which has been expensive and ultimately ineffective. This takes away tax money from being spent on social welfare programs. \n\nSo, it would make sense we should arrange our priorities differently as opposed to taxing the rich more. \n\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Weinberg was wrong when he said that \"for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.\" + \n + The full quote from Steven Weinberg can be found [here](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Steven_Weinberg).\n\n\nI've seen people use this quote many times. To me, it's inflammatory anti-religious nonsense. I'm interested to see the other perspective. Have I misunderstood his quote? Is there something about human nature that I've misunderstood?\n\nFirst of all, I recognize that religion can cause good people to do bad things. It has done it many times and it will continue to do so. ISIS is the most obvious example right now, but there are countless other examples as well.\n\nWhat I can't understand is the last sentence:\n\n\nHe seems to be saying that **only religion** can cause good people to do bad things. This seems like total nonsense to me. TONS of things can cause good people to do bad things.\n\nFor example, soldiers who commit war crimes sometimes do so because they were \"just following orders,\" out of a sense of patriotism, or in order to protect their families.\n\nPoverty can make good people do evil things. \n\nDrugs can, too. They can temporarily taking away people's sanity, which causes them to do stupid things. Or drug addictions can drive people to such financial desperation that they're willing to do evil things to get their next hit.\n\n---\n\nLet me explain what I understand by \"good people\" and \"evil things.\" Perhaps I haven't properly understood what Weinberg meant by these words?\n\nA \"good person\" is someone who wouldn't normally do an evil thing without the influence of some outside force. In the case of this quote, the \"outside force\" is religion.\n\nAn \"evil thing\" is anything that society generally sees as extremely bad, such as murder. \n\nIn order to CMV, please:\n\n* convince me that religion is the only thing that can cause good people to do evil things.\n* show me that I could've misunderstood Weinberg.\n* show me that my definitions of \"good person\" or \"evil thing\" are wrong (in the context of Weinberg's quote, of course).\n* anything else that shows that anything I've said is wrong.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Parents who bring a baby onto a plane are committing a mild form of child abuse + \n + They're deliberately putting their child in pain. Not only do babies not know how to pop their ears for the pressure, but I've read that they are more sensitive to the pressure changes in general and experience more pain because of it.\n\nThe only situation I can possibly imagine for it to be acceptable is if the infant themselves requires medical care and you're taking them to get it. Otherwise, what could justify putting your infant through pain they don't understand? \n\nFuneral for Uncle Bob? Your own mother? Find a sitter or part of your grieving process will have to include not being able to attend the funeral. Part of the planning that goes into having a child should be having someone who can watch the child in the event of such an emergency. If you don't have those contingencies in place, or if you can't deal with the hardship of letting your child out of your sight, then that's one of the tough parts of life for *you* to deal with - not to inflict upon your helpless baby. \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: \"Junk food\" should be allowed as school cafeteria meals. + \n + I recently had a conversation with my friend about food in schools. She strongly believes that schools should have healthy meals. But I think there must be some logic behind why schools serve what they serve. I actually enjoyed tater tots when I was in school. Many cafeteria meals in American schools are deemed \"junk food\" and therefore unhealthy for students. However \"junk food\" actually has a lot of positives, after all; why would schools provide these meals if there weren't some major advantages. \n\n\nSome of pro's of \"junk food\"\n\n- People should be allowed to choose what they want to eat\n\n- Even if kids to get fat from eating junk food, they could be exercising to work of that fat\n\n- Most \"junk food\" is cheaper and easier to prepare which saves schools money\n\n- Students like the taste of junk food\n\n- Students are allowed to bring lunch from home, it's not like they are forced to eat cafeteria meals.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I was born in 1979. I do't believe there has been a single war in my lifetime that was fought to protect my freedom. + \n + Fairly simple premise. I'm 35 years old. I remember the Cold War. The first Gulf War. The Iraq War. War in Afghanistan, etc...\n\nI hear talk all the time about how soldiers are protecting our freedom and I swear I'm not being rhetorical when I say, \"Has any war fought in my lifetime protected my freedom or me and my family?\"\n\nI have a huge respect for our military men and women. Regardless of why they're sent into battle, I believe that they deserve my respect. I want to respect the REASONS they are sent into battle, but with the knowledge I have, I just can't. I believe we use our military to protect the US's oil interests and quite honestly, there's a lot of money to be made in the private sector selling war machines and munitions.\n\nPlease. Please, for the sake of my sanity, change my view.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Watching the TV Show Game of Thrones is comparable to watching paint dry (Spoilers) + \n + Watching paint dry is a very simple thing. Going in you know what is going to happen, and you are just watching it unfold. There may be times of error, dripping of paint, or cracking, but in the end the wall is painted.\n\nGame of Thrones is similar in that there is only one conclusion to the story, and while you may watch some of the paint drip, in the end you will see it dry and nothing else mattered.\n\nIn the first or second book/season in this series we learn that there is undead coming from the north to end the world. The only way to defeat them is unite the seven kingdoms and defeat them with dragons. This means that only one person can do this: Daenerys. Not a single other person has dragons. That mean there is only two possible conclusions to the Game of Thrones; Everyone dies, or Daenerys unites the kingdom and wins the war. I doubt anyone would bother with the story if the first happens.\n\nThis means there is only one conclusion to the story. Nothing else matters. Every other character is unimportant, and will die now, submit to the queen or die in the war. Every villain in the series will die and everything they do is meaningless, as the only evil is the undead. All the story lines will end before the final war with their conclusions being meaningless in the conclusion of the story. Who cares who is in power if we all know there is only one person who wins in the end? Therefore every minor story line has only one conclusion, they die or submit the queen, none of their goals of power can ever be fulfilled. There is only one person who can win or the world is destroyed. \n\nJust like the wall being painted, the story will end with a simple conclusion, all those cracks and drips are forgotten as the wall is done and they never meant anything. The wall is the white we painted it in the beginning and now it is dry, nothing else effected it in any way.\n\nAll watching the show is watching a long drawn out conclusion. Hell in the books, you can tell they made George add some other Targaryen, the once dead kid, because there was no mystery what so ever and no real reason to continue reading the books. People who watch the TV show are easy going, they did not need to add that mystery because people are content watching the paint dry.\n\nJust like the paint, there is only one color, one ending, and one person who matters. Everyone else is just paint waiting to dry, never changing the known conclusion, just passing the time. Watching the show is watching these characters slowly dry the white you know they will with no mystery as there is only one possible conclusion. CMV\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:Washing your hands after using the restroom as a woman is oftentimes unnecessary. + \n + As a woman, I don't really get my hands dirty when I pee. I wipe myself with toilet paper, and very rarely do I actually touch anything with my hands other than toilet paper. If I do, I obviously understand the need to wash them, but that is not the typical case. After I use the toilet, most of the time, the flushing is done either automatically or with a long handle that I touch with my foot (because the handle is usually gross anyways). Some toilets with shorter handles do have to be touched, but usually those are personal toilets in my house that I know are clean. Perhaps I may touch the bathroom stall door, but I really don't think it's so disgusting as to warrant hand washing.\n\nDon't get me wrong, I usually do wash my hands after using the restroom. But I do it not because going to the bathroom is inherently dirty, but rather because my hands are dirty. I think it's important to wash your hands, after touching everything, once every few hours. So I see going to the bathroom as a kind of natural reminder that perhaps I should wash my hands soon. However, I drink a lot of water and go to the bathroom more often than I think I should wash my hands. If I wash my hands every time I pee, they get really dry (even with lotion) -- but I have to do it anyways in public restrooms because of societal conventions, whatnot. \n\n\nI know this is a dumb topic, and it isn't real a big deal in my life. I also see the overall societal benefit pretending you should wash your hands after going to the bathroom. And no, this isn't something I think about all the time. But goddamn, my hands are so dry right now. \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: You cannot be a social progressive and against freedom of speech. + \n +  Most social progressives, love democracy, and so it is of relatively little surprise to me that as they have achieved a majority (in Reddit and the West), that they want to exercise their new-found power over reactionary groups.  I would offer, however, that at one point in time they were a minority, and with the advent of freedom of speech, their voices were allowed to shine in free, open, democratic discourse.  I find it very disturbing that people who claim to be supporting \"social progress\" in society want to begin delimiting and banning thinkers who already exist as a minority that rests outside the norm of consensual decency.  \n\nYou cannot use a principle of liberal social democracy, and then turn around and illiberally and antisocially try to close the door behind you.   This understanding that freedom of speech is \"good while it benefits us, but bad when it doesn't\" is exactly the reason why it must exist, and was the very mechanism that gave us social progress: to allow individuals or minority groups to challenge the group-think of the masses.  \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: It is impossible to be a true Christian and support the actions of the United States. + \n + First I think I should make all the clarifications I can.  By \"true Christian,\" I mean someone that does their absolute best to live by the teachings of Jesus Christ.  A \"true Christian\" actively analyzes his or her own behavior and actively attempts to better themselves based on Jesus's teachings.  And by \"behavior,\" I specifically refer to relationships with others, social interactions, lifestyle, and actions over words. \n\nBy \"support the United States,\"  I want to refer specifically to U.S. foreign policy and action, specifically the current/recent wars in the middle east.  Also think about matters such as:\n\n-support of the state of Israel (not condeming it's terrible actions) \n\n-CIA/blackops/paramilitary operations around the world\n\n-backing of dictators and tyrants because they do the bidding of corporate interests\n\n-use of torture\n\n-use of drone strikes\n\n\n\n\n\nI was raised as a Christian (ECLA Lutheran) and although I am now an agnostic, the moral teachings of Jesus and Christianity have not left me.  Here is my understanding of Christianity and the teachings of Jesus, and I will also say that every civil, intelligent conversation I have had about religion has ended with these same conclusions:\n\n-Everyone should try their very best to follow the golden rule, the second commandment, or whatever you want to call it:  \"Love thy neighbor as thyself,\"  \"treat others how you want to be treated,\" etc.  It's a pretty universal moral code amongst humanity, but is specifically important to Christianity\n\n-People are not perfect.  They commit sins.  But if you try to live your life to the best of your ability following the golden rule, to care for and love others as yourself, and confess your sins to be forgiven by Jesus/God, then you will be saved.  You can get into all the ins and outs of the \"resurrection,\" but when it comes down to it, the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus is to forgive the sins of those who attempt to live good lives and sincerely admit/confess their sins.  If you don't actually mean it and feel remorse, it's meaningless.\n\n-God is love, submit yourself to the will of God, humble yourself before God, you are nothing compared to God, love God with all of your heart, etc.\n\nHere are some relevant Jesus quotes:\n\n\"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.\"\n\n\"But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.\"\n\n\"For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?\"\n\n\"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.\"\n\n\"I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.\"\n\n\"For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and everyone who humbles himself will be exalted.\"\n\n\"Give to everyone who begs from you; and of him who takes away your goods do not ask them again. And as you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.\"\n\n\"All the commandments: You shall not commit adultery, you shall not kill, you shall not steal, you shall not covet, and so on, are summed up in this single command: You must love your neighbor as yourself.\"\n\n\"For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?\"\n\nNow the main reason why I disaffiliated myself from Christianity can be best described by a quote of Gandhi: \u201cI like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.\u201d  That and I realized there is a high probability that Jesus did not actually exist, at least as we fantasize him as having supernatural powers.  But the teachings and moral code of Jesus/Christianity is an entirely separate entity that exists outside of any supernatural belief.  And it is this observation that makes me ask why/how the United States can call itself a Christian nation and do the things it does?  Or you substitute \"Christain nation\" for \"morally superior\" or some other similar term.  I think it's a fairly prominent belief here that \"we are the good guys,\" so whatever we have to do to maintain our power and lifestyle, we are absolutely justified in doing.  But how can you be a true Christian, and actively support that?  That seems to directly contradict the teachings of Jesus in so many ways.  Please prove me wrong.  And please provide specific examples.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Ellen Pao shouldn't have quite her job and surrender to the internet mob + \n + I'm seeing this shit a lot nowadays. Internet people are angry about something, take their hate to social media and it ruins people's lives. I'm really sick of this. [Tyranny of shrill minority](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMU47R094T4) is the term I really like. I'm sure majority of reddit will pat each other on the back how \"they did it\", how they overthrow a tyrant and reddit will be back to their good ol' days. What a load of shit. Reddit turned into a mob without any grounds to be so angry about Ellen Pao. \n\n- Her lawsuit has nothing to do with reddit. You might not like it, but that's about it. Plenty of CEO's are dicks or plain abhorrent people, that have nothing to do with their ability to run a company\n\n- She didn't fire Victoria\n\n- Nobody knows why Victoria was fired. It's none of your business anyway\n\n- FPH definitelly wasn't the first time reddit ban a subreddit, harassing and brigading people outside of the sub was always reason for ban, I would like to turn your attention to [this](https://i.imgur.com/A6ORPlL.png). Do you think this is okay? \n\n- Modtools were like this for ages. The old CEO that is taking her place is having more responsibility for the state of the modtools then Pao ever had \n\n- She tried to make reddit more advertiser friendly? And this should be like a negative thing? For a CEO? Really?\n\nThe vitriol against her was absolutely disgusting with zero base to begin with. Reddit only showed how majority of people here like to bully people. Slow clap guys, you \"did it\" \n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Leasing a car is always and forever a bad choice. + \n +  Would you go to Enterprise and rent a car for 24 months?  That's very similar to what a lease is.\n\n1. **Suze Orman, very rich lady and personal finance guru, hates car leases in all situations.**  [If anyone ever brings up the topic of leasing a car, she just gives them a Suze Smackdown.](http://www.suzeorman.com/resource-center/suze-orman-money-tips-video-collection/lease-or-buy-a-car/) \n\n2. **People lease cars so they can afford to drive something they cannot buy.** \"You're spending money you don't have to impress people you don't know,\" Suze says. You should go to a used car lot and find something you can own for the same payment as what you would lease. It might not be that hard, the first owner took a 20-30% hit in value as soon as he took ownership. You might find the car 2 or 3 years old and you can buy with the same money. \n\n3. **When you look at the details, it just doesn't add up to a good deal.** You have to come up with a large down payment, pay monthly, and at the end of it all, you own nothing. To re up your lease, they expect another large down payment *for a car you already have*. Their are milage restrictions. \nOnce I knew a guy who lived in Detroit and wanted to go to Chicago for the weekend, but was afraid to drive his car because he calculated that his daily commute was going to put him very close to or slightly beyond the mileage limit by lease end. \nYou're paying monthly for a car that you can't drive whenever you want because they're going to charge you $.25 per mile over the limit. If you go 3000 miles over (which could happen in one road trip) that's $750 you have to pay *just to give the car back*.  Oh and you're also paying through the nose for any dent, ding, bump, stain or scratch in the car. \n\n\n\nUnless it's a company providing a company car for business purposes. Your employer isn't in the business of owning, servicing and managing vehicles for the long term so a lease makes sense for them. They dont have time to sell a car when they're done with it, or deal with ownership. All the drawbacks of leasing such as mileage fees, they probably just pass that on to employee driving it.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Ending child pricing (or beginning adult pricing) at movie theaters at ages 13-16 doesn't make sense and is wrong + \n + Adult tickets cost more than child's tickets for anything that distinguishes the two and often this makes sense. Adults have more money than kids and can afford the higher prices. Kids pricing allows family's to be able to afford to go to things as a family. For certain things, size does matter (fuel costs for transportation) and most adults are bigger than most kids and so should get charged more. And specific to theaters, adults are more likely to see an R rated and since the R-ratings are somewhat prohibitive in terms of selling tickets, I could see some sort of roundabout justification for increasing tickets prices for adults as they are likely to see a movie that falls into this mildly \"niche\" category of movies. \n\nI think the problem I have is that most (if not all movie theaters) consider you and adult at thirteen or fourteen. This doesn't make any sense. A thirteen year old doesn't have much more money does a twelve year old. They don't even have the right to work for another few years. They're not much bigger than a twelve year old and even if they were it wouldn't really matter because its not like bigger movie goes are more costly than a small movie goer. They can't see rated R movies. It seems like the only \"right\" they've acquired is to technically see a PG-13 movie but they probably could do that before age thirteen and it hardly seems to justify a price increase. I know that thirteen is not universal but I find it wrong to charge adult prices for anyone under eighteen (you could maybe argue seventeen since they can see rated R movies and can work).\n\nPlease leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post. Thank you!\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Gender identity should be based upon the genitals with which you were born with and the hormones your body naturally produces. + \n + Hello everyone, with all the media coverage lately regrading transgender individuals I find myself uneducated on the particular subject and would love to be enlightened on the topic. I support the rights and henceforth of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals but can't wrap my head around the idea of transgenderism. From a purely medical/biological standpoint, it doesn't seem as if one should be able to claim to be the opposite gender when scientifically they have been classified to be the other. Even with the surgeries and artificial hormone replacements, wouldn't the artificial nature of these changes render the claim illegitimate? From a societal standpoint, obviously the idea of gender identity is one that has, for a majority of human history, been based around a singular core fact - we have two genders, man and woman, and you are either one or the other. Is there more to this perceived truth, or is transgenderism the result of a mental nuance that simply appears now because of the emergence of rights for the LGBT community, but has in fact, always been there?\n\nThis post isn't meant to attack/offend/etc. anyone, and again if I seem ignorant on the subject it is only because frankly I am and am only here to be educated. Thanks for any responses that can help me understand.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The best strategy on Cutthroat Kitchen is to dogpile. + \n + Cutthroat Kitchen is a reality TV cooking show where contestants bid on sabotages to make their competitors fail at cooking the dish that needs to be cooked, and keep the money remaining.  Often, this requires picking a competitor who gets sabotaged.  E.g. \"One of your opponents will give up all their ingredients and have to make their tacos using just what they can recover from this day old salad bar.\"\n\nThis view is about what the best strategy for handing out a sabotage is.  I think that in the first 2 rounds, when you have a choice, you should always target whoever already has a sabotage.  So if someone gave another competitor the salad bar, and then you're handing out who has to give up all utensils for tinfoil, you should always pick the person who got the salad bar.\n\nThe reason is this: you do not win a round of CTK.  You just refrain from losing.  Having the best dish is no better than having the second or third best dish in round one.  You are best off by trying to guarantee one person fails totally.  Because then they go home.\n\nSpreading out the sabotages means its less likely that they'll be crippling (since they're tested to be doable).  If you pile them all on one person though, it becomes much more likely they'll totally fail, thus saving you.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Ipads are overpriced and offer little to no value over comparable android/windows tablets. + \n + Not trying to start a flame war, I'm looking for a new tablet and I would consider an ipad, but I just don't see the appeal just yet. What on earth does it do that justifies a price tage 2-3x that of an android or windows tablet that performs the same functions?\n\nClearly people are buying them, so there's obviously something there I'm not seeing. \n\nI used my previous tablet (Nexus 7, rip) for\n\n* TV/Movies (kodi)\n* streaming said movies to my tv (MicroUSB->HDMI out)\n* ebooks ([pocketbook](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.obreey.reader) ftw)\n* chrome (teh web)\n* dolphin browser (porn/flash videos)\n* reddit (relay)\n* google voice search (because sometimes I can't be bothered to type shit out)\n* podcast/music streaming (8tracks,spotify,podcast addict)\n* some games (not a ton)\n* all the free apps\n* vpn (pia)\n\nGiven the above, can someone tell me what justifies paying an extra $360* for an ipad? (I could by 3 new nexus 7 tablets for the price of 1 ipad air 2 and have $60 left over*), wtf is going on?\n\n\n*figures compare this [n7](http://www.amazon.com/Nexus-Google-7-Inch-Black-Tablet/dp/B00DVFLJDS) to this [ipad2](http://www.apple.com/shop/buy-ipad/ipad-air-2/64gb-gold-wifi?afid=p238%7CsmRHMJBBl-dc_mtid_1870765e38482_pcrid_52243313890_&cid=aos-us-kwg-pla-ipad-slid-)\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:The outrage, emotional investment, and hate the general population has in relation to the Tsarnaev case is blown way out of proportion, particularly in Boston + \n + Some Context: Frist off I grew up around the Boston area, graduated from a college in Boston, currently work and live in Boston, was on the marathon route (about 2 miles away) when the bombing occurred, I always have and always will consider Boston home.\n\nSecondly, I am not asking people to explain why they feel he they believe he should receive the death penalty or not. Or even why his crimes are worthy of the death penalty. His actions are reprehensible, and I fully believe he is guilty and should receive punishment in accordance with law befitting his crimes.\n\nAnyways,\n\nThe bombing and subsequent manhunt resulted in 4 deaths and a dozens of injuries. Clearly a terrible tragedy, please do not misconstrue me, I think that what happened was awful.\n\nHowever, I think the response, especially around Boston has been extremely disproportionate.\nNews articles, to blogs, to overheard conversations, to David Ortiz, for the past 2 years all you hear is a sensationalized response that includes hate speech, violent calls for vengeance, overly emotional opining, and nonsense about \"Boston strong\" that arises from mob mentality I have seen countless comments on articles saying incredibly vengeful and disturbing things wished on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, \"I want to see him hang in the streets\" is a very mild example. Additionally I have seen a lot of anti-Muslim rhetoric and straight out bigotry because of these events.\nBostonStrong has become synonymous with the city and its prominent organizations. A charity for the victims (some of which include very profitable retail business in Copley Square) of the bombing has gathered millions in donations. I have seen people even tangentially related to Boston claiming it was an emotional and devastating event for them, again not victims, but someone who might have lived in Boston a few years back. What does Boston Strong even mean? I personally believe it means nothing. Boston reacted the way any city would to two rogue terrorists. It started as a way to raise money for the one fund but has devolved into nothing more than a marketing gimmick for area businesses and something for bros to use as a hashtag.\n\nHowever when you look at the outrage, vitriol, and media coverage surrounding other violent crimes, for example serial rape, multiple homicides, pedophilia, even drunk driving homicides. The level of interest and reaction is not even close.\n\nI understand it was a very public event with terrorist intentions, but people in Boston act like it's the next 9/11. It simply is not. No where near the damage and no connection to an international terrorist organization.\n\nIn many ways I think the actions of drunk drivers who kill a car full of innocents are as much or more reprehensible than those of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. A drunk driver kills someone due to their own selfishness and stupidity. Dzhokhar and his brother believed they were getting justice for innocent people killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. He knew very well that he would likely be caught, and yet he believed strongly enough that what he was doing was right that he went through with it then penned a letter in blood stating his motive as he lay dying in a boat.\n\nI'm not defending his actions I think they are terrible but I think the outrage and rah-rah mob mentality and blind patriotism (city-ism?) I've seen for the past two years is grossly misplaced. The Boston Strong mentality is flawed, the Tsarnaevs didn't attack Boston they attacked the US, Boston just happened to be where they lived, and while it was great to see a city come together after a tragedy I believe the Boston Strong thing was taken too far. Around college campuses it became a rallying cry to legitimize bigotry about immigrants from the middle east and an excuse to party, meanwhile atrocities committed by born and bred Americans go largely unnoticed.\n\nWhile no one I know personally was injured by the events, I am still from Boston but I failed to be personally hurt or particularly jarred by these events. Meanwhile, I witnessed students who had been in the city for a handful of months post impassioned social media posts calling for executions and making claims to how strong and resilient \"their city was\", no one was gonna mess with \"their\" town that they had been inhabiting for a whopping 1.5 college semesters.\n\nI think his crimes were terrible, but no more terrible than other similar crimes, and certainly not warranting the reaction that has occurred since Marathon Monday 2013. I just can't get behind the lynch mob, or the notion that somehow Boston reacted better than any other city would.\n\nTLDR- The hate, vitriol, and mob mentality surrounding the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev case is blown way out of proportion, considering atrocities that occur every day. this is particularly bad in Boston and even worse in Boston student communities.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: trying a child as an adult makes the protections offered to children irrelevant and is downright vengeful + \n + This is an issue I feel passionate about, but I also understand my views are not that developed. Very curious to say what the responses are!\n\nJuveniles are given special treatments in trials, there is a focus on rehabilitation an integration back into society. This makes a lot of sense to me, children are still learning and don't have much freedom in life. Many of their choices and actions are an immediate cause of their situation, and removing them from that could potentially help. Not to mention, the focus on punishment in adult courts can likely lead to training a kid to be an offender for life,\n\nTrying a kid as an adult circumvents all of that, and ignores the fact that society expects persons under 18 years of age to need additional supervision and warrant more rehabilitation in the case of crimes. It seems so juvenile that someone who commits a worse crime (and is more in need of rehab) would magically be considered an adult just because of severity. Do actions make someone an adult, or age and experience?\n\nI think it is also important to consider there is a growing amount of evidence that states adolescence continues up until 25[1].\n\nAlso, many cases that have children tried as adults aren't emancipated minors, it's typically just due to severity. I would consider an emancipated minor tried as an adult more logical, but possibly more morally wrong for a society to do. Emancipation isn't generally a happy thing, and often due to poor circumstances... more rehabilitation would likely make sense, but I see how it would be logical for a system.\n\n\n[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24173194 \n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: You shouldn't own a dog. + \n + I think you probably shouldn't own a dog - except maybe you are blind, an old-school shepherd or train them for finding people after avalanches or earthquakes. I have several reasons to holdthis view - here they are, sorted by relevance (from least to most relevant). \n\n* They eat poo.\n* They are annoying. Many people have really strong opinions against smoking in public, because it is upsetting them and accordingly laws have been past in many countries that limit/prohibit smoking in public transport, public buildings, etc. However, it is not uncommon to be leg-humped by a dog in the bus, or step into dog-poo in the park, which I find really annoying. This seems to be regarded as unproblematic, some pepole even get annoyed if you do not want to touch their animal companion with questionable hygiene standards.* You may say that (contrary to smoking) these are merely inconveniences, but in fact...\n* ...Some dogs are plain dangerous. Have a look at the [\"Fatal dog attacks\"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States) wiki entry. Granted, there are MUCH more people dying from cars, cigaretts, cancer (and that's only deadly stuff with a C), etc. but in my opinion even one person would be too much. There are a lot of young children on the list as well. \n* My rant so far may have given you the opinion that I just hate animals. However, the opposite is true - I love them! Therefore I think we shouldn't keep them for our amusement or because we fancy a walk once or twice a day. \n* They eat. In a world where people are starving this is in my opinion morally not justifiable. \n* Most importantly: They produce greenhouse gases - and quite a lot of them! [The co2-\"paw print\" of a big dog that gets fed mostly meat may even be bigger than the emissions caused by an SUV.](http://www.salon.com/2014/11/20/the_surprisingly_large_carbon_paw_print_of_your_beloved_pet_partner/)\n\nTherefore I am convinced that you probably shouldn't own a dog. I will not be convinced by single examples where a dog was useful, but by reasons why the overall benefits of private dog-owenership surpass the negetive effects I have listed above. Please CMV!\n\n(*)The fanatic dog-loving may be an issue particular to Germany.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Advertisements for prescription medications should be illegal + \n + I'm very confused and bothered by the amount of ads for prescription medications that run on television and in magazines. In my mind, the reason that these medications can only be used when prescribed by a doctor, is because they are volatile substances, and only  medical expert is qualified to determine which patients really need them. \n\nI can't imagine what good these ads do. If someone is sick, she should go to her doctor, who will decide what medications will best treat her, if any. Prescription dug ads simply cause patients to think they need a drug they perhaps do not, and it puts doctors in a difficult position when their patients request a specific drug that the doctor doesn't feel they need.\n\nSo, in light of this, why are advertisements for prescriptions medications allowed?", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:Churches should lose tax exempt status and monies gained should be put towards social programs. + \n + I firmly believe if we put tax dollars we receive from churches toward social programs be it after school programs for children, education or even possibly low cost clinics for people we would be able to raise the standard of life for the working class citizens.  This would help at least the religion I am familiar with (Christianity) meet some of their tenets of giving to those in need and sacrificing personal wealth for the good of those less fortunate. In the event churches would be operating at a loss instead of a profit or are just breaking even they could receive a break by having either the congregation doing volunteer work or donating to the local community therefor almost achieving the same effect as if it were to pay taxes by still actively helping in the community. ", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Some opinions are ethically right and can only be argued against using semantics. + \n + Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but some opinions are better than others [edit: I am referring to them being morally/ethically \"better\"]. If you submitted a topic to this sub with the title \"I find gay people sickening. CMV\" there would be tons of replies and circle jerking about all the ways the OP was wrong. That's because, I'm assuming, enough people have decided it's morally wrong to discriminate against gay people that there will be actual dissention.\n\nIf you posted a thread with the title \"Gay people deserve the same rights as straight people\", you would get into a war of semantics and what it meant to have the \"same rights\" as another person, because not many people would be willing to argue against the base viewpoint of the post.\n\nThese are just examples to illustrate what I'm getting at, so please don't get distracted by them in your replies. They are just illustrations and may not be the best examples I could have chosen.\n\nTo reiterate, some opinions are better than others ethically and morally speaking, especially when you voice them to a fairly homogenous group that is likely to share similar values (reddit). To argue against them, we have to resort to semantics and, in my opinion, that never feels like a proper argument against the original thesis of the question.\nCMV.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: States like Iowa and New Hampshire shouldn't have their caucuses/primaries earlier than the rest of the country. + \n + In the US primary system, the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries take place before the every other state. This leads to those states having an outsized influence on national politics. For example, presidential candidates can't oppose corn subsidies without taking a beating in Iowa, and losing big in the first primary caucus of the election is terrible for a candidate's momentum. \n\nI think this is idiotic. People who live in Iowa or New Hampshire shouldn't be more important from an electoral standpoint than people who live in other states. So please, change my view and explain why states like Iowa and New Hampshire should continue receiving this priviledge. \n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Consent is a necessary, not sufficient, condition for sexual relationships to be \"okay\" + \n + When the topic of what kinds of relationships are okay, I often see people express opinions along the lines of \"as long as everyone (directly involved) consents, it's okay and you shouldn't judge.\"  I think that consent is absolutely necessary, but it's foolish to say that it's the only thing that's necessary.  I can think of two really clear instances where sex is bad and should be discouraged, even though all parties give consent:\n\n*  **Cheating**  If Adam and Beth decide to have sex with eachother, and they're both in committed monogamous marriages with other people, then they can consent as much as they want.  They're still doing something wrong by breaking their commitments to their spouses and likely causing a great deal of harm to them in the process.  And it would be completely fine to judge Adam and Beth for deciding to sleep with eachother.\n\n*  **Adult-child relationships.**  I know what people are going to say, \"children can't consent.\"  But what you mean is children cannot *legally* consent, because this act is illegal.  This is just a legal technicality, but a 15 year-old could still consent (in the sense that they make a conscious, informed decision to have sex with someone and express that decision) to having sex with a 40 year-old man.  However, despite that consent, it's still the kind of thing that we as a society should discourage, despite the fact that both parties involved may consent.\n\nCMV.\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Darth Vader wasn't a good Sith lord whatsoever + \n + I'm a huge fan of Star Wars. The movies and the EU so for the purposes of this discussion, I'd love to include the EU as well.\n\nBut here's my thinking. Darth Vader is always seen as the ultimate badass. A tall powerful Sith lord with an awesome personal ship and his own Star Destroyer. He is the epitome of an intergalactic villain. \n\nHowever, I'd say that according to the traditional Sith myths (including the Bane and post-Bane era), he was the least influential and least \"Sith\" out of everyone. Every memorable Sith lord before him had some kind of ambition that lead them to where they were. \n\nBane created the rule of 2 and started building a vast information/money network for generations to come. He also restored a ton of old Sith lore and knowledge.\n\nPlagueis learned how to bring people back to life and used his power to manipulate Palpatine into Chancellorship.\n\nSidious..well, he created the Empire.\n\nVader on the other hand is a manipulated victim of his circumstances and while he did strike fear into the hearts of the citizens of the Empire, he didn't contribute much as a Sith lord. He didn't expand the Sith rule, nor did he learn anything new, nor did he have any drive whatsoever to do anything. When Vader originally turned, it was partially because he wanted to have power like Plagueis (to restore the newly dead and prolong life) but he immediately dropped it after his beloved's death. \n\nWe saw Vader try to overtake Emperor but with someone else's help. It's like he didn't crave the Sith Lord mantle, he just wanted to get rid of his maniacal master.\n\nWe all know he's a skilled mechanic and pilot but he didn't do anything with that. Out of all the Sith, he could have restored the use of Force-infused craftsmanship but he didn't. As a Sith pilot, he could have explored unknown reaches of the galaxy and expand the Empire's influence beyond known galactic space (finding new hyper routes, enslaving nations, etc.) but he didn't.\n\nSo all in all, his contributions to the Sith were minor and he could hardly even be considered Sith.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Killing baby cows for food is no more immoral than killing adult cows for food. + \n + Cows are neither sentient nor intelligent. They don't anticipate the future, they don't make plans, they're not moved to tears by bringing a new little cow life into the world. Given that killing animals for food is not generally immoral^1 ,  there is not such a great difference between the experience of a baby cow and an adult cow that one will experience death any differently than the other; neither is the life of a cow so rich and fulfilling^2 that it's immoral to deprive a baby cow of it before it dies.\n\nTherefore, I should not feel any worse eating veal than I do eating a hamburger.\n\n^1 If you disagree with this, that's a different argument entirely; I'm glad to hear your opinion on the matter, but you won't change my view unless your argument assumes this point.\n\n^2 Just the opposite, presently; the lives of cows are full of pain and discomfort, because our (American) food-raising process is horrifying. I *do* think that this is unethical, just based on the principle that pain is a bad thing, but it's not a massive priority for me because I think the amount of human suffering is significantly greater at this time than the amount of animal suffering (due to the greater capacity of a human to experience suffering). Again, this isn't the topic of my CMV, but if you want to give your opinion on the matter I'd be glad to hear it.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: You cannot object to a mosque being built unless you're also prepared to protest the building of any other place of worship. Anything else is discrimination. + \n +   This has become something of an issue in my home country of the UK where far-right groups have often targeted the building of mosques as a point of contention, even calling for bans. However I take issue with this. \n\n  Firstly, under the provisions of UK building law, anyone or any group is free to buy land, to submit planning permissions and to them build any building permitted by the provisions of the planning agreement on said land. Muslims are not and cannot be discriminated against in this regard. My local mosque was built by community donations, raising almost \u00a32m almost entirely of their own doing, before quite legally submitting a planning application, getting the plans approved and then building the mosque (using local builders and trades actually). This would be no different in my eyes to the building of a synagogue, church, gurdwara or any other place of worship. \n\n  Secondly, the actual dedicated building of a completely dedicated mosque building is more an exception than a rule, especially in smaller Muslim communities. Certainly for my own town, there exists probably only one actual brand-new mosque (the one I mention above). Others are in previously existing buildings. \n\n I am aware that there are issues to do with noise, people parking and blocking local streets/blocking resident access, but this is something which is typically taken into consideration at the planning permission stage. The way it works, there is usually a consultation period where civil planning experts consider issues such as these, and any person or group who feels the need to do so can raise an objection to the council for consideration. This goes for ANY building within a council's area, not just places of worship. \n\n   It must also be said that the noise and parking issues are also going to be an issue with any place of worship. I live in an area where the main church for that area is on a main residential road, and come any activity held at that church sees the main road itself, as well as a nearby tiny carpark, blocked with cars. I've also lived near a church which, come any major event, used to ring the bells and have large amounts of people there. The noise was very loud. \n\n  The only objection I can see seems to amount to a form of discrimination where simply because it is a mosque being built, people object. There seems to be no logical reason for their objections other than 'because Islam'. \n\nSo, can anyone CMV? \n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: A dozen Jurassic Park velociraptors could beat a dozen Alien xenomorphs + \n + Situation: an enclosed industrial compound of 30 acres. For fairness, say the raptors were genetically engineered to have somewhat acid-resistant skin.\n\nI think that because they'd fight as a group, and appear to be faster and stronger than the xenomorphs, they'd be able to win out. I think the aliens rely too much on picking off individuals, and building their numbers through breeding off their foes to handle a physically dominant force. The velociraptors have a powerful jump to reach their enemies, and long enough limbs to avoid the inner jaws of the aliens. Their superior intelligence would enable them to come up with a strategy to fight the aliens.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: We should change from using Base 10 to using Base 12 + \n + Currently we use Base 10 which as we all know goes  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 and then rolls over 10 and the process repeated. There is an alternative to this called Base 12 would similarly go 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X E with X=Ten and E=11 and then would roll over to 10=12, that really isn't terribly different to Base 12 but has some advantages. First fractions become simpler. Under Base 10 1, 2, and 5 are all multiples of 10, but under base 12 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 are all multiples of 10. This makes dividing much easier than in Base 10. Secondly in Base 12 multiplication is much easier to remember. In base 10 the multiples of 4 are 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24; but in Base 12 the pattern is 4, 8, 10, 14, 18, 20. The ones place repeats  every three numbers in a regular patter unlike in base 10. Lastly we do use twelve as the base for a lot of things in are lives. For example a day has 24 hours, an hour has 60 minutes, and a minute has 60 seconds. All of those numbers are multiples of 12. If you don't use metric then you know that there are 12 inches in a foot.\n\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: A carbon tax and a wealth tax would be more rational than income, payroll, capital gains and sales taxes + \n + Let's assume that we will never reach consensus on the reality of AGW. We do know, however, that oil and coal are non-renewable resources. It is therefore wise to preserve them for our children. Fossil fuels are also direct pollutants by way of ocean acidification and particulate matter.\n\nA carbon tax would encourage conservation of a limited resource, and discourage pollution. Just in case AGW is real, we would also have hedged our bets there.\n \nA wealth tax is equally virtuous because it discourages the pooling of money and encourages it to be pumped through the economy. It whittles away at inheritance and encourages investment (you need your investments to \"outrun\" the wealth tax).\n\nConversely, income, payroll, capital gains and sales taxes all act as brakes on the economy. All of them \"punish\" things we want people to do: make money, get paid, invest money and buy things.\n\nFor example, in the economy I describe, a small time musician would see virtually no taxes except those embedded in the fossil-fuel-based products that she buys. She would pay no income tax or sales tax. Once she went on tour and started using significant amounts of electricity on lights and sound, the event organizers would have to build those costs into the ticket prices. This means that the tour might be a bit smaller and a bit less coal might be burned. This might save the life of an asthmatic or old person.[1]\n\nIf she became a ballionaire, then she could \"give back\" to the community through the wealth tax. This seems a lot more sane than taxing her every which way from day 1.\n\nWhere is the flaw in my logic?\n\n[1] http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/air-pollution/en/\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:\"Freedom of speech only applies to the government\" paints an ugly picture about how we value free speech. + \n + Legally and Constitutionally the statement \"freedom of speech only applies to the government curtailing your words\" is 100% accurate.  This much I will not dispute.\n\nHowever, I've long held the opinion that this kind of statement takes too literally, and perhaps too much demands that \"freedom of speech\" can only be viewed as a legal object of American culture, and rarely anything more.  I believe there is a moral undertone of what it means to have this freedom, and if we create barricades and parameters for how we define that freedom, it becomes that much easier to take it away wholesale.\n\nNow here is where I feel I have to offer a caveat:\n\nMy dissent to this statement should not be taken to mean I think people should just deal with hate speech, \"fire\" in a crowded theater or bigoted ideas.  I think absolutely if you feel it is necessary to call out toxic attitudes, bad behavior or discordant themes that have a disparate impact on groups and individuals-it absolutely should be called out.\n\nFurthermore, if someone makes statements or aligns themselves with viewpoints that challenges their responsibility to remain impartial in positions of power, influence or prominence then it is in the best interest of the individuals they preside over and the group they represent to let an individual capable of thinking before they speak (for a lack of a better phrase here) stand in their place.  \n\nThat, however should not give individuals or groups carte blanche permission to engage in mobocracy to the point of going after the speaker's (for example, doesn't have to be verbalized 'speech') employer or livelihood, or even in some college campuses, crowding out individuals who come to attend a lecture about a topic and demand that person be stripped of the opportunity to earn a living, or collect a speaking fee from an institution that invited them to speak.  I believe once an individual or group goes from challenging disagreeable rhetoric to actionable attitudes such as calling for someone to be fired from their job (again in the absence of the questionable individual making statements that damages their ability to function at that job) or be disallowed to speak in public, we're crossing into dangerous territories.\n\n\n\nReddit, please CMV here.\n\nThanks for reading.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: \"Synthesis\" in Mass Effect 3 in inherently unethical + \n + **Spoilers for Mass Effect 3**\n\nFor those who don't know, the \"Synthesis\" ending to Mass Effect 3 alters the DNA of all life in the galaxy to something that an ancient (billions of years old) alien race considers to be the \"pinnacle\" of evolution, making the race of genocidal \"Reaper\" robots bent on wiping out all sentient life somehow obsolete. The other options are \"Destruction\" (which destroys the Reapers and their technology, crippling the residents of the galaxy's ability to travel between systems) and \"Control\" (which gives the protagonist control of the Reapers and their tech, who then proceeds to use them to repair the damage they caused). **Edit -** The game's devs consider \"Synthesis\" to be the game's \"good\" ending.\n\nMy main compunction with Synthesis is that it is a massive decision that is left up to literally one woman (in my playthrough). **No one else has any choice or even knew the choice was being made.** Shepard is given her 3 options and has two minutes to make a decision before Destruction is chosen for her. Sharon o'Grady in Sheleighly, Ireland has no choice. Gork Magork on Sigma VII has no choice. But they both have to live with a choice a woman they've never met made, a woman who died immediately after without having to live with the consequences herself.\n\nThere's also the religious implications. Abrahamic religions preach that Mankind was made perfect in God's image and given explicit supremacy over the other animals. Not only does Synthesis blur the line between (according to scripture) the supreme human and the inferior raccoon and fish, but it sullies the perfect form God made for them. At least one other race in the galaxy has a similar religion. I may not agree with their beliefs, but forcibly changing something that is so key to their faith is unethical.\n\nChange my view.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Farts are the purest form of comedy. + \n + This thought started out when I was watching Blazing Saddles with a group that included my father-in-law. Right before the scene when the guys are sitting around the campfire eating beans, my father-in-law mentions that he doesn't know why this scene is in the movie. When the men start farting, I start laughing like a maniac because I think farts are hilarious.\n\nNow to my view, farts are the purest form of comedy. What do I mean by this? Farts are universal and everyone can relate to them. Farts don't make fun or antagonize any group of people.\nFarts innocently remind us of a daily bodily function that is gross, but often in a humorous manner. There are practical jokes that can be played with no one getting harmed (rolling and locking car windows). I would also hope that just by seeing the title of this post makes some people internally chuckle.\n\nSo, to most easily change my view, someone would have to come up with another humorous thing that is \"more pure.\" Meaning, no one is antagonized and that everyone can relate to and funnier than farts. I'm open to other things changing my view, but can't really think of anything else off the top of my head. \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I don't believe requiring able-bodied, mentally capable adults who receive welfare to work is a form of slave labor + \n + I consider myself very left wing but I've found that the Democratic and Socialist parties consider workfare a form of slave labor. I don't see how this is the case - we are all working for money and benefits, unfortunately there is no \"free lunch\" for any of us. If people who are capable of working are receiving free benefits, what is wrong with requiring them to work? \n\nMaybe I am missing something with regard to single or stay at home parents, or perhaps workfare does not give people enough time to go find the job they want. I would like to add that I see a difference between letting private companies profit off cheap labor, and having the welfare recipients work on government projects. Is workfare always to the benefit of private companies?\n\n Please, CMV! \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Most all of America's problems could be solved by reallocating a good proportion of our military budget. + \n + I'm not saying cutting it completely. I'm just saying that if at least half of our military budget was repurposed (I'm not going to discuss WHAT it should go into, that's a whole other issue), a lot of america's problems could be solved-- [just about 275 Billion dollars](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures) could do a lot of good for the people. For instance, pouring that money into higher public education and health care would be a tremendous boost to people's quality of life!\n\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Government officials have very little control over economic growth and political candidates are either bluffing or stupid when they say they will \"grow the economy.\" + \n + There are a few things presidents, congressional representatives  and senators can do to influence the growth or shrinkage of the economy. Some politicians claim that tax cuts stimulate the economy, others claim that increased government spending (while keeping taxation the same) simulates the economy, but there is no consensus on this point, among economists or politicians. Deficit spending stimulates the economy, but we are already deficit spending, and the national debt is already rather large, so we can't do that forever. Low interest rates stimulate the economy, but elected officials have no direct influence over interest rates -- the Federal Reserve Board does that, and interest rates are already very, very low. New export markets also help, but the U.S. is already committed to several ambitious international trade agreements. Investor confidence helps, a little, maybe, sometimes, but the U.S. stock market is already overpriced. Beyond that, most economic growth comes from increases in productivity, and consumer confidence. Elected officials have no control over these.\n\nIf you vote for a candidate who promises to \"create jobs\" or \"grow the economy,\" you're either voting for a liar or a fool. Change my view!\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: \"Downtown\" is a bad name for the central business districts of most towns and cities. + \n + I think \"downtown\" is a bad name for most central business districts. For one thing, most places that call their central business districts \"downtown\" don't have areas or neighbourhoods called \"uptown\" or \"midtown\". Shouldn't \"downtown\" be actually down of something? I feel that whatever a city decides to call it's central business district it should reflect either it's geographic location, history, or purpose.\n\nRelating to that, calling central business districts \"downtown\" seem to me to be unoriginal. North American cities could give their central business districts names that aren't just imitations of New York's CBD.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:Not wanting to have children due to the state of the global environment is an overreaction, population control is not the best answer. + \n + I had a conversation with a friend a few weeks ago, where I spoke of having children. His response that was that it was selfish and actually quite brutal due to the energy that my offspring would consume in it's lifetime. \n\nThere are simply other ways to solve the environmental problems we currently have. Population control is a completely reactive, knee-jerk solution. \n\nSlowing down consumerism by giving corporations less power than they already have would be a good start. The big corporates are the ones that are destroying parts of the planet to find more energy and consuming mass amounts of energy to manufacture products. Due to globalisation, the problem we have nowadays is that these corporations are so big that its hard to hold individuals accountable and and they are so powerful that it's hard for the masses to stand up to them. because a lot of the time we think we have a reliance on what they are providing.\n\nChange our attitude as individuals. We need to be more conscious in regards to how we affect the our ecosystems and the planet as a whole. We rarely think about what had to be done to create the plastic packaging from the food we eat, or what has to be done to power our homes. There needs to be more awareness here. Too often I hear people will not recycle because other countries don't and they don't see the point. It is also hard to convince individuals to take this attitude and not leave their lights on when they go out at night when Las Vegas is constantly lit like a Christmas Tree.\n\nIt's almost like we need a substantial event to take place before it is indeed too late, the energy issue is starting to pick up traction but we need to move quicker. It absolutely must be on top of every political agenda of every government in the world.\n\nWhich brings me to my last point, a friend once questioned why people in third world countries mainly in Africa would continue to have children and that they needed to be educated and discouraged from this as they are contributing to the exponential population growth we are currently enduring. Developed countries consume a lot more than developing countries.\n\nSome of you may argue that countries with larger populations need more energy, I ague back that Indonesia's population is only 29% less than that of the United States. However the consumption of the United States is 95% more than Indonesia. \n\nI say again, the problem is not the size of the population just the actions we are currently carrying out. There are enough square miles for every human being on this planet ten times over. \n\nLastly, I do think there is some legitimacy to this claim. But more people do not necessarily mean more energy consumption. I don't have any empirical evidence and will try to get some but I can bet a family of 6 in East Africa consume a lot less than your average family of 3 in the United States. \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Nuclear war in the near future is inevitable until virtually all such weapons are eliminated. + \n + By near future, I mean 0 to 100 years. Given the irrationality of humanity, and the long history of systemic failures leading to the unthinkable, the presence of nuclear weapons represents an existential risk that is all too plausible.\n\nThe total yield of all nuclear weapons is measured in the *gigatons*. Though work has been done in the area of disarmament, the pace is far too slow to be meaningful. Even the presence of 20 modern nuclear weapons is an intolerable threat. \n\nBut a nuclear war involving only 20 weapons is a pipe dream. There are thousands of 'active' nuclear weapons, ready to be deployed, and at the current pace of disarmament, any nuclear war within the next 100 years will involve *at least* hundreds of weapons, with a total explosive yield in the hundreds of megatons.\n\nEven one is too many. If, for example, terrorists detonated a nuclear weapon of moderate yield in Manhattan, simulations have shown a total fatality amount of nearly a million. Economic damage due to both direct and indirect effects would likely be in the trillions. Geopolitics would be utterly and irreversibly destabilized for the foreseeable future. North Korea and Iran would suddenly appear to require immediate military intervention to forestall future attacks, and the American public would gladly endorse it.\n\nThis even would represent one of the greatest calamities in human history. Yet the threat of this pales when compared with a nuclear war involving multiple nations. In a full-scale nuclear war, immediate causalities would be in the hundreds of millions, potentially rising to billions depending on the extent of the war and the resulting collapse of infrastructure and climate stability. The very concept of a global economy would cease to exist. Humanity would be plunged into internecine conflict for decades, possibly centuries, as those still alive fought tooth and claw over the rubble of civilization. Suffice to say, short of an asteroid impact on the scale of Chicxulub, it is hard to imagine a worse fate for mankind.\n\nNow, let me address the problem of mutually assured destruction. This subject really requires its own topic, but I'll try to be as concise as I can. All major nuclear arsenals are organized around this idea, and so they are kept ready at all times, waiting for the call. This is insanely dangerous, as it means any mistake or false positive will not simply cause some weapons to be launched in retaliation, but *all* weapons. Implicit in the idea of MAD is that any nuclear strike must be responded to with overwhelming force, and the response must happen **immediately**, long before the bombs start going off.  A submarine-launched ballistic missile would take less than 15 minutes to reach a major city - that is the window our leaders have to judge if an attack is real or imaginary. Mistakes and false positives of this kind [have already happened](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov), and will surely happen in the future. We only need be unlucky once. \n\nIf that weren't bad enough, we have the growing danger of missile defense initiatives, which although perhaps well-intentioned, serve to destabilize the already questionable state of nuclear deterrence. What happens when, for one country, MAD is no longer mutual? If you believe your only true means of defense is being taken from you, what response do you have left?\n\nBut here is what is really scary, what should truly frighten you: it doesn't frighten you at all. This is the great paradox of nuclear war. It is simply too big to fathom. Just like attempting to imagine the scale of the universe, our minds fail us. Because we cannot imagine it, we dismiss it as a kind of fantasy. I am guilty of this too. Here I am, writing this post with all sincerity, and yet to contemplate it doesn't disturb me one bit. Of course it won't happen, right?\n\nI feel that this is the true peril we are facing. While our leaders may understand the threat intellectually, they have no visceral reaction to it. Not the reaction required to affect the needed changes to remove the threat. As history teaches us, world leaders are perpetually blindsided by what seems so obvious in hindsight.\n\nWe saw this with WWI: who would have thought one assassination would lead to a war killing millions? We saw this with 9/11: who would have thought it was so trivial to use commercial jets as weapons? We saw this with credit default swaps: who would have thought how easily they would cause systemic collapse of the economy? Who would have thought...\n\nThis where we are right now. The weapons are here, they are ready. The trigger need only the lightest pressure. And you aren't worried, you aren't worried at all.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The law should never be used as a moral compass + \n + First of all, the *law* I'm referring to isn't the law of any particular country, just laws in general.\n\nImagine sitting on the bus when an elderly woman comes in. The rules don't tell you to give up your seat for her, but you do.\n\nThis short scenario illustrates that rules and morals are two different things. However, I see more and more people defending actions saying it was \"legal\", and therefore it should be alright. \n\nThe death of Cecil the lion is an (extreme) example: the man who shot him defended himself by declaring that what he did was legal. As the global outrage over his actions showed us, it was however completely immoral.\n\nAnother example: bankers. I read in a book that bankers that are considered \"professional\" disregard their own morals as much as possible and instead try to do as much as is legally possible. Immoral bankers and brokers are a core part of why the 2008 crisis was able to happen.\n\nI think this illustrates what happens when people use the law as \"moral compass\": immoral behavior. \n\nSecondly, I think this is caused by the fact that our law is not our morals themselves but rather these morals applied into (simplified) rules.\n\nThirdly, I think it's impossible to enforce socially appropriate behavior like giving up your bus seat. This follows from my second viewpoint: because rules are simplified results of our morals, they can never cover every aspect of our lives, therefore leaving gaps for bus travellers and dentists and bankers to exploit.\n\n**I think it's up to us to be aware of this and never use the law as a moral compass. Please, change my view.**\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I don't feel obligated to ask permission to take cosplayer pictures at a convention. + \n + I've been to a prominent anime convention (~8000 annual attendees), 6 or 7 years now and have never felt the need to ask anyone's permission before taking pictures.  \n\nI'll  ask permission to take a picture if:\n\n*  The cosplayer is dressed up as something I really like  and no one else is taking their picture- I want them to do their pose or whatever if they don't mind because it's from something I like\n\n*  They're dressed in something suggestive, showing a lot of skin, or look uncomfortable being dressed that way in a public setting- I don't usually take these people's pictures anyways because 9 times out of 10 me feeling creepy isn't worth the value I'd get having the picture\n\n*  They might otherwise enjoy being asked to get their picture taken- little girl, something obscure, whatever\n\nI typically won't ask to take a picture if:\n\n*  They've already got a big crowd of people around them taking pictures\n\n*  They've got a cool costume I want to remember, but I don't care enough to have them do their pose or whatever.  \n\n*  I want to capture some aspect of the convention and anime culture itself- to me a convention is like going to a fair or a festival, it's an event I want pictures of\n\nI think the main reason people are so strongly opposed to people taking unwarranted pictures is creepy people, and that's a valid concern.  However I think with the general discretion that I follow, asking every single person for their picture is a bit unnecessary.  At the same time, I know a lot of people feel very strongly about photographic consent and I may very well be overlooking something important so change my view!\n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Gypsies and european immigrants are nothing but negative + \n + I might have my opinions heavily influenced by seeing/reading only things about these groups running scams on tourists, setting up tents wherever they can and other general no good activities. I don't see a lot of positive things coming from these groups and with the front page video of the immigrants swarming around the trucks going into the UK it seems ridiculous. I hate to think of myself as small minded about anything so I want to know what the other side of this is. Please source anything you can I really do want information.\n\nTo clarify when I say European Immigrants I mean the illegal immigrants. I cannot edit my title but am saying this to clarify\n\nTo further clarify, I see issues of the romani culture and illegal immigrants in eastern European countries, they seem to add nothing to the countries they are in. Is there a side to this issue I am not seeing?\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I don't like tipping. + \n + Leaving a tip feels so customary in certain places that it's become an incentive to do your job properly. I understand that it's the service that they provide and not just the food, but isn't that exactly what they're paid for? To give a paying customer a good service? Although I sympathize with their outrageously low wages, but why should I have to fork out more of my money that I'm already spending at a restaurant to subsidize young Jenny here, to get her up to normal living wage? Isn't that a governmental issue of poverty/low wages?", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: TV shows which promote social awareness at the cost of quality shouldn't be praised. + \n + I'm going to use Orange is the New Black as an example. I know that I'm not fully qualified to argue it because I haven't seen very much of the show. That's because, after 5 episodes, I found it incredibly boring.\nNow, maybe the show picks up, maybe I missed some stuff, I don't know. The point is, I found it to be a show with crappy dialogue and no interesting plot. However, the show is constantly praised by many people I know for being so good.\n\nAs far as I can tell, this is because it contains representations of many minority groups, people from the LGBT community, an almost fully female cast etc. \n\nCarmilla (the youtube series) is another example of this to me.\n\nI think having diversity and exploring social issues is something that good quality shows should have, but the presence of them doesn't automatically make it good.\nCMV.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Cheese is unequivocally better than chocolate + \n + I fundamentally view cheese as a step above chocolate in every domain of food usage and consumption. It is more varied: cheese can be soft, hard, orange, green, blue, white, or purple veined. It can be softly milky or pungent.\n\nCheese pairs better with wine, bread, and meats; elevates hamburgers and pizza crust; makes potatoes au gratin worth eating; takes caesar said to its true height. \n\nCheese sustains life. Bread and cheese were the foundations of the northern European diet. Roman soldiers carried cheese. Cheese won't kill your dog (probably). Cheese can be eaten at every meal from breakfast to a midnight snack.\n\nCheese can be made easily in the home with backyard goat. You can make cheese in your post-apocalyptic fantasies.\n\nSo give it to me, chocolate lovers. Can you CMV?\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Instead of focusing on making self driving & eco friendly cars, we should focus on improving and expanding public transportation. + \n + It is my belief that self driving cars and cars that pollute lesser than their gas powered counterparts are an unnecessary diversion in creating a safe cleaner people transportation system. We already have it! It\u2019s the trains! If public transport such as railways are expanded and given priority over road vehicles in infrastructure, then we can achieve the goals that the automotive industry is trying to achieve very quickly.\n\nWe should divert the resources that we spend on making smarter cars (finances and human capital) to making smarter, faster, safer, public transport and expand the rail network. If we just expand the rail network then people will automatically shift from driving a car to riding on a train as their preferred choice of daily commute.\n\nSome of the points I have against road transport for individuals.\n\n\n\u2022\tEnvironmental impact- A vast majority of cars are running on fuels that emit pollutants in the environment.\n\n\n\u2022\tSafety- Road injury was one of the top 10 causes of death in the world. According to WHO, road injury took lives of 1.3 Million people in the last decade.\n\n\n\u2022\tStress\u2013 While driving for enjoyment is really fun on your off days, daily commute hardly is. We are spending a nice chunk of our day that we can spend relaxing, reading or working to complete the last minute project on a rather stressful, and repetitive driving route facing traffic jams and asshole drivers.\n\n\n\u2022\tEnergy efficiency \u2013 A car owner takes a Ton of metal with him just to get from point A to B. Fuel efficiency of trains is superior to that of cars.\n\n\n\u2022\tMaintenance \u2013 a car requires frequent upkeep and maintenance of its parts and components.\n\n\n\u2022\tEconomy \u2013 Transportation is lot more expensive in cars.\nHere are some points that I have for expansion of public transport.\n\n\n\u2022\tBonus free time \u2013 When I\u2019m in a train I can browse my phone, read a news paper work on my presentation without the fear of killing someone. This is something driverless cars are trying to achieve and are still years away from it.\n\n\n\u2022\tPotty Breaks \u2013 trains can be modified to have them, cars don\u2019t. I\u2019d have to pause my driving, find a gas station and then resume it again, why do that when you can go on the go.\n\n\n\u2022\tFuel Efficiency.\n\n\n\u2022\tNoise reduction.\n\n\n\u2022\tSkill Transfer- People who graduate in engineering and were thinking of joining an automotive manufacturer can just as easily join a locomotive manufacturer.\n\n\nI am not arguing for an absolute ban on using cars, I just think if we focus on public transport more than we would solve a lot of problems that automotive market is trying to eliminate. Problems such as energy efficiency, pollution, and vehicle automation can be achieved with technology that we have **today.** \n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think an insurance company only for elite drivers is a great idea + \n + I believe that there exists a great market for auto insurance that only insures elite drivers.  Personally, I have never made a claim in the 17+ years that I have been driving and paying auto insurance and I believe that I should be paying a lot less than I am.  If I had the money to invest, I would start an insurance company that requires the following of all policy holders, no exceptions:\n\n1) No less than 10 years of driving experience.  \n2) Zero at fault accidents in at least 10 years.\n\n3) Zero claims filed with your previous insurance company in the last 10 years.\n\n4) No moving violations in the last 7 years (eliminates one third of fatalities*).\n\n5) No DUI or felony driving convictions, for your lifetime (eliminates one third of fatalities*).\n\n*http://www.carinsurance.com/Articles/How-many-accidents.aspx?WT.qs_osrc=fxb\n\nI understand that the qualifications are somewhat subjective, but I don't see a fair way to avoid that.  You could say that you are still a very low liability if you have only 1 speeding ticket for 5 mph over the limit 6 years ago, but that opens the door for a guy who has 2 tickets.  You have to draw the line somewhere.\n\nTo answer some likely questions: if you are on a policy and do something that causes you to no longer , the claim is paid but your policy is cancelled until you meet the requirements again.  No, you cannot add your teen driver to your policy, no matter how great you think they did in driving school.  Yes, your spouse is listed as an excluded driver if they do not also meet the requirements. All others are listed as excluded drivers.   \n\nI believe that enforcing the above would drive down claims enough that rates could be drastically reduced.  The main people who are opposed to this would be those who are butthurt that they don't qualify.  That's just too bad.  This is a (hypothetical) private company that has the right to refuse service to those who do not meet its qualifications, just as other insurance companies do.\n\nThe following is just an observation that I tried to backup with data but I have not found anything.  It does not seem to me that car accidents are evenly distributed.  It seems that some people smash up their car every couple of years and others have never caused such an event.  As such, the requirements are intended to disqualify about 90% of the people on the road today, and offer insurance only to those who have consistently demonstrated a high skill level and good judgement.\n\nI believe many good drivers would flock to this service because they are tired of spending their money on a service they have never needed to use and have a very low probability of using in the future.  This is not a service for everyone, but for those who qualify I think it could add a lot of value.  To CMV, you will have to convince me that this is not a viable business idea.  You will not CMV with responses that state any version of \"I'm a good driver but I don't met X, and I think I'm special and should still be able to be insured thru this company.\"  Thanks.\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV - in a truly libertarian economy, unions would rapidly become very powerful players, leading to a restablishment of a welfare state + \n + \n---\n\nDisclaimer, I'm a Brit who's also lived and worked in several developing countries, so I've seen first hand the damage, exploitation and general cost to societies of un-regulated (or highly corrupt) health and safety at work laws. I also don't have the same knee-jerk association of unions and criminal gangs that seems to prevail in discussions I've watched americans have. \n\n---\nThat said, let's move into the meat of the disscusion. \n1) a libertarian economy is not interfered with by the goverment. You want to force people to sign slavery contracts? it's allowed. By the same token however, there are no laws preventing people from forming unions, or those unions taking action to promote the interest of their members. If [the industry can maintain blacklists](http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/27/on-the-blacklist-building-firms-secret-information-on-workers), so can the unions. If ]a company decides to close stores to punish union members](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/walmart-accused-of-closing-stores-in-retaliation-for-workers-demanding-better-pay-and-conditions-10193668.html?origin=internalSearch), they run the risk of a rival firm that will work with unions taking the bulk of the sales in that area.\n\nAn antagonistic culture between unions and corporations is not the only option of course, and companies with forms that favour longer term thinking (like walmart, ironically) but also Waitrose in the uk (employee owned) might thrive when others get bogged down in strikes and penalties.\n\n2) unions get more and more effective the larger they get. At heart, they are simply rebalancing the power between a huge corporation and a single worker. The largest unions appeared in nationalised industries - the largest conglomerates of the day. There is a strong selection pressure for small unions themselves to form alliances, or even full unions with each other to increase their bargining power. An ineffective union will loose members to a more effective one and the market will deliver :)\n\n3) the unions themselves suffer the problem of free-riders. People who do not join but benefit from the union driving up minimum working standards and safety. If providing things like out-of-work support costs the union (and thus the corporations they work with) then companies that manage to avoid using union workforce will face a slight advatnage. As such, for strong unions, it is wise to agitate for political change, so that all workplaces have to conform to those same standards, that union type out of work support have to be applied to the entire workforce to prevent more predatory models from gaining a competitive advantage.\nThis also has the advantage, especially at the minimum level of starvation, slavery and loss of limb I've seen, of being a moral thing to do. \n\n4) Some people may have a very high risk tolerance (for whatever reason), and want to do without the safety nets and complain at the cost or inconvenience it puts on them as an employer, employee or as a tax payer. They will continue to complain, but when their individual demands conflict with organised forces, whether as a corporation, worker's union, or an insurance company, they will loose.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: It's better to have Reddit admins which evenhandedly censors bullying, than ones that don't censor anything. + \n + This is a direct response to the banning of /r/fatpeoplehate and the other subreddits.\n\nSubreddits whose whole purpose is to promote hatred based on appearance, race, sex, gender, etc., are not important to free speech.  Especially if they \"leak\" by either brigading other areas of the internet or Reddit, or if they cause harm to people by posting personal information without their permission.\n\nThis kind of behavior is often defended under \"free speech.\"  But it's not really conducive to having a level-headed kind of discussion.  It prevents the freedom of other, more meaningful, kinds of speech.  It's technically free expression, but allowing it to exist does more to harm free expression than support it.  A non-internet analogy is like somebody going to a debate and blowing an air-horn the whole time.  Technically, what they're doing is expressing themself, but doing so in an obnoxious, destructive way which prevents others from expressing themselves.\n\nTo this end, I would be happier if Reddit admins ended all communities that act like this (include /coontown and /SRS) than just have complete laissez faire modding.\n\nCMV\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: \"White trash\" is an offensive slur, and should not be tolerated in society just as we do not tolerate other bigoted slurs. + \n + This has bothered me for a while. The term \"white trash\" or \"trailer trash\" fits all the criteria for being a slur which should not be widely acceptable for use. But I have heard the term dropped casually in conversation, and no one seems to treat it like the slur that it is.\n\nIt is a term that denigrates and stereotypes a group of people based on their race, appearance, and socioeconomic status. It is meant to be derogatory. This to me is the definition of a bigoted term.\n\nI'm not arguing that the term has as much history behind it as other racial or bigoted slurs. But in our modern society, we should still abandon the term altogether.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:The media are fulfilling ISIS' requirements by producing endless amounts of \"terror porn\" for them. It would be helpful if they didn't do it + \n + Terrorists by nature are trying to cause the maximum amount of shock in order to achieve their goals. Be it for religious or geopolitical reasons the end goal is the same, scare as many people as possible. \n\nThe media are responsible for going above and beyond factual reporting with lurid fear-inducing headlines like \"More attacks to come???\" The media's only motivation is to increase viewing figures for shareholders. Their methods manipulate our basic human nature for profit, we are not easily able to resist gawking, and should be outlawed.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The lid of the toilet serves no purpose. + \n + In my life never have I ever found the *top toilet lid* to be useful.\n\n[I'm speaking about the one that serves to close the toilet.](https://d1ge0kk1l5kms0.cloudfront.net/images/G/01/th/aplus/kohler/kohler-glenbury-K-4733-seatprofile-lg.jpg)\n\nI've never touched any because **I don't acknowledge any use for it**:\n\n1. It **doesn't stop odors** because it's not even remotely hermetical\n\n1. It **doesn't hush sounds** if used before flushing, explained in point 1. (Doesn't hush sound if used after flushing either)\n\n1. After you leave the toilets there is **no mess that should be hidden**\n\n1. It's **usually dirty**, more so when you're not in your own place.\n\n1. I've, very occasionally, used it to put things on the toilets, but again that is very very rare and according to point 4, **not really the cleanest way to put things**. \n\n I **don't consider the top lid to be a shelf.** \n\nI'd be glad to hear some of your opinions on this. Thanks.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: It should be customary to get a job before you go to college. (Having your first job at 22 isn't okay.) + \n + (A) Work part-time in high school ; Then go to college\n\n(B) Work full-time before you go to college\n\n(C) Work while you study in college.\n\nI was a spoiled lazy kid because I never got a job.  Had my priorities mixed up and flunked.  I got a job in the real world, and it was painful, but humbling.  If I had gotten a job at 18 (or sooner), I would've done much better in college and learned crucial life lessons sooner.  There's also lots of other people who are deluded and spoiled because they don't work.\n\nI won't allow my kids to go to college without having worked first.\n\n* I'm not restricting this purely to retail, but retail teaches humility.  It teaches you how to be diplomatic, how you're not the center of the universe, sometimes you have to tolerate shit, things won't always go your way.  And after working a retail job, you'll treat other retail workers with more respect.\n\n* Having a job also teaches the reality of the world versus theory.  I used to be a hardcore Republican who thought poor people didn't have it THAT bad and wealthy people deserve to live 100x better because they work harder.  Now, I see the real challenges average people face, especially in the ghetto.\n\n* Having real world experience will help you just as much (you'll encounter lots of people, learn your strengths and weaknesses), if not more than spending years in college \"finding yourself\".  If you have no idea what you want to do in college, you're going to waste lots of time.\n\n* Lots of college kids are entitled because parents/government pay for everything.  And they think they automatically deserve a high-paying job just because they graduated.  Nope, gotta work your way up from the bottom.  Nobody's too good for an entry-level job.\n\n* Oh, and it doesn't hurt to have a little more on your resume.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I use iTunes. Why should I switch to something like Spotify when I already have an extensive library set up? + \n + Some of my friends say Spotify is the best thing for playing music. But I find it hard to believe when there are people like me who already have over 1000 songs in our library. Not to mention, iTunes is the only thing that will properly communicate with my Apple product that I use for music.\n\nI realize you can download pretty much as much music as you want, but to get that, you have to pay. Whereas iTunes is free. I'm not really the type of person who's into discovering brand new music all the time. Occasionally, I'll expand my horizons until I find an artist who really sticks, and then I'll play the crap out of their music until I'm pretty much sick of it. Back in the day, when I had a Zune to play music, they had a similar feature where you could pay a fixed subscription fee to download as much music as you wanted for free. Even back then, an offer like this didn't pique my interest.\n\nKnowing this, are there any standout features that evolve the listening experience so much that I'd be willing to abandon my iTunes library and start over again?\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Prices like $599.99 are deceptive by nature and ought to be outlawed or boycotted. + \n + I can think of no reason to set such prices other than as a psychological trick to make something seem cheaper than it is.\n\nThe consumer gains little to nothing by buying the product for 1 cent cheaper. It doesn't really add up for that much, and it is outweighed for how much extra the consumer spends due to being misled. Stores wouldn't do it otherwise.\n\nI would find it hard to believe that the prices are caused by competition and market equilibrium (i.e. that it would be rationally cheaper to buy at the $599.99 store than the $600 store). It would be a huge coincidence if it turned out that the \"real market price\" just happened to stop at that arbitrary .99 point. Furthermore, it appears that monopolies such as airport snack shops are doing it as well, and they have no competition.\n\nTherefore, I argue that it has no benefit to the consumer and it is done in bad faith. Of course, the consumer ought to be responsible when buying, but a practice like this very intentionally exploits such moments of minor inattention. This gives it grounds to be banned.\n\nI can see how that might cause problems with prices like $19,900, but not with anything below one dollar difference.\n\nIf you are a laissez-faire fellow such as myself who might believe that it is the store's natural right to set whatever price it wants for whatever reason, then fine, although it would be very low on the priority list of excessive regulations. But it would at least call for some sort of consumer action or boycott.\n\nAnd if you believe this is too small of an issue to write laws or organize rallies against, then that's also fine, but then you at least have to admit that this is still completely undesirable and dishonorable, at least on a miniscule scale.\n\nYou would probably change my view if you present a convincing central reason for stores to do this that isn't purely manipulative.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: within the next few decades, AI will replace a sizable portion of our jobs. Within a few centuries, they'll replace almost all of them + \n + It's already been happening with factory workers, online shopping, etc., and with self-driving cars on the horizon and computing technology getting better and better, the long-term job security for many professions is shaky at best. This surge in unemployment may even cause a great economic crisis. [This video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU) explains the situation quite well.\n\nBONUS: With many humans out of jobs, I've heard talks of unconditional basic income eventually being required. Indeed, the idea that everyone should have a job may become more arbitrary as time goes on as fewer people are able to contribute to the economy. Robots will simply do everything better, making humans far less useful and needed.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Felons should be allowed to vote + \n + I think, personally, that felons should be allowed to vote. It is a human right for someone to vote for their government, and is listed as such in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (I've forgotten which article). Just because someone makes some decisions, no matter how bad, doesn't take away their status as a living, breathing, human being and should not have their inalienable rights as people taken away. If this is a right that all humans have, taking the right away from them is denying them status as a human being, and a violation of their rights.\n\nI think this is further exacerbated by the fact that many felonies (or at least in the US, not sure how this applies in other nations), are not inherently... bad. Possession of a certain amount of marijuana (varying by state IIRC), heroin, or MDMA, for example is a felony. Someone who simply wanted to exercise their right to put a certain substance in their body could have their human right taken away and thus have no say in the governing bodies that decide what happens to them as a felon.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: It would be better for the US to regulate prices of certain commodities (e.g., rent, food) than to raise the minimum wage to $15/hr. + \n + Let's say we raise the minimum wage to $15/hr. Hooray poverty is solved!\n\nBut wait... What's to stop landlords (let's picture them as Mr. Burns) from calculating exactly how much extra everyone can pay now? Wouldn't the new *cheapest* place to rent be the maximum that a $15/hr wage could afford? I think people saying there would be less jobs is just fear mongering, but I would argue people making minimum wage would be no better off than they were before due to inflated costs of living if there are no limitations on those who set prices. And how fucked would you be if your current standard of living is based on making $16/hr, and suddenly rent prices raised like this? (You'd go from double the minimum wage to basically at the minimum wage).\n\nIf instead, we set regulations on necessary commodities (stuff you require to live like shelter) as a percentage of the wage of a minimum wage worker, wouldn't that make more sense? Free market works great for things people want, but not so well for things people need. For example, if the price of an Xbox exceeds what I think it's worth, I can simply live without one, demand will go down if they're priced too high, eventually the price will stabilize. But what am I willing to pay for a roof over my head? Heat in my apartment? Food on my table? Even if the price far exceeds what they cost to produce, I can't just decide to not pay for these things, so without limitations on what can be charged, what's to stop prices from going up indefinitely? (Looking at the US healthcare system, the answer seems to be nothing)\n\nLast, but not least, does raising the minimum wage perhaps discourage skilled labor? If you're a person who's worked hard or went into student loan debt in order to attain a $15/hr job, isn't this the rawest deal possible for you? Suddenly everyone is making the same as you, minus your debt payments, having done none of the hard work you did? Suddenly you went from middle class to the worst off of anyone, all because you worked hard/got skills in order to get a better job. (I don't have a $15/hr job, but I know a lot of people who are in this situation)\n\nSo, what am I missing here? Would greatly value input of anyone with education/experience in economics, since honestly, the reason I'm asking this question is because I have very little knowledge in the area. \n\n*TL;DR: I think raising the minimum wage would simply result in the cost of living raising to match, leaving minimum wage workers no better off and middle class folks worse off*\n\nChange my view/Educate me!", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: \"Buckle up, it's the law\" is an appeal to authority, and therefore not a good slogan to get people to put on their seat belts. + \n + I believe that \"Buckle up, it's the law\" is a very bad slogan, because it is an [appeal to authority](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority) which can be rejected easily in people's minds if they aren't aware of the purpose of a law.\n\nInstead, an appeal to the motorist's intelligence by pointing out the consequences of not buckling up, and thus making motorists aware of the possible consequences of not buckling up and making it obvious why it is rather sensible to wear one's seat belt would be a lot more effective. \n\n[This German ad posted along public roads throughout Germany](http://www.dvr.de/bilder2/p3737/3737_0.jpg) is an excellent example of this. The text translates to \"One is distracted, four die\". A brief but concise outline of cause and effect, enough to raise awareness. \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Poor Americans shouldn't be buying houses and be renting instead. + \n + I believe that poor americans shouldn't be taking out large mortgages that they don't have the ability to pay for. Instead they should rent out apartments.Homeownership is toted as beneficial to individuals but that has not been the case in the wake of the housing bubble. From where I stand, I feel home owners buy bigger houses than they would normally buy if they had to save up for the money instead of taking out loans. This is partly because when people buy homes, they feel that it is something permanent hence, they should get a good one. Also, tax deductions and low interest rates distort market signals, influencing people to buy larger houses than they would've otherwise. \n\nYou might say that housing is an investment and one of the few ways for the poor to invest their savings. I would disagree. Most people want to buy their houses for life and are unlikely to sell their houses (more than once or twice in a lifetime at max). You would have better luck at the stock market. Which unlike the housing market is easier to liquidate and  buy/sell. \n\nAlso, renting in my opinion is cheaper. Why? Because people are more likely to rent smaller apartments than what they would've gone for if they were buying the place. That again, is the psychological effect of seeing housing a long term investment and also the emotional aspect of thinking a home is special and since I'm buying it once, I should get a good one. Moreover, the existence of a bubble proves that the price of homes had exceeded its value (which is rent) and continues to do so due to all the speculation going around in the housing market. \nLets not forget, that renting also allows you the option to change homes readily when a cheaper one is available. If you owned a house you probably wouldn't be selling it for a mere hundred dollars a month, even though over time that might be a large sum but selling a house is a rough ordeal and finding buyers who are willing to pay the asking price is hard. Overall, it isn't easy changing homes you own as it is when you are renting. \n\nOne more point for renting, it allows you to be mobile and move to places where jobs are least abundant to where it is most. You can change neighborhoods easily when the one you are living in is going to dumps. Owning a home would make it difficult as the value of your homes drop and you are unable to move without incurring a huge loss.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: When driving on the highway, it is much safer to pass on the right, than to tailgate until the person in front of you moves over (USA). + \n + Following too closely is one of the most dangerous things you can do when traveling on the highway, and there is never an excuse for tailgaing in *any* driving situation, ever.\n\nIf someone is going slower than you in the left-hand (passing) lane, it's much safer to pass them on the right hand side, than to follow them closely to try and force them to move over. If passing on the right is not an option, you should wait patiently until a passing opportunity presents itself.\n\nIf someone is already traveling over the speed limit, and you choose to tailgate them because they aren't going as fast as you would like, you are an overly aggressive driver posing a dangerous risk to everyone on the road.\n\nWhile it's true that, legally, the left lane should only be used for passing, this is not realistically what the lane is used for. Arguments from a legal perspective will not sway my view.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:The narrative for Black and Hispanic Americans struggles in this country are bogus based on the success of Poor Asian Immigrants. + \n + This CMV has been done in some form before, but from an outside perspective looking in.  I am open to having my mind change or at least swayed, but this belief is rather ingrained.  \n\nMy wife and I are both children of Poor Asian immigrants to this country.  I will reflect on my mother\u2019s story.  She had me very young out of wedlock with no support from my biological father while her parents were stuck in our native country.  When she came to this country she was on government assistance.  With very little support she was able to finish community college, transfer to a four year college majoring in computer science eventually getting a Master\u2019s Degree.  Her story is not unique to the rest of my relatives or the Asian immigrant community.  I don\u2019t need to discuss how my wife and I are doing since we have greatly benefited from our parent\u2019s generation, their hard work and sacrifice.  \n\nI hear the arguments regarding systemic discrimination of blacks in this country.  I\u2019ve read Unequal Childhoods by Annette Laureau regarding kids in disadvantaged environments are less likely to succeed than those in middle to upper class upbringings.  However I don\u2019t completely buy into it.  I\u2019ve seen countless family members and friends go from food stamps to sedans in the burbs, and I attribute that to a culture centered around hard work, sacrifice, and education.  As my mom was going through school, we lived in poorer neighborhoods, and I was raised in neighborhoods with Blacks and Hispanics, sure I\u2019ll throw out the I had black friends card, I still do.   At the time we were on the same level economically, yet culturally we were worlds apart in what was emphasized from a parenting standpoint.  As I grew up I met more successful black kids in undergrad, grad school, work, but most of them came up from middle class upbringings.  They had no problems acting 'white' while I saw my childhood poor black friends get mocked for doing so, therefore I believe its a cultural part of poor black americans which is hindering them from assimilating into middle class america.  That is why I don\u2019t have compassion for the narrative that is pushed in the media for the poor black or hispanic american unable to rise from poverty.  I know this is a strong talking point for the right wing yet I have not read any tangible counter argument to the dispute the Poor Asian immigrant story.  If there are books or articles which provides a cogent counter argument please feel free to share.    \n\nTL:DR \u2013 The rationale for why blacks and Hispanics are unsuccessful in the U.S. are bunk because of the success of Asian Immigrants.  \n\n\n\n\n1) That current poor black culture  is a result of systemic discrimination.  \n2) No one has disputed that culture which I have generally claimed is the REASON for the state of poor black americans.  \n3) The present day racism and white privilege that exists today is not sufficient enough to either hold a demographic down or lift them up, not as much as the modern day media seem to claim.   \n4) I want to beef up on some books and articles cited\n5) The IQ debate. hmmm I'm just not going to touch that right now.  ", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I'm a Liberal and I think illegal immigration is actually a problem. + \n + In light of Trump's bigoted comments recently making the news, I thought it might be a good time to post this. It seems like some portion of the media has the attitude that any objection to illegal immigration is inherently bigoted.\n\nI believe illegal immigration is actually a genuine problem. I'm aware America in it's current form is a country of immigrants. I fully support legal immigration.\n\nI don't believe the stock line that modern immigrants are fulfilling jobs that otherwise broke, unemployed Americans could not or would not perform. That idea is inherently racist when you think about it. It says one group of people are capable of performing a task that another group cannot simply because of their identity. I'm not saying that immigrants don't perform these jobs very well, but I see no reason to think that Americans and legal immigrants couldn't perform these jobs equally well.\n\nThere are plenty of unemployed Americans who aren't able to land jobs because illegal labor costs are very cheap. Companies that employ illegal labor have a significant incentive to keep this cheap form of labor in play, at the significant expense of regular Americans who want to be payed a living wage. Instead of having to pay a decent wage, these companies can get away with exploiting illegal immigrants for their cheap labor. If this wasn't allowed, if the laws preventing illegal labor work were actually enforced, there would be significantly less incentive for people to migrate to the US.\n\nIf you're in the Midwest or East, you don't really notice the amount of illegal immigration that's going on. But, if you're in the West, it's hard not to notice. Obviously it's hard to tell who has migrated here legally and who hasn't, but if you visit a Latino grocery store the size of Wal-Mart you'll notice a few things...they're all extremely busy, many of them don't speak English...which makes me think they're either visiting or have not been here very long.\n\nObviously this is a generalization, but it seems like every family has about 3+ kids. It's not at all uncommon to spot families with 5+ kids under the age of ten. How is this possibly a good thing? There are enough humans polluting our country as it is. Why increase the burden?\n\nMost intelligent people have started to have less children, yet these religious people who are, on the whole, even less educated than we are, show up without decent paying jobs, take jobs that other Americans would have taken and now can't take, and proceed to have an expensive amount of children while having full access to our underfunded public school systems, our hospitals, and generally putting a ton of stress on every public service imaginable (libraries, jails, roads, landfills).\n\nIf their kids are sufficiently indoctrinated from a young age in the Catholic religion and adequately against birth control, will they proceed to have as many kids as their parents when they reach child rearing age? For every 3 kids another 3 kids? Is America not sufficiently religious as is? Do we need more religious believers strolling around attempting to inject dogma into our government/culture?\n\nMeanwhile, since these people are showing up with nothing, their kids are often receiving the worst of the worst in terms of education and healthcare. What are the long term effects of that? Not only is the educational system more stressed with these ESL kids, but these kids aren't being adequately educated. Does America have a shortage of unintelligent people? Do we need to create more by putting undue pressure on the educational system? What are the long-term effects? How could they possibly be beneficial and not negative effects?\n\nThe media and politicians have a huge incentive to support and bend over backwards to their new huge audience, so I don't trust them to be at all honest in their discussion here.\n\nAgain, how is this possibly a positive thing? Why encourage it in the slightest? Are there not enough problems going on in America that you want to compound the problem by adding more people to the equation? More people means more complexity...complexity isn't usually a good thing because it does not make things easier. I don't see the benefit whatsoever. Let a regulated amount of the best and brightest people come here legally and get paid decent wages. Let Americans have jobs that pay decent wages.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The ONLY thing that matters is what other people think or do. + \n + In today's society, we are taught to think that \"it doesn't matter what other people think, as long as you believe in yourself\". However, I find this to be completely false.\n\nIn a world where we work in teams, as a community, in cities and in countries, the entire description of yourself is based on how other people view you, rather than how you view yourself. For example, no matter how funny you think you are, funniness is only determined by how funny OTHER people find you. You may be able to change how funny you are, but only by taking into account of what other people think is funny.\n\nFurthermore, it is based on other people's decisions that get you to where you want to be. You can't sell a product without someone buying it. You can't get a job without someone hiring you. You do not exist until you are recognized to exist.\n\nPlease, change my mind on this. I'm having some really shitty thoughts, but can't help to get this mantra out of my mind.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Socialism/ Communism will not work in today\u2019s society because people are selfish. + \n + Socialism and its later potential follow up Communism, are great ideas and in an ideal world would create an utopia, where everyone is truly equal and there is no gap between rich and poor, in fact there are no poor and rich. However previous experiments have shown that it just does not work due to the key concept Marx himself proposed, that in order for socialism to work, the whole world has to be socialist. In this case I would propose countries like Russia (Where I am from), China and others who attempted at doing this, but I failed. The counter argument would be that these states were authoritarian and never really had socialism. However that is the very issue, which I have with socialism, due to two reasons:\n\nFirst, people are just not perfect enough to share all their work with others and live in communities where everything belongs to everyone, and nothing to them personally. That is the very reason why it later turned into a terrible state like Soviet Union, where there were no true elections anymore, corruption was high and some were \u201cmore equal than the others\u201d. Meaning it was not the authoritarian state, which was the cause of the failure of socialism, but people\u2019s inability to follow socialist rules, which led to the failure of the USSR in the 90s, whose system was heavily relied on Oil prices and the economy was otherwise weak. \n\nSecond of all, as mentioned before, in order for Socialism to work, the whole world has to comply with it. If for example say USA will start implementing even minor socialists norms, then other countries like China, where there is no free health care or free anything for that matter, will simply out perfume costly workers of USA and take away their jobs. Which is indeed the case with things like outsourcing and not so quickly growing USA economy. The solution for USA would then be to close itself up and live in a world where there are no imports or exports, this would protect its citizens from fierce external competition, but leave USA lacking behind in progress of all kinds. Examples for this are Venezuela or Columbia. \n\nAll in all, I still think that some elements of socialist systems are useful, like welfare for people who recently lost their jobs, paid mothers leave etc. However this are minor elements, which I think, should otherwise be implemented in fierce Capitalist society, where in order to succeed you cannot rely on gov. support, but 95 % on yourself.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Chopsticks are in no way superior to fork & knife. + \n + I love to eat Asiatic food but I could never really use the chopsticks thinking \"Wow, that is much better than usual cutlery.\"\n\n* Using chopsticks is at best a cultural exercise of contortion.\n\n* Forks and knifes are superior in every way I can imagine & in every situation.\n\nIncluding :\n\n* rice that is sticky and particularly rice that isn't sticky.\n\n* versatility while eating different kinds of food\n\n* eating with manners\n\n* not having to fear the dreaded fall of food\n\nI hope some of you will be able to help me find arguments to coerce me into using those chopsticks :)\n\n\n-----------\n\n**Update**\n\nSome facts I've accepted regarding the chopsticks:\n\n \n\n* Exercise fine motor skills\n\n* Give time to taste the food and appreciate it\n\n* Can be used while doing other things\n\n* Are easier to clean, produce and carry\n\n \n\n* Are superior if you want to:\n \n * Preserve the integrity of the food you eat (If you don't want to break a grapevine until it's in your mouth)\n\n * Eat crusty things (popcorns, cheetos, peanuts...) without dirtying your hands\n\n * Eat leafs or salad\n\n \n\n* You can have makeshift chopsticks easily while makeshift knifes and forks are still not a thing in 2015.\n\n* Historically better at not stabbing your enemy during dinner?\n\n* Let this be noted, the spoon and the spork were proposed and I'm all in their favors! As for the sporfe, knifoon\nand spooned knork I'm more dubious.\n\n \n\n*All of this may be quite situational but in those situations I accept chopsticks as superior*.\n\n \n\n \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: People who rely on crowd-funding to reach their desired goal are lazy & have no work ethic. + \n + It used to be that a person would work hard and put in their own time, money, effort and elbow grease to reach or achieve their desired goal. For example, when I was growing up I was taught that if I wanted something, I would have to work until I had enough money to get it.\n\nNowadays, all a person has to do is start a kickstarter or gofundme or indiegogo fundraiser, and then kick back with their feet up & watch the money flow in. This to me shows they have somewhat of a lack of passion because instead of being patient and working hard and saving up to get what they want, they are relying on others to donate money to fund their cause. CMV.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Most \"big words\" have no place outside of formal writing or speeches. + \n + IMO, whenever they're used it's mostly just confusing especially to younger readers. Why say \"preposterous\" when you can just say crazy or insane and have it make sense to more people? Do you need to sound smart with fancy language? Of course there are some exceptions for things that can't be described any other way, like names of diseases and other \"domain-specific\" words. A lot of times, teachers will encourage writing with fancy words for elaboration, and not just in persuasive or story-telling writings. Why would you try to explain something to as many people as possible, but use words that would exclude some of your readers?\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: College is not unaffordable in the US. + \n + The expense of a higher education has been a hot button issue for a number of years but the fact that students take on huge loans and graduate with huge sums of debt is a function of their own suboptimal decisions. [According to google](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=average%20annual%20college%20tuition&es_th=1) the average tuition for private colleges is $31,231 per year. Assuming the worst case and a student pays full sticker price, that's around 125k in debt. But with almost all private schools, there are plentiful scholarship and grant opportunities. Even for students who support themselves (meaning no financial help from their parents), these options make the 125k number far less. This forgets the fact that according to the same source, students can attend an in-state university for just shy of 10,000, for a far more affordable (and worst case) of 40k. And this is without considering alternatives to college.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Dog fighting should be legalized, taxed, and regulated at animal shelters. + \n + In much the same way as drugs, prostitution, gambling, or other \"victimless\" crimes, dog fighting is going to happen irrespective of the law.  Legalization would lead to increased tax revenue, less organized crime. and safer, more humane environments for all those involved.  It would also end the practice of baiting game dogs with helpless puppies and the like.\n\nI understand that many would argue that the dogs are victims (as are drug addicts and prostitutes for that matter), but only in the sense that eating horse meat (which is illegal in many places) victimizes horses, or even horse racing, which is already legalized, taxed, and regulated in controlled environments.\n\nThe fact is countless dogs are already being put to death in animal shelters, often at the taxpayers' expense.  Revenue from dog fighting could alleviate this cost considerably, perhaps even allowing animals to be kept longer, increasing their chances of adoption.  Highly aggressive dogs are unlikely to ever be adopted however (except perhaps by illegal dog-fighting fans currently), nor should they be.  \n\nIt would only be the aggressive dogs used in fights, as they're clearly willing. That's why they need to be kept in separate cages, otherwise they'd be mauling each other of their own volition.  Dogs too old, young, sickly, or cowardly to fight could still be put down as usual since they would make for unentertaining match-ups and would be bad for gambling.\n\nEven the dogs that do fight would receive better medical treatment afterwards from veterinarians on hand, and/or humane euthanasia rather than drowning, hanging, etc.  You certainly wouldn't get the likes of a Michael Vick doing a Pete Townshend impression with a terrier in place of a guitar.  \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Saggy pants are unacceptable but tolerated because of white guilt + \n + There should be nothing acceptable about walking around showing others your underwear. It is not civilized behavior, and it is potentially in violation of indecency laws (what about a man showing nothing but boxers with little girls walking nearby?), but it is not and will not be addressed because of the fear of being called racist. \n\nMy view: Saggy pants is not a cultural quirk, nor akin wearing your hat backward. it is offensive in a very real way, and should not be tolerated (in the sense that indecency laws were created for the same underlying reason)\n\n\n1. it has been correctly noted that many ethnic groups sag their pants \n2. Offensive really is subjective, and I've realized the solution is a society I really don't want to live in (shira law for example) \n3. there really are examples of dress that could be more offensive from that perspective", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Pink is the best colour highlighter + \n + Amongst me and my friends, as well as friends of friends, and just about anyone at our schools and universities we see multiple times, we constantly have the debate about the best colour of highlighter. for me it is easily pink because it just POPS off the page. it does highlight! it draws the eye better than any other colour. most people say yellow because it is the classic and easy to photocopy without it showing up so you can share notes. however i feel like yellow isn't as strong or immediately distinct as pink and it takes time to dry. Also, yellow is usually tainted by the pen and isn't as clean.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Saying you shouldn't care about X when Y is so much more important is never constructive + \n + I have been seeing this a lot recently with this lion uproar. Critics say that people shouldn't care about the lion because of all kinds of issues from racism to abortion. I haven't really followed the lion thing, that was just an example. People do this in all sorts of conversations. \n\nI find this reasoning completely flawed. Are we only going to care about the most important issue? Before we care/talk about something do we have to make sure there is no issue more important?  Also, the conversation about X is already happening. The issue is out in the open and people are passionate about solving it. This is great and a bit rare. We should roll with it when people want to make positive change instead of making them feel bad for being passionate about the wrong thing.  People have the capacity to care about more than one issue. Humanity as a whole can work together to solve more than one problem at once. Saying something like this you are trying to derail the argument about X  rather than help either argument.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Police officers who kill citizens for any reason should be placed under arrest by another officer for murder. + \n + With the media covering police killings and the fact that United States Law enforcement kills a relatively large percent of its people every day I believe there should be more repercussions to an officer that kills a citizen.\n\nThe benefits to having a process like this includes:\n\n1. No hypocrisy. All because someone has the title of a law enforcer doesn't mean that they shouldn't follow the same legal process as a citizen would. I mean, what if an officer showed up to the scene of a shooting (in which the shooter called 911 for help) and the shooter was there with the weapon and openly admitted to killing the victim in self-defense (which upon observation it was blatantly obvious it wad self-defense)? Surely the officer would draw his/ her weapon at the murderer and scream to get down. They would proceed to cuff them and bring them to the station for booking/ questioning. If an officer called in for back-up after killing someone (even if was obviously out of self defense) they would be approached with \"hey are you okay?\" and \"Let's get the paperwork out of the way so you can have your paid leave.\" That to me is hypocritical. Take away the uniform and you have a person who just killed another person.\n\n2. It would make officers think twice before drawing. If they knew they would be processed and charged with murder, I would argue that there would a significant decline in police shootings.\n\n3. It gives the victim a fair chance at their side. Even if they are dead, treating an officer like a criminal discredits any story they come up with giving a better chance for the true series of events to surface. We have seen A LOT of cops make up shit that \"justifies\" the killing when later proved wrong by cameras. If people could just make up stories and be believed 100%, I could go outside right now, shoot someone in the head while no one is looking, plant a knife, claim they came at me with a knife, and get away with 2nd degree murder.\n\nEven if an officer witnessed another officer kill a person when it was blatantly self-defense (eg the person had a gun pointed at the officer) they should still be cuffed and taken in. Just apply the same situation to 2 citizens, surely the one who lives would be charged with murder and only the results of an investigation would set them free.\n\nI'm just frustrated with all the bull shit I hear about cops and would like to hear the logic of the other side because I feel I'm blinded from it. So CMV.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Bernie Sanders' economic policies (proposed minimum wage hike and income tax) are economically ill-informed. + \n + I don't really have a view on this. I confess, I am not very well-read on economics, and while Bernie Sanders' ideas seem good on paper my friends and family tell me they won't work.\n\nThe most common explanations I hear are these: a minimum wage hike would result in business closings from having to overcompensate employees, and it would cut quality in other areas. A 90% income tax on the wealthy is a punishment tax for becoming rich, and those who are already rich would remain unaffected, so it is not effective.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: big game trophy hunting shouldnt be veiwed as a sport, nor should it be legal + \n + I have several issues with it. But before i get into that, i will point out that i am perfectly fine with people hunting things to eat. Things like deer, and fowl.\n\nBut to go hunting for exotic animals is just selfish, cowardly, and just plain retarded to put it bluntly.\n\nWhen people hunt exotic rare animals, like lions, rhinos, bears and girraffes to keep the head on their wall, they are taking what belongs to everyone, and basically stealing it. Everyone should be able to enjoy them in the wild, but with poaching threatening many species, there are fewer and fewer in the wild to see. \n\nCalling it a sport is a joke. Anybody with half a brain can go out and shoot an animal. They put them on their wall to tell everyone \"look at the dangerous animal i killed, pay no attention to my tiny penis\". All it shows it cowardice. You wanna make it a sport, hunt them with your hands and teeth, like they do. Animals like lions aren't afraid of humans, especially on the preserves. They don't run to hide, it's shooting fish in a barrel.\n\nWhen an exotic animal needs to be culled, then let wardens do it, don't sell off the tag for someone for thousands of dollars so the can come and play king of the jungle. \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Sitting Senator John McCain referring to every day citizens coming out to support Trump as \"the crazies\" is worse than Trump's comment about liking \"people who weren't captured\". + \n + I'm sure most people on here have seen The Donald's comments about John McCain's military service.  I don't know if a lot of people are aware what John McCain said before that.\n\n([Here's an article](http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/john-mccain-donald-trump-immigration-phoenix-120216.html) talking about exactly what McCain said.)\n\n[Here's a picture from the rally](http://imgur.com/bPtv0RX).  That is a standing room only crowd.  There may not be thousands there like some have said, but there are certainly hundreds and likely over 1,000 people there to show their support a full 6 months before the first primary and over 7 months before the Arizona primary.\n\nAfter Trump had a rally in Phoenix, AZ (the state McCain represents) for a standing room only crowd, John McCain (while sitting in the senate office he was sent to by the voters of Arizona) said to a reporter for the New Yorker, \"This performance with our friend out in Phoenix is very hurtful to me, because what he did was **he fired up the crazies.**\u201d  \n\nThat is a sitting senator denigrating the people of his own state for going to a rally for a Presidential candidate from his own party.  These are just regular people participating in democracy, and getting mocked by their own elected representative.\n\nWhat Trump said about POWs and the military was clearly out of line, but isn't nearly as repugnant as McCain saying that about thousands of American citizens that he represents.\n\nTrump is awful.  Just awful.  He's a mockery and making a sham of our election process.  He should be polling at under 1%.  \n\nBut I don't get to make those decisions, and John McCain sure as fuck doesn't get to either.  The Republican base is showing their support for Trump, and for John McCain to dismiss that by calling HIS OWN CONSTITUENTS \"the crazies\" is far worse than what Trump said about McCain.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Signing people up to vote in elections is bad for the general populace. + \n + I don't have an incredibly detailed post on the matter.  My general logic is if you HAVE to sign someone up to vote, they will most likely be too lazy to take the time to read up on their candidates or what they're voting for.  I believe everybody should have the right to vote and access to voting, but when you're cajoling people into registering you're adding fluff votes based on color, party, or sensationalized issues.\nI feel like most people I've brought this up with believe I'm wrong so I just want a well constructed argument as to why.  Not here to argue at all, thanks for your time!\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: All people who are healthy enough should be an organ donor + \n + I believe everyone who is in good health, but has passed away or is about to pass away should be an organ donor. You have the chance to save lives while yours is being taken or has just been taken. I don't see a reason to just waste your organs by burying or burning it after death.\n\nI know it's your body so you should have a right to do with it what you want, but why not make your last act mean something to someone and/or a family?\n\nThose who aren't organ donors can you explain why you aren't?\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The solution to the human race's problems is to get rid of the human race. + \n + While I would never expect or follow through with the destruction of the human race, I believe it to be the simplest way of dealing with our problems.\n\nI believe that we will never be satisfied with what we have, there will never be equality for all, we'll continue to destroy the environment and in the end, we will all die a much worse death trying to live happily than one that would come form purposefully erasing our existence. Looking at it from another perspective, it's like eradicating the parts of DNA needed to make tonsils so that humans never again deal with tonsillitis. In that analogy, the human body would be the Earth and tonsils would be the people. Tonsillitis would be the possibility of people doing bad things and removing the DNA would be what we do to get rid of humans. I just think that, not taking feelings into account and going with the quickest and simplest option, remove the problems from the root is ideal. Once again, this does not take into account feelings of people as obviously most of us don't want to die, regardless if it would be better for the planet.\n\nOf course, erasing humans from the planet is much simpler than you'd expect. It also doesn't have to be prolonged or painful as would be our deaths from a polluted world and from wars. I am sure that within 50 years, a group could easily genetically engineer a strain of virus to get the job done. Mass production of asbestos and coordinated release all over the world could work too. What I'm saying is that it's pretty easy and could be done quickly. Nothing more, nothing less.\n\nNow, this is all assuming a few things:\n\n- That if humanity continues, we will eventually cease to exist against our will.\n- That humanity will never have true equality.\n- That war will always continue in some form.\n- That we will continue polluting/degrading the Earth as long as we exist.\n\nIf each human somehow became the \"God\" of their own universe (though I have no idea how that would come about) then I believe there would be no problem with each individual existence, as controlling your own universe means that no matter what you do you are in the right. Of course, that is all BS/fiction and we live just like all the animals on the Earth, aside from being special in our own little ways. I don't think we as a whole can ever fully agree on anything, and that our disagreements will always cause us problems.\n\nOnce again, I believe the destruction of the entire human population to be our best solution.\n\nAs an aside, some other animal may eventually evolve to be intelligent in the manner we are, so the possibility of simply destroying all life to forever end suffering of any kind on this planet is considered.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe that domestic labor has value, and the principles behind alimony laws are valid. + \n + Working in family law, I meet a lot of men facing divorce who feel no obligation to support their ex.  You also hear a lot of mens rights activists bemoan the concept of alimony as unjust.  They usually cite statistics showing how often men are the ones disproportionately ordered to pay support.\n\nI don't give much merit to these claims.  What most of these men don't understand is that marriage in the eyes of the law is primarily an economic partnership.  When a couple marries, they voluntarily agree to equally share resources produced during the marriage.  \n\nThe traditional view of marriage has the wife contribute via domestic labor, i.e. cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc.  First off, I think it is important to realize that this labor has real economic value.  These tasks need to be done in order for either spouse to succeed in another professional setting.  \n\nThe counter argument you often hear from divorced men is that their wives refused to work, and also refused to perform these domestic duties, and thus should not be entitled to support.  While this may not seem fair, the reality is that this outcome is still produced by the man's *choice* to marry someone with no professional prospects, and no willingness to perform domestic duties.  In other words, the man.entered into a bad economic partnership and must now shoulder the costs.\n\nIn many cases, whether the man realizes it or not, there was a reason why they chose to marry who they did.  Maybe it wasn't directly economic, maybe it was for sexual attraction, emotional support, or social status.  I would argue that even these factors have economic value, even if it is difficult to quantify.  When you develop a career, you pour your soul into your work, and everything about your lifestyle affects your success.  So regardless of whether the individual got what they thought they would from their spouse, their spouse still had an inexorable affect on their career and thus has earned a stake in it.  I think this is fundamentally fair, in my opinion.  \n\nFinally, I want to point out that there is a distinction between temporary and permanent spousal support.  Temporary support is usually close to a 50%, flat calculation intended to maintain the parties lifestyle until permanent support is determined.  Permanent support is always a lower amount, intended to provide the supported party enough time to become self-sufficient through education, job training, etc.  In longer marriages, there might not be a termination date, for example if the spouse is close to retirement or the relationship lasted so long that a permanent stake in the others career is warranted...but in most cases, there is a termination date involved.\n\nI can concede that it is more than possible for men to become subject to unfair rulings.  However, I don't think unfair outcomes necessarily reflect unfair principles.  Usually, when something unfair happens it is because the case was not handled properly by the parties or the Judge; this is not the fault of the laws themselves, or the principles behind them.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I do not think it\u2019s possible for someone to keep their religion or lack thereof out of their vote and comments telling people that they should are useless. + \n + I have seen on here where people have told others that they should keep their religion/morals out of their vote and the same when talking about how representatives should vote. But that is impossible in my mind. We are not Vulcans we vote emotionally and based on our morals and upbringing instead of in some cold logical fashion. And a person\u2019s morals will be based on that upbringing, But shouldn\u2019t someone vote based on their morals? Their version of right and wrong will be based on what they have read and what they think is morally right.  As for leaving religion out of it that is impossible since for someone religious their sense of morality will be based around that religious law. I may be agreeing against a straw man here and the whole \u201ckeep your morals out of it argument\u201d may just be something idiots/trolls say when coming up against a moral viewpoint they don\u2019t like or agree with.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:Caloric balance is a shitty formula for weight loss + \n + I'm not taking issue with the science that if you eat less calories than you burn you will lose weight.  Maybe that's the case, but I feel like focusing on the caloric content rather than  the actual content of a diet really doesn't help with weight loss.   \n\n1)It's really hard to be precisely sure the exact number of calories in something, and the exact number that you burn.   It seems far more practical to just focus on what you're eating rather than if I consume 2000 or 2200.  For me prepare my own food using basically a paleo diet, seems to work a lot better than logging caloric counts in MFP ever did.  \n\n2) Reducing your caloric load without actually changing your diet doesn't modify your actual tastes.  Whereas force exposing yourself to fruits and vegetables and working on the preparing of them will shift your tastes to prefer those flavors over less healthy ones.   ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: \"Clickbait\" is good. + \n + Let \u201cClickbait\u201d be defined as an intriguing title that gets people to click on a link and read or view the content associated with it. I would prefer to call this a non-revealing headline, as \u201cClickbait\u201d has a negative connotation, but we can call it clickbait if you like.\n\nA non-revealing headline leads people to follow the link and view the content. If a headline is too revealing, people will just read the title and move on without even reading the article. This is detrimental to the spread of information because people will assume that their surface knowledge of the title is enough to know the content of the article, and they will miss too much important information. \n\nIf the content and substance of an article could be expressed with a single phrase, there would be no need for articles. To try and express the content of an article with one headline is an insult to the article itself because it suggests there is only one phrase of meaningful content in the article. Paraphrasing and summarizing can be useful, but that does not imply that they aid in the titling of an article. They are better suited in the conclusion, and possibly the introduction of an article.\n\nThe following arguments do not effectively apply against \u201cclickbait\u201d:\n\n1) Clickbait is just used to make money, so it\u2019s an insult to \u2018real\u2019 news.\n\nA vast majority of news is published by companies for profit. Thus, the titling method is irrelevant.\n\n2) Clickbait is used to link to malware and spread viruses.\n\nAnything imaginable on the internet can and has been used to spread malware.\n\n3) Clickbait is sensationalism, which is bad. \n\nWhether or not sensationalism is bad is an entirely different argument altogether (Let\u2019s not have it here). Much of modern news is sensationalism, so it changes nothing. Also, an intriguing headline is not necessarily a sensationalized one. \n\n\n \"Officer pulls over black woman, you won't believe what happens next!\" is okay (this is what i mean by clickbait).\n\n \"Officer pulls over black woman and changes her tire\" is fine, but less people will actually read the article. \n\n\"Black woman changes heart of officer who pulls her over\" would be misleading and wrong. (unless that's what actually happened)\n\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Racism has nothing to do with right wing extremism. + \n + Background: I'm a danish libertarian. On a normal left-right scale, I'd be on the right wing, and socialists would be left wing. I'm very ideological, and I don't see what liberalism has to do with racism/xenophobia. \n\nLibertarians will defend personal freedom and responsibility, because that is what liberalism is all about. I don't see what denying refugees to enter your country has to do with liberalism, nor do I understand why people refer to racists as \"right wing extremists\". \n\nIn my opinion, liberalism (right wing) has nothing to do with immigration/asylum/integration politics. Therefore, it is uncalled for, to say that it is right wing extremists who are against accepting more refugees, as a true libertarian wouldn't mind more refugees, as long as they:\n\n1. Provide for themselves (and/or contributes to society)\n\n2. Doesn't interfere with your personal freedom (example: They don't steal).\n\n\nRight wing extremism would only be about fully applying the principals of liberalism. For an example: Lowering taxes to 0%. \n\nRight wing extremism has nothing to do with racism/xenophobia or immigration politics. CMV.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: If a killer asteroid were headed to Earth, Humans would be able to stop it. + \n + I say \"killer asteroid\" in the title for brevity, but I mean any celestial object (asteroid, comet, planetoid, etc) large enough to wipe out life on Earth.\n\nI have three basic reasons:\n\n1. We know there are no planet-destroyers in the Asteroid Belt, which means anything that'd take out Earth would need to come from the Kuiper Belt or the Oort Cloud.  Both of these are very far away, and would give us lots of warning, even if the object were presently on its impact trajectory orbit.  More likely, we'd detect it multiple orbits in advance, and have decades or centuries before predicted impact.  But I think we'll at least have multiple years.\n\n2. Nuclear weapons would be pretty effective at deflecting an object.  They are very energy dense, and [we can use a standoff detonation](http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/neo/report2007.html) to cause ablation on one side of the comet/asteroid and nudge it.  We only need a very slight nudge to push it off of an Earthbound trajectory when it is far away.\n\n3. If an impact were imminent, humanity would throw all feasible resources into stopping it.  A lot of the things which make present space travel difficult would be overcome fast.  We would allow launches which have a high chance of spreading radioactive debris onto Earth for instance, or which have a high chance of loss of human life.  We might even send astronauts on a suicide mission.  Of course, money would be no object for this, and massive logistical resources would be poured into anything with a chance of saving us.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The social contract of marriage should not be limited to romantic/sexual relationships. + \n + If the government is going to be involved in issuing and recognizing unions between two people (which it really shouldn't but that's an entirely different CMV), then this social contract and the benefits it carries should be available to ANY two consenting adults. \n\n\nAny two adults should be allowed to join together in a domestic partnership for mutual benefit, be they a romantic couple, friends, siblings, parent and child,  etc. \n\n\nThe romantic and sexual aspect of a marriage should be irrelevant in the eyes of the state. It is simply two people who for whatever reason decide to face life together and form a partnership to help, support, and prosper one another. \n\n\nAside from the fact that government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, I really don't think there is any argument that can hold up against the fundamental injustice of allowing this benefit for some and not for others. ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Someone who exaggerates their finances or has $10,000 in credit card debt at over 20% interest is not qualified to be President. + \n + *I am not saying that they should be banned from running, but I am saying that regardless of their policies, it is dangerous to let someone with $10,000 in credit card debt or someone who inflates their net worth by billions to run a major economy.*\n\n**Donald Trump**: His self-reported net worth, in excess of \"TEN BILLION DOLLARS\", is significantly above third-party estimates as well as above his own figure of ~$7b from several months earlier, which included over $1b of bullshit naming rights. If he can inflate his own balance-sheet, who can trust him with the US' budget??\n\n**Scott Walker**: Has $10,000 in credit card debt while posturing as a fiscal conservative. I do not want someone as President who will continue borrowing, and his personal borrowing habit bodes ill for our country's future (not to mention that he has nearly bankrupted Wisconsin). Also, I could not trust him with any executive power as he could use it to wipe out his personal CC and student-loan debt.\n\nCMV!\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The mayor of San Francisco is responsible for the death of Kate Steinle + \n + Ed Lee's continued policy of making San Francisco a sanctuary for illegal immigrants by not cooperating with federal law enforcement led to the release of Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez. Therefore he is culpable for the murder he committed because without Lee's policy Kate would still be alive. I believe just as the Obama administration went after the state of Arizona for trying to enforce immigration law they should go after Lee for not enforcing it. In fact if it's with in the law Lee and any one else involved in Sanchez release should be charged with abetting a felon. At the very least the federal government should cut all  funding from the city until they comply with immigration law.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Having a soft currency is not an economic benefit for a country's citizens + \n + **Context:**\n\nGreece has been on international news lately, after defaulting on its IMF payments. A referendum is being held regarding the people's stance on a memorandum agreement next Sunday, and one of the topics of discussions is whether Greece would have been better off out of the Euro.\n\nAfter entering the Euro, Greek economy, fueled also from cheap loans, converted to mostly retail services, with the industry and agricultural sector faltering, after being overwhelmed by products that were cheaper and of better quality compared to Greek alternatives. As a result, industry and agriculture positions paid less well, further fuelling a drop in production.\n\nHowever, I do not believe that this was a currency issue, but rather an issue of internal lack of competitiveness. And in this sense, I believe that getting out of the Euro would not solve by itself directly any of the issues, apart maybe as a swim or sink method.\n\n**My position:**\n\nA soft currency as a means to increase competitiveness is useful only in populist societies, where the government can devalue its currency and effectively lower the income of its people across the board, thus hurting disproportionately those with the lowest incomes.\n\nAdditionally, a soft currency is inherently more open to market speculation and reduces trade, as more volatility implies higher risk of business.\n\nI have thought a bit on the subject and I sincerely would like to hear informed opinions on the subject, so naturally I defer to [Cunningham's Law](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham's_Law), to get the most balanced view possible.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:I believe US should spend more money on military. + \n + 1. Military industry keeps some of the very few manufacturing jobs in US, this industry's survival critically depends on US's defence policies and government orders, without US spending sizeable chunk of its budget on military, millions of jobs will be lost.\n\n2. US has the money. Yes, US is in some serious debt right now, however USD is the most indestructible currency ever existed in human history, with US's economy size, gold reserve and military power at its back, it is impossible for USD to collapse in the foreseeable future. US can always borrow more money from its own citizen or foreign countries without worrying about crisis like Greece happen. Further more, even if USD value drops as a consequence of US printing more cash to pay back debts, all other countries will follow to de-value their currencies to compete with US, just like we have seen in the past few years.\n\n3. US spending more on military doesn't necessary mean a safer world, but at least it will make its NATO allies safer. As a Canadian I know we don't have to worry about fighting off an invasion alone. US spending more on defence means we will spend less, this will benefit our economy and allow us to put more money into our welfare system.\n \n4. No matter how much US government sets its 'defence' budget,  US's armed force is built to be an offence force. Considering how the military complex works and US politician/public thinks, US will never stop bombing/invading smaller countries to defend its 'freedom'. Spending more money developing and ensuring US's technological advantage on military means less casualties from those inevitable wars.\n\n5. Military technologies benefits civilian life in the long run. We wouldn't get internet, GPS, jumble jets and spacecraft if US haven't thrown so much money into military. I want to see human land on Mars before I am 50, so come on US congress, make it happen!\n\n\nTo answer some of the most frequent questions:\n\n**Why not spend the money on infrastructure/medical research/education/NASA?**\n\nWell, when US was cutting military spending in the 90s, the federal spending on education/infrastructure/NASA/higher education research also went down. I fundamentally disagree the argument that 'we are not spending enough on such/such/such because we spend too much on military!' The fact is the amount we spend on military and other programs is not a zero sum game. Spending less on military dose not bring US better infrastructure/education/research. \n\n**US is already spending too much on military, it's by far the most powerful force in the world, why more?**\n\nIn % per GDP sense, US ranked No.21 in the world(3.5%), behind Saudi Arabia (10.8%), Israel (5.2%) and Russia (4.5%), this is not that much. Comparing to those countries and the collapsed USSR, US is in a much better financial state (see my point 2).\n\nAlso, US government and public have set their military force to be the keeper of freedom/world police ever since the end of WWII. Yes the current size of US military is too big for a defensive force. However, for what US public and government want it to be? I think the current spending is well justified if not insufficient. ", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Psychotherapies self-esteem are based on Western cultural perspectives, flawed, dangerous and certainly not applicable to other cultures + \n + Hello there. \n\nI am a 24 year old male from Bangladesh. Excuse my terrible grammar, English is not my native language. I am a Muslim male on paper and not religious at all; although I do strictly adhere to much of the important cultural and social values of the subcontinent. I have never studied philosophy and I find the subject to be complicated, so please try to answer in simple, everyday argumentative terms. \n\nAnyways, the thing is, I have some self-esteem issues. I am short, ugly etc. I hate myself and my life. I have been going over several self-help resources on *self-esteem*. I have read *Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Dummies*, *Boosting Self-Esteem for Dummies* and several other resources---from online articles to booklets. It seems to me that there is an underlying theme to all these:\n\n* Do not globally attach a label to yourself. \n\nI find this approach to be grossly flawed, dangerous and purely Western-centric and not applicable to other cultures. Especially not mine. \n\nThe above mentioned resources claim that humans are too complex to be globally labelled or rated. Therefore, they should give up attaching a label to themselves. If they ever have a thought \"I am bad\", they should counter it by saying \"I have other good qualities too\". \n\nNow this is all fine when we are talking about petty mistakes or crimes. However suppose hypothetically speaking we apply this approach to a murderer who is suffering from self-esteem issues. He believes and thinks that \"He is bad\". Should he use this approach to make himself feel better by saying \"I am a murderer and I kill people. Although I should not call myself a murderer and instead I should consider all the other good qualities that I have\". This is insane!! \n\nThis approach might go well with the western view where retribution is frowned upon, however its totally incompatible with my culture. In the Islamic (and also the subcontinental) culture, there is a strong culture of retribution. A murderer who kills for evil reasons is to be punished by death and is to be burned forever hereafter. There is NO scope for him to *feel good about himself* or *redeem himself*. I am not going to argue whether this cultural approach is better or worse then the Western one. The only issue here is that I find this philosophy to be highly flawed, dangerous and not applicable to other cultures.   \n\nLooking forward to hearing your side of the arguments.  \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: If gay and interracial marriage is legal in a state, then polygamous marriage should also be legal in that state. + \n + A few things to note before a start:\n\n1. I'm not arguing to the contrary against gay marriage. I am for gay marriage as I am for polygamous marriages.\n\n2. I'm not arguing for forced marriage or arranged marriages where several women are forced to marry a single man, like in various religious sects, but the concept of a marriage containing multiple people as a whole.\n\n3. I am as much for polyandrous marriages as I am for polygynous marriages. (i.e. women can have multiple husbands in addition to men having multiple wives.\n\n4. Willing to discuss this *legally* and *ethically* in seperate spheres, but let's try not and mix the two together too much, unless absolutely necessary. It is assumed that gay marriage is both legal and ethical for the purpose of this discussion. If you believe gay marriage should be illegal or is unethical, then those arguments have merit towards polygamous marriage as well.\n\nAlrighty, now onto my main points.\n\n1. Polyamarous people deserve the same right to equality, to marry who they love, just like homosexuals, and heterosexuals. Polyamarous relationships are no less moral than homosexual relationships, and relationships between consenting adults should be able to be consummated in marriage.\n\n2. Marriage was not made legal by a popular vote in many places. The only country to legalize it via a popular vote was Ireland a week or so ago, everywhere else had it decided by judges or representatives. In the US, interracial marriage and gay marriage has been ruled as legal by courts, not voted in. Public opinion towards polygamous marriage is irrelevant.\n\n3. When it comes to raising children, one can assume that since having a single parent results in worse-off children, then having a higher amount of parental figures and providers would make for a similar, if not better child-rearing than having one parent, two parents, or two parents of the same sex (all of which are legal). [Source] (http://archive.news-leader.com/article/20121125/NEWS01/311250054/single-parents-Ozarks-poverty) [Source 2](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_House)\n\n4. When it comes to insurance, legal proceedings, etc. everything can be easily adjusted to treating additional spouses as additional dependents (as where such institutions are adjusted for additional children). Yes, it is true that the current system does not allow for it, but it can be adjusted. When it comes to division of property, divorce, etc. things will simply be divided by the amount of people participating in the marriage, i.e. if there are three people, everything gets split 33%, or if the other two remain married, it gets split 66%. Prenuptual agreements can take care of anything that may be complicated by this if spouses have different intentions for how things are split. There will be a cap where insurance coverage/tax benefits end, i.e. if you have more than 7 children you stop receiving benefits for any more. For taxes and insurance, children are treated similarly to spouses, and additional spouses shouldn't complicate things out of reason. The specifics as to what the cap will be, how things get split, life and death decisions, etc. can be hammered out by individual states and individual people participating in a marriage, just like in other marriages.\n\n5. Sham marriages containing two people that don't love each other, of the same or different sex are currently legal. *Chuck and Larry* marriages are currently possible, the only difference in allowing polygamous marriages would be to not allow odd numbers of people to participate in such marriages, rather than being in pairs. The difference here is insignificant.\n\n6. The idea that polyamarous people are treated \"equal\" because *everyone* is only allowed to marry one spouse is the same type of \"equality\" where *everyone* is only allowed to marry within their race or sex. This is nonsensical. Everyone being held to the same standard of law does not work when people love people outside of what is socially accepted.\n\n7. Polyamarous relationships aren't any less stable than homosexual relationships or heterosexual relationships. Even if they were, it shouldn't have any weight, as interracial relationships are much less stable than intraracial relationships. To argue that polygamous marriage shouldn't be allowed because of a instability in relationships is also to argue against interracial marriage.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV : The VAST majority of abortions are done out of convenience or to conceal their pregnancy. + \n + * Rape & risky pregnancies make up only a fraction of total abortions. (and for the sake of argument, this cmv isn't about this, we'll assume these cases if legitimate are allowed to be aborted)\n* Adoption is a real alternative for essentially all other pregnancies.\n\nThe current objections I see seem to fall into two categories.\n\n* Overplaying the inconvenience and burden of pregnancy, implying that those inconveniences aught to override any fetal centric perspective.\n* Arguing risk from a non-zero angle (\"You can DIE in child birth\")\n* The last argument more or less boils down to wanting to conceal pregnancies, valuing the mother's life over the child's.\n\nThis I think is something that the pro-choice side really tries to argue its way around, trying to present this as something noble, when it's really just terminating fetuses out of convenience or shame.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There's no need to buy expensive Vodka because it all tastes the same. + \n + Ever since I started drinking about 3 years ago, I've had a wide selection of different liquors and beers, most of which had characteristics that made them unique and different from one another.\n\nWith vodka though, I just don't see why people buy 30$ bottles if it's basically 40% ethanol and 60% water. Any impurities that might be in it are so small they might as well not be there.\n\nSo far, I've had Absolut, Stolichnaya, Russian Standard and some cheap local brands, and even drinking the stuff straight, I wouldn't be able to tell one apart from the other. I'm just generally not a big fan of vodka.\n\nReddit, please change my view, as I'd like to be able to appreciate my friends bringing expensive bottles to parties.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think having sex in elementary school would accelerate a boy's maturity. (So should I have had more sex in grade school?) + \n + My gut feeling suggests that having sex while an elementary schoolboy would have made me mature faster - whether behaviorally or in other useful ways. I thought even as a grade schooler, I seemed too immature so I wish I had more sex in order to mentally / psychologically / emotionally grow up faster.\n\nWouldn't all the endorphins and other neurological pleasure chemicals cause my mind to progress faster than I would have otherwise? I'd like to think so...\n\nBut if you think early sex doesn't mature a boy, well why, and what'll it do to him instead? And despite all that, would it \"still be worth it?\"\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is no morally justifiable reason to consume animal products in the first world + \n + Given that livestock consume more water, feed, create more greenhouse gasses, and suffer throughout their lives to eventually be killed, while providing no essential nutrients* that cant be attained through plants, is there any morally justifiable reason to eat meat other than hedonism or (environmental or otherwise) apathy?\n\n*B12 is, as many don't know, not attained directly from meat, but from contaminated water and faeces which are consumed by animals. As humans we can take the choice to drink contaminated water, kill animals or... consume fortified foods and supplements\n\n*Iron is available in many plants and pulses\n\n\nI should add that I've been a religious meat-eater for most of my life until only ~6-8 weeks ago", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The nation becoming more politically correct is not a bad thing. + \n + On top of that, if hear you complain about \"PC culture\" I think it's not unreasonable to assume they are prejudiced in some way. While I don't think keeping up with gender pronouns is important, I don't think it is too much to ask for people to not say \"nigger\" or \"faggot\". I hear a lot of people complaining, particularly on reddit, about how \"everything is so PC now, you can't say anything\". No one cares what you say, unless you use an obviously offensive term or slur. I know a common argument against this view is that PC teaches people to be offended instead of to toughen up, but I think the idea that we shouldn't discourage slurs as a way to toughen people up is ridiculous. It isn't too much to ask to be civil.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Making money by being an online entertainer (like Youtube or Twitch) happens to the lucky few and it's safer to just get a real world job. + \n + To me, online entertainment is such a flip of a coin. You either get a partnership or you don't, and even if you do get the partnership, there's no saying that what you make will be enough to live off of, so it's probably just safer to get a real job.\n\nFor Youtube, it seems like you need to be the following to be successful:\n\n* A young attractive person (or at least a person with an attractive voice) that appeals to some major demographic (teenage girls, LGBT teens, sports fans, etc.)\n\n* Someone who was already famous on a different social medium\n\n* A Let's Player\n\nAnd in all of these, you need a certain budget to spend on making your videos (light, camera, a crew maybe?) and that's not including the money you need for specific videos (e.g. a Let's Player needs enough money to buy new/big budget games in order to attract attention, a make-up channel needs to buy TONS of products, clothing channels need to shop on a regular basis, etc.).\n\nTwitch has the same problems as a Youtube Let's Player; in order to be noticed, you need to buy really popular games and/or new games, and those are rarely cheap; most games are up in the $60+ range, not including DLC or even the equipment needed to stream at a constant frame-rate for long periods of time. \n\nEven if you DO get popular on either of these platforms and get a partnership, Twitch takes half of your subscription profits, leaving you mostly depending on possible donations, and Youtube takes a lot of your ad revenue (not including other Youtube-related partnerships you might have [cough cough Nintendo cough]). \n\nIf you ABSOLUTELY need to make money on one of these platforms, or a similar platform, then you should either be rich or have had a real job long enough that you have enough money to survive.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There are times when smacking a complete stranger's misbehaving child is justified. + \n + I'll allow that, in most cases, the misbehaving kid is just throwing a temper tantrum, but what do you do in cases where the kid has thrown himself on the floor in the middle of a restaurant and the waiters are going to trip over him and the parents are refusing to do anything about it? The rest of us have just become too polite of a society and other people who are affected by the bad behavior or might be injured in cases where the kid is throwing things, biting and kicking other people should be justified in disciplining a misbehaving child in a way that doesn't cause welts. Just a few instances of getting knocked on his butt by a complete stranger should be enough to get it through the kid's head that this is not something you do in public.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The Venus Project has nice ideas but is foolish in the real world. Monetary systems are better, and Capitalism incentivizes innovation and production. + \n + I recently saw a Facebook post from a friend stating that profit-based economies are outdated and must be replaced, so I asked, \"What is a better alternative?\"  I was told to look up the Venus Project because \"it's amazing.\" So I looked it up, did my research, and this is basically what I found:\n\nThe Venus Project is a form of technocracy, where all of the natural resources of the world are shared and owned by everyone, and everyone gets to live better than even the best get to live currently.  Their website claims that greed and other such behavior is learned and not inherent, so the idea that the Venus Project goes against human nature is false.  I say that the desire to have more than those around you is inherent, not just learned behavior.  The Venus Project seems to ignore the fact that some living areas are better than others, so simply because we cannot occupy the same space at the same time, inequality is created.  Why does John get to live on the beach and Fred is stuck in a desert?\n\nThe Venus Project, from what I've seen, also ignores the *how* aspect.  How do we convince leaders of different countries to give up their power and for the owners of resources to give up those resources?\n\nCapitalism, although flawed, is a better system and ideology.  Competition increases production and innovation, and it also generally decreases prices.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Crisis simulations would be better than debates. + \n + So I saw someone link to [this column](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/want-to-be-president-show-us-how-youd-handle-a-disaster/2015/07/30/00fa4d8e-315c-11e5-97ae-30a30cca95d7_story.html) and thought it was really clever.\n\nI think debates are very poor ways to get useful information about candidates.  If you want hard questioning, or to know their stand on the issues, interviews from journalists can do that.  Debates are just grandstanding and \"gotchas.\"  \n\nA crisis simulation on the other hand would be really useful for getting information about how candidates would do the job of President.  We would see how they asses a situation, how they handle disagreeing advisors, and how deep their knowledge of government runs.\n\nThis is also a technique used in a lot of other situations to train and evaluate people who will hold a lot of responsibility.  If you want to be an astronaut, you're going to be doing a lot of simulations.\n\nAs far as getting candidates to do it, I could see this being something that a somewhat more obscure candidate does as a way to generate publicity, and which might catch on.   Probably not for the major party candidates for this election cycle, but maybe in the future.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The President of the US should not be in charge of the military. + \n + This view will be broken down into a few main points; Lack of Training, Corruption, Abuse of Power, and conclude with Overall Role of the President.\n\n* Lack of Training\n\nThe primary and most notable is that the President doesn't need any no formal training or experience with the Army. Now it may be true that the brunt of the responsibility for this is in the hands of the Generals but the fact that a no experience individual gets such influence on the behavior of the largest army on the planet, is just absurd. The president can go against the council of those generals and against the council of the CIA which has been seen many times in the last few decades.\n\n* Corruption\n\nHaving a single person with this much power over the army lends itself to corruption either from the outside or even worse, corruption from that individual who would use the army for personal reasons. For example, George Bush 2nd invaded Iraq in part due to the fact that Osama Bin Laden had attempted to kill George's dad in the past. He made the move with the army against the recommendation of the CIA who said the attacks came from Saudi Arabia, to get the man who hated his daddy.\n\n* Abuse of Power\n\nIt is frankly idiotic that the person in control of the army, can use that as a resource to gain 'Emergency Powers'. This is just a perfectly exploitable glitch in the system. This is made especally potent when you take into account that the president for some reason doesn't need permission from congress to go to war, invade another country, or deploy the military any way they choose.\n\nThe president also can abuse their power to get money that could circumvent the power of congress, allowing this one person to circumvent many powers of the legislative branch, and judicial branch; goodbye checks and balances. This still occurs through documented selling of firearms over seas after a 'totally legit invasion' of panama, iraq, or wherever else. \n\n* Overall Role of the President\n\nThe president is a figure head more than anything, cluttering the role of the president with control over the armed forces just adds unnecessary strain to the role of the president who should focus on being Head of State and communication with the public, not foreign affairs, the state of the army, or anything of the sort.\n\n* Conclusion\n\nSo what should the president be of not commander in chief? What the president is now; Head of State and Head of Government. I see no issue with having the elected office of the president simply being a figurehead role, and having commander in chief be a separate role chosen either by the president or through a panel with The Generals of the Army.\n\nMany people say the president actually has less power than people think, and this is true because many people think the president controls legislation, which they do not. But the president does have more power than a single individual in a balanced government should have; power of the army, power of uncontested 'emergency powers', and a nigh endless amount of unbounded cash to use globally.\n\n* To CMV\n\nI must see a reasonable argument as to why each of these is wrong because if even one of them stands it is a legitimate reason to remove the Commander in Chief title from the Presidency.\n\nor\n\nYou must show a reason why transferring the role to a separate person or to the army  leaders as a group, would be a worse alternative than its current state.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: why I should care about people allergic to specific foods. + \n + So, I'm currently working at a food manufacturing company and the founder is allergic to almost everything. He is pushing for a hypo allergic facility. I understand logically why he wants this, but he hasn't put together the company brand, or mission. I find it hard to put myself behind his wants. \n\nSo I understand that i should care cause people could get really uncomfortable, or die because of their allergies. All I see is an inconvenience in creating the next steps for the manufacturing space and the getting the company to be profitable. \n\nSo, could you change my view on seeing being allergy free is worth the work needed for the company. \n\nSidenote:  if the founder was able to be passionate about this message it would help me to get behind it. All I see see restrictions on amazing ingredients that would expand the quality of the product; e.g. peanut butter, whey protein, etc.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Zoophilia should not be illegal + \n + \n\nFirst, I believe that if there is no valid reason for an activity to be illegal, it should not be illegal. If an activity is outlawed, and this provides no benefit, it hurts not only the offender, who is punished, but the society that must spend resources to punish them. I believe that the burden of proof should be on those who would outlaw something/keep it outlawed to provide a valid reason for why that should be outlawed.\n\nI believe that there is no reason sufficient to justify the illegality of bestiality/zoophilia. I'll be listing and responding to in this post some ideas others might see as valid reasons, mostly to save top-level commenters some time.\n\nreason 1: Bestiality threatens the animal's well-being and should therefore be illegal.\n\n-this is probably one of the most common arguments, but I believe it falls short. importantly, not all sex acts are necessarily harmful to the animal. While some CAN be harmful, these would already be illegal under animal abuse laws. it might be beneficial to add penalties to animal abuse with sexual motives, but even if it is, it could easily be accomplished without also criminalizing harmless sex acts.\n\nreason 1a: Animals cannot consent to sex, therefore all bestiality is rape, and should therefore be illegal.\n\n-another common one, which I'm semi-lumping with 1. it is true that animals are incapable of giving legal consent to sex. I challenge, however, that the legal and moral ideas of sexual consent in humans can be copypasted onto animals in the way that those who call all bestiality rape seem to be doing. First, nobody (well, not very many people) care about the consent of animals in other important areas. We capture, contain, breed, sterilize, perform experiments on, give invasive medical procedures to, euthanize, and eat animals on a regular basis, and we never ask the animals for permission first. While it's true that some of those are done for the animal's own benefit, which they couldn't understand, others are done because we don't give a shit about what the animals think. This view has lots of opponents, of course, but is currently accepted by most legal systems. Why, then, should the law suddenly care about the animal's consent when it comes to sex?\n\nanother distinction is that a healthy human will be able to, at some point in their lives, give consent. When they can't, it's usually  because of a temporary condition, such as childhood, unconsciousness, or the effects of a mind-altering substances. Consent, therefore, is usually a voluntary decision on the part of the person, and not giving consent is often implicit or explicit  indication that sex is actively unwanted. \n\nAnimals, however, are never able to 'give consent' in the commonway, regardless of health, age, or any other factor. However, since most species have been fucking for hundreds of millions of years, it's a safe assumption that a lack of consent doesn't always indicate that sex is unwanted. Now, I'm not saying that it's impossible for bestiality to be 'rape' in a meaningful sense; animals could certainly resist and experience distress during the process. However, like physically harmful sex acts, this could (and should) be covered under animal abuse laws, without criminalizing instances of 'rape' where the animal is either neutral or enjoying the experience.\n\nreason 2:Bestiality threatens the zoophile's well-being and should therefore be illegal.\n\nThis could probably be a post in its own right, but it's my belief that mentally abled adults should not be bound by laws 'for their own good'. and, for the most part, these laws fortunately don't exist that much. it's not illegal in most places for people to jump off a cliff or drink bleach, and if that's valid I see no reason why it should be illegal to engage in dangerous activities with an animal, sexual or otherwise (outside of what would be abuse, of course).\n\nreason 3: bestiality can threaten the well-being of third parties, and should therefore be illegal.\n\n-there are two parts to this I can think of: spread of zoonoses (diseases spread by animals that affect humans) and harmful learned behavior of animals.\n\nSexual activity, of course, allows for easy spread of disease. A zoophile, could easily, therefore, catch a disease form an animal and spread it to others. however, sexual contact is not the only way to transmit most diseases, which means this is another issue that could be covered by a law that also covers other possibilities without punishing 'safe' activity.\n\nanother concern by some is that animals used to having sex with some individuals will harass or rape others. This is a genuine concern, but considering animals can also be deliberately trained to, say, attack and kill humans, this is once again an issue that is not unique to animal-human interactions involving sex, and could be covered by other laws (probably involving negligence) without punishing owners of well-trained animals.\n\nreason 4: Zoophilia is prohibited by X religion and should therefore be illegal\n\n-Hope I don't have to with this much. seperation of church and state, I assume that's accepted by most of you.\n\nreason 4a: Zoophilia is an abomination/crime against nature and should therefore be illegal.\n\n-whatever an 'abomination' or a 'crime against nature' is now, people ten or twenty years from now probably won't agree with you. these labels are completely arbitrary, and any support for them is usually pseudo-mystical reasoning that is formulated to support existing opinions. Let nature punish crimes in her own courts, not the taxpayers'.\n\nreason 4aI: zoophilia is disgusting and should therefore be outlawed\n\n-basically 4a, but not as pretentious. Disgust is completely subjective and has no place in law, especially if the digusting activity is done in private.\n\n\nI think this covers most of them, but I'm interested to see counterarguments to my responses and other potential reasons.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Being proud of one's \"race\" is ignorant & only contributes to & reinforces the social construct of racism. + \n + **Definitions:**\n\n**Race** - The classification of humans into different sub-sects based on physical attributes (skin color, bone structure, etc).\n\n**Racism** - The belief that the racial classification one identifies with is superior/inferior to others, primarily on the basis of genetics (including but not limited to: intelligence, athleticism, etc). \n\n**Pride** (taken from Google) - a feeling or deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from one's own achievements, the achievements of those with whom one is closely associated, or from qualities or possessions that are widely admired.\n\n------------------------------------\n\nMy position on this comes from several different beliefs I hold:\n\n1) Race is an arbitrary social construct, not a genetic one (i.e., it's impossible to objectively define race, much less determine one's race by observing their genome).\n\n2) Skin color / bone structure are inherited attributes, not achievements. Taking pride in an inherited attribute (sex, skin color, height, etc) is reflective of a belief that said attribute is superior to others on it's own merits.\n\n3) Culture, nationality, and ancestry can be meaningfully separated from the social construct of race (i.e., being proud of *the achievements* of one's ancestors, culture, or country is not equivalent to being generally proud of one's inherited attributes).\n\n4) Defining oneself by a social construct like race empowers and reinforces the social construct, thereby perpetuating racism.\n\nIn my view, the statement \"I'm proud of my _____ lineage\" is totally valid, whereas \"I'm proud of my race\" is ignorant and serves only to uphold racist social constructs (regardless of whether the impact(s) of that construct could be argued to be positive or negative).\n\nCMV\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There can't be hatred without fear. + \n + To be precise, I meant hatred of group or people. \n\nMy argument is that hatred of a group is a direct result of fear of the group. An example would be with anti-Semitism. Nazis and modern anti-Semitic groups talked/talk about Jews controlling the world and money and the power, and how they are evil and make them suffer with their power. This is a clear cut example of fear. People felt threatened by the Jews. That fear lead to hatred.[ /* Cue in Yoda */](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFnFr-DOPf8) \n\nI thought of any form of hatred and bigotry I could think of, and I couldn't find any where fear doesn't play an important role. \n\nSo CMV\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:The 'Hispanic Question', not racism against blacks, is the most important racial issue for the USA + \n + I am a bit surprised that Donald Trump and a certain fringe wing of conservatives are still going on about Americans of Hispanic and/or Latino ethnicity. I thought by now Americans would have realized that as Gaul was to Rome, the Hispanic ethnicity is to the United States.\n\nI feel like the immigration reform/acculturation issue of Hispanics illogically gets second fiddle billing in the United States behind racism against blacks re: the police. There is a not insignificant proportion of the population that feels racism against African-Americans is largely self-inflicted by their disproportionate violent crime rate and anti-white attitudes, but racism against Hispanics makes literally no sense whatsoever. There is no logical explanation for it period. We need to address it ASAP.\n\nI feel *every* issue of racism or whatever is completely irrelevant compared to the urgency that we need to open the doors to Hispanic America.\n\nConsider:\n\n**Hispanics are the fastest growing minority group in the United States. They are also the largest minority group, with 50 million today.**\n\n**Hispanics are a significant proportion of the population of the biggest American states, including California, Texas, New York, Florida, and the entire Southwest.**\n\n**Hispanics have the highest percentage of new small businesses being opened. This indicates they are assimilating, working to better themselves, and throwing their weight around economically.**\n\n**Hispanics culturally tend to have strong family values. This seems compatible with \"mainstream\" American culture.**\n\n**Hispanics, as studies show, are virtually completely assimilated by the third generation, following acculturation trends of other immigrant groups such as the Irish, Chinese, Italians, Japanese, etc.**\n\n**The United States forcibly and immorally annexed land from Mexico 150 years ago. I am not advocating irredentism obviously, but many Hispanics' descendants found themselves on the wrong side of the border through no fault of their own, and became full U.S citizens. Punking these citizens is morally wrong.**\n\n**The United States has close ties with Mexico, Central America, and South America. These are booming regions. **\n\n**Even \"illegal\" immigrants fill economic niches not otherwise filled by \"legal\" immigrants or citizens. They help the economy without siphoning off jobs that would go to \"legal\" citizens. Many of them pay taxes.**\n\n**Hispanics are projected to be 25% of the population by 2050.**\n\nI feel strongly that taking an antagonistic attitude against this minority group is not just morally wrong, it is economically counterproductive and demographically suicidal in the longterm. With the aging white population, it is very likely that a population that has a Hispanic plurality will be taking America into the deeper decades of the 21st century.\n\nAgain, I do not understand why people sweep aside reconciling racist White America with the future demographic plurality (and immigration reform) in favor of frankly horse that have been beaten to death.\n\nWith that in mind, I feel there should be :\n\n- stronger social taboos against discrimination or stereotyping of Hispanics\n\n- that Spanish should be added as a required subject in K-12 education throughout the nation,\n \n- that official cultural grants and initiatives should be granted ala Japan's \"Cool Japan\" or Korea's \"Hallyu\" initiatives to encourage the cultural growth of the Hispanic-American market and industry,\n\n- that Spanish should be added as the de facto second official language of the United States\n\n\n\n**\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I don't think I have to go any faster on a highway, and people trying to cut ahead of me going 90+ miles are reckless and putting me and everyone else driving in danger. + \n + This is a problem I always encounter when I drive on a highway. The speed limit in the most used highway where I live is 70. I usually go at around that speed (give or take 3-5 miles). Now, I have noticed that an alarming amount of people that are driving behind me get impatient and just speed on ahead of me (which is perfect, if there is no danger of crashing). I usually notice that these people are going at at *least* 90+ mph, and they don't slow down.\n\nThis just angers me so much, I feel like I'm constantly being put at risk by boneheads that are too impatient to drive on the speed limit.\n\nI commented this to a lot of friends and most of them tell me that I'm wrong, because \"nobody follows the speed limit\", and I'm going too slow. They say it's perfectly fine to drive at 90+ miles on a highway which indicates to drive at 20 miles less. I don't know anymore. Am I wrong? Should I start speeding too?\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Everyone does not have equal value + \n + Commonly it is stated that every human has equal value, I do not believe that is the case. \n\nI personally do not think there is such a thing as objective value as I believe that the concept of value is a human construct. I think that the value a person possesses is determined by the value that he/she and other humans consider him/her possessing. Following that line of reasoning it is quite evident that everyone does not have equal value as everyone is not treated as if they have equal value.\n\nStill, i would like to take it one step further and say that everyone should not be considered to have equal value. It is hard to define value but for simplicity i will use the most common social construct for value measurement: economics. I will try to explain my view with the following analogy:\n\nYou find yourself facing the option to either pay for Adolf Hitler\u2019s or Nelson Mandela\u2019s life. Most people would not hesitate before choosing to save Nelson Mandela. Thus they value him higher than Adolf Hitler. I would argue that this is the morally best decision.\n\nSo, am I missing some central point, or maybe I am defining value in a poor way?\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: People who say \"don't come to me with problems, bring solutions\" don't understand problem-solving or don't care about problems. + \n + Bosses who demand you bring solutions are oblivious to the fact that the majority of workers may have a very good and accurate assessment of a problem, but lack the training and expertise to fix it. The fact that someone isn't a chef doesn't mean they don't know the soup is lacking in flavor.\n\nIf a boss says \"it's best to come with solutions if you can\", that's a good enough thing, but to say \"don't bring me any issues that you don't have an answer for\" is ignorant or willfully dismissive.\n\nFor example, if the workers are saying that the new time-off policy is not working and people are stressed/morale is low, they shouldn't have to have a plan to fix it to voice the fact that it is an issue. Rather, the requirement that they must have a solution when they have neither the expertise or power to do so is a sure way to make sure that workers are discouraged from communicating openly with management which will create a rift between layers in a workplace.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: In an air-conditioned restaurant, drinks without ice are vastly superior to drinks with ice + \n + Argument one - ice occupies valuable space that could be filled with more drink, thus making refills be required more often, and therefore there is more time that you are without a drink. \n\nArgument two - ice melts and waters down drinks. Sweet tea? A disgusting barely-sweet teawater hybrid. Soda? Flat and watery tasting. \n\nWhile I will agree that outside on a hot summers day, a cold iced tea is nice, in an already-cold restaurant, ice serves almost no purpose as most drinks that are served cold will stay cold. ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Drones used as weapons to kill should be banned just like chemical and biological agents are. + \n + War is never pretty, nor should it be taken lightly, but all this talk about 'the war of the future' being fought with robots and remote control drones is just inhumane, in both uses of the term. yes It takes humans off the front lines, and saves their lives, but it makes for a one sided battle, with heavy casualties on the other side. That's all fine and good when it's \"the good guys\" using them to stop the \"bad guys\", but look at the other side. flying machines that can be sent anywhere at any time to shoot and bomb targets. If you shoot one down, there is no victory, they just send more, with no real loss because the pilot is miles away in a tent with a joystick. \n\nIf both sides end up with drone technology, war will just revert into guerrilla style ambush style attacks, with both sides sending drones to attack the other sides bases, cities and civilians.  \n\n\nall the positive reasons for using drones are equally valid when used as a negative reason.\n\nChem and Bio weapons are banned because they cause mass casualties with very little risk to the side using them, and the opposition can't really fight back against it. Drones are the same.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Prejudice based on things one can change is still wrong + \n + Many people think that racism, sexism, ageism etc. are wrong because it is a judgment of a person based on something he can't change. I don't think that is why these prejudices are bad. I think they are bad simply because they are prejudices. I think that bringing up for example political affiliation, religious beliefs, wealth, clothing or hairstyle in support of an argument [1] is an argumentative foul and an intellectually dishonest thing to do, exploiting prejudices of people. \n\nI think that:\n\n1. Arguments should be judged based on the content of the argument, not the people stating them\n2. All prejudices are bad and should be fought against, without prioritizing the prejudices based on things one can't change [2]\n\n[1] Of course that excludes the cases when the thing in question is direct subject of the argument - like \"John believes in God, he's a Christian\", this doesn't evoke any prejudice.\n\n[2] I am fine with prioritization based on different, better criteria, for example prioritizing prejudice which has the largest socioeconomic effect in the society (however one measures that).\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Users on reddit have been significantly overreacting to the recent drama revolving around Victoria and the admins. + \n + While I will admit I, I assume like many other users on the site, don't know all the details of the recent drama on reddit I still believe users are overreacting.\n\nIf anything I feel like blacking out all of these different subreddits is counterproductive, and may be reddit's downfall, as users may grow tired of not getting content and move on. I've even seen posts that go as far as to call Ellen Pao a whore and a piece of shit, which to bring up another point, proves that reddit does have a bullying problem and maybe banning subreddits like r/fatpeoplehate was a good idea, or maybe reddit does not deserve to be totally uncensored.\n\nSomebody please allow me to see the  point of view of those doing what they are doing, thank you.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I will never be at peace with my cat's death + \n + Ares was the best cat ever, he was friendly and intelligent and playful. He was everything to me, and he died of an illness on the 4th. He was only 2 and a half years old. He died when I left town, I was confident his anti biotics were healing him because he seemed to be doing so much better.\n\nHe lived a good life before he died, but in his final moments he felt agony (I wasn't there). My mother said he was running from door to door, trying to get outside before he just fell asleep in the kitchen and didn't wake up. \n\nWe may talk up JFK, Lincoln, MLK, and how meaningful their lives were all we want. In their final moments they didn't get to reflect on that, all they felt was unimaginable amounts of pain. Sure the person who overdoses might have had a good high going before they died, but that doesn't matter does it?\n\nHow we reflect on their lives isn't something they get to enjoy, honor and memory are useless to the dead. It doesn't help the men who stepped on mines that a man in uniform is marching around where they're buried in Virginia. \n\nThis isn't just about how the fact of the matter is that Ares died young in bad sickness, but I'm left with the cold reality of that and all of the world.\n\nThe universe is an unfeeling, nonsensical, and unfair place. Look at what the entire country of Cambodia, they underwent a horrendous genocide. Countless infants were smashed against trees. Their country is still poor and corrupt and Pol Pot never faced justice, the Khmer Rouge never faced justice. That's just one spec of the pain all of humanity has faced throughout the ages. How many infants died throughout history? How many toddlers and small children died, how fucking accepted was it throughout most of history that children under 10 had a 50% of dying. \n\nThe entire universe is tainted with mortality and randomness. We're a species that aspires for order, love, fairness, peace, and all of that it a universe and on a planet that has no function for it. \n\nNothing can make me at peace with that, the pain of Ares's sad death may subside, but I'll never become at peace with the realization his death gave me. ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Zoos and aquariums are good for conservation and worth having even at the expense of the animal's happiness. + \n + \n**Point 1:**\nZoos and aquariums give people an opportunity to see animals up close in a way that they never would otherwise. The experience of seeing a Mountain Gorilla on the other side of a pane of glass is far more incredible than simply watching Animal Planet.\n\nHaving the experience of seeing an Orca swim by and be in awe of their power and intelligence is not the same as seeing one in a Youtube video.\n\nI remember when I was a boy my parents took me to the zoo. It was when I saw lion up close that I decided then and there that I wanted to be a wildlife biologist. Now, life took me in a different path and I never arrived at that career, but my awe and love for wildlife has never lessened.\n\n**Point 2**\nI understand some will say, \"But if you love the animals why don't you care that some of them aren't as happy as they would be in the wild.\"\n\nI understand this sentiment, but I am torn. I'm torn by my previous reasons for why zoos and aquariums are necessary and my love for the animals themselves.\n\nIs a dolphin in the ocean better than a dolphin in a tank? Yes.\nIs a dolphin happier in the ocean than in a tank? Probably. I would bet my life on it, but if that dolphin is in the ocean I can't stand by the edge of the tank and rub his nose. I can't connect with the dolphin in that way that made me fall in love with them.\n\nSo, I think that if some dolphins at Seaworld are not as happy as dolphins in the ocean, I'm ok with that. The tank-dolphin's happiness may be what is lain on the altar of conservation.\n\nZoos and aquariums make us *care* about the animals. If people don't care about animals then they won't do their best to preserve them.\n\n**Point 3:**\nZoos *edcuate* people. I remember as a child who hated snakes going to the zoo where the exhibit explained why snakes were important to the ecosystem. Before, I thought they were evil creatures. The zoo showed me the truth.\n\nPeople who understand the role of animals in our world will care more about conservation.\n\n\n\n**Summary:** \nZoos and aquariums provide a face to face encounter with the majesty of wildlife. This encounter makes people care about the beautiful creatures they are seeing in person. Caring about the animals leads to conservation efforts. People who see the beauty and importance of these creatures will want to ensure the thriving of their species.\n\n\n \n.\n\n.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe society is just as racist as we were in the past. + \n + It seems like the general consensus is that the present is more progressive and accepting compared to say 50 years ago. While when it comes to laws I would agree but when it comes to society I am shaking my head at that statement.\n\nIt seems like a normal occurrence for someone to make some prejudge comments or attitude about another race/ethnic group. A lot of times it's been a conversation opener at a bus station like for an example someone saying \"those damn Chinese are ruining the city\" and my friend who works at a cafe had one customer say \"I am glad to be served by a white person\" her being part-native and the fact that a Filipino woman also works at the cafe, told him to get the fuck out. I work in a hotel and we usually have our breaks in the lobby except when a native(s) at least 2 or 3 co-workers go somewhere else here, I suspected racism being the case which prompted me to say this today.\nMe: This seems to happen when natives are here\nCo-Worker: Well they should be chucked right out anyway\nMe: Wow (in a I can't believe you just said that kind of tone)\nCo-Worker: (Smugly) I know\nMe: I didn't mean that in a good way\nThese aren't the only examples I have but those stood out to me the most.\n\nWhile I am aware that the past was no walk in the park, even though we no longer have residential schools, back of bus laws, or allowed to refuse service or employment on the basis of ethnicity without getting sued for it, and in most countries concentration camps. Many people seem to wish those were still happening, they still think their lesser people, think the world is better off without them and shun them like a leper.   \n\nI am a 29 year old white woman born and raised in Canada, a country that is supposedly the most tolerant of other races and cultures, if that's the case I can't help but wonder how bad it is in other countries. Even though I am from a small town I have seen racism in major cities too and I have traveled in Europe and at least a lot of people I've talked to complained about gypsies and immigrants. I don't even think it's an age thing since I've seen this in both the young (one 18 year old who thinks the natives are lying about residential schools) and the old (my friend thinks the most racist people are old people, who I've heard at least half the comments from).\n\nI want to believe that we have come a long way towards race relations but I just don't see it.   \nTL:DR: Disgusted by the blatant racism despite living in a supposedly enlightened society.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Street racers should not be charged with manslaughter if the person they're racing dies. + \n + I remember hearing on the news that two idiots were racing their Porsches at 120mph, down some back road in Florida. Driver B lost control, at no fault of Driver A's, and crashed into a tree; he was killed instantly.\n\nDriver A was charged with involuntary manslaughter and faced up to 15 years in prison.\n\nThe reasons I feel that this is wrong:\n\n1. Nobody forced driver B to break the law.  He knew, or at least should have known, the risks he was taking.  \n\n2. Let's look at another scenario:\n\nDriver A and Driver B race their cars down the same street.  Driver B does not lose control of his car and both finish the race safely, however they are trapped by police and both arrested for illegal street racing.  \n\nDriver A did *exactly* the same thing in both the first scenario and second scenario, yet he faces serious prison time in the first and only a petty misdemeanor in the second.   \n\n\nLet me finish by stating that, had either of them killed an innocent bystander, I would wholeheartedly agree with the charges. \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:The widespread belief of religion is a sign of human weakness + \n + This is not meant as a disrespect to most organized religions, merely an observation i have come to.\n\nThe widespread belief or following of most organized religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) is a sign of human weakness in a couple of ways. \n\nThe need for an afterlife in most religions satisfies our general fears of death, and the impermanence and futility of our lives. The theory isn't backed by much scientific evidence as far as i know, so the reason to believe in an afterlife isn't that it makes more sense but that it makes life easier. A fear of death and impermanence so strong that one must believe in something that i would categorize as fairytale. This is what i would call a weakness. \n\nThe need for moral guidance in life - to need guidance from religion to know the difference between right and wrong is also a sign of weakness in that it shows a lack of judgement and wisdom for one to decide for themselves what is right or wrong. Furthermore, the need of a consequence by eternal damnation as persuasion not to do \"bad things\", and the need of an incentive by eternal salvation to do good. Is a sign of weakness in that it shows that human-nature is bad, or barbaric in a sense.\n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Birth tourism should be outlawed. + \n + To clarify, I am not against easier routes to citizenship--in fact, I'm all for it. I think if a person has toiled in this country long enough, paid their taxes, haven't committed any heinous crimes, etc etc, they are entitled to be able to apply for citizenship and not have it take 10-20 years to achieve. \n\n\n\nI am, however, against the idea that literally anyone who can buy a plane ticket or boat ride to the states can pop out a baby, have it be a US citizen, and promptly return to their home country a week or two after the fact. How does a baby who spent all of what, a week?, on US soil have a higher right to citizenship than anyone else--especially when the process takes so long for honest working people who likely contributed much more to this country? \n\n\nNews sites claim that up to 60,000 Chinese nationals alone give birth in the US and promptly return back--there are even specialized birth hotels specifically for birth tourism. \n\n\n\nI feel that a person should be entitled to US citizenship only if they have actually contributed to the well-being of this country. Some foreign offspring who spent the blink of an eye here, whose parents have never ever paid US taxes or contributed in any way to this country, should not have automatic citizenship. \n\n\n\n\nIf an illegal immigrant gave birth and stayed in this country (which many do), that would be a whole separate issue entirely. But to separate birth tourism from cases like that, one could enforce laws regarding duration of days in the US to ensure citizenship. \n\n\n\nMy views are NOT against illegal immigrants, or people who have actually worked on this land and paid taxes and done something for this country. I am against people who squeeze out a baby and promptly return, doing NOTHING for the states except to take advantage of their child's citizenship later on. I bring this up because I'm teaching abroad in Asia, and a local friend mentioned how his friends are popping out offspring in the states. I find this incredibly immoral, and think it does nothing but hinder the citizenship process for people who have actually lived, worked, toiled, in the country and are American in every other way except citizenship. ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I cannot return to \"normal\" after an existential crisis. + \n + I don't even know where to start. \n\n\n\nI am generally a happy and healthy person. I was raised Catholic. I am not a strict Catholic. I enjoy the community of church. I don't take everything at face value or for fact. About 8 years ago I came to terms that there is probably no Heaven. Death is just ceasing to exist. I was okay with that. I still felt we had souls or spirits. I still hoped for or had affection for the possibility of a God, even though it probably didn't exist. I still hoped for an afterlife of some sort, even though I didn't know what it would manifest as and that the chance of one was actually quite slim. I felt my children were a blessing. Their births were the most beautiful, tender days of my life. I took joy and pride in everything my kids did. Some days I would just well up with pride and happiness, so happy that our lives have been rich and lucky. Any thoughts of death or mortality were far, far from my mind. I just didn't think about those types of things. Sure, the thoughts flitted through my mind every now and then and I would think about them. I would discuss it with my spouse. Usually I would take comfort in the intense love and happiness we have and know that no matter what happens at the end, somehow we would still go on, whether it be in the hearts or memories of others, in some type of spirit/soul that survived death, in photos or videos . . . The jury was out on what happens, but I was at least accepting or positive about it. \n\n\n\n\nNow, I feel like a shattered, empty person.\n\n\n\n\nAs I've gotten older, I have developed high blood pressure (family history). My doctor put me on Atenolol 50mg once a day. About four days in, I started to feel sad and question my mortality and my family's mortality out of nowhere. Things just spiraled out of control after that. I learned about nihilism, atheism, existentialism, what happens after death, that we are just computers, emotions aren't real, just by-products of brain impulses ... just lots of things I never thought about before and I became incredibly depressed. Crying everyday, scared of the eventuality of our lives, the meaningless of life, the possible lack of a soul, no proof of an afterlife ... I feel like I've been down a horribly dark rabbit hole and I want to get out.\n\n\n\n\nI went back to my doctor and he said Atenolol, being a beta blocker, can cause depression, so he took me off of it. I was on it for two weeks. My last dose was about 96 hours ago. I'm not feeling much better. How long does it take the medication to get out of my system and for all my brain chemistry to start working again? I'm having a lot of trouble finding meaning in what I do, and what I do with my family since there's no point. We won't remember anything after we die. Why do I care if I get some award at work? What do I care if my kid gets in the school play? Why celebrate someone's birthday? I feel empty. I feel hollow. I do not want to feel like this.\nCould this really all be a cause of the medicine? Or did I do this to myself? Will my feelings of happiness and excitement come back? Will I find meaning again? How long until I could be \"back to normal?\" \n\n\n\n\nThis current depressive state is so unlike me and nothing I have ever experienced before. I'm scared I'll always have these depressing thoughts about mortality and life's meaning that I just don't want in my head anymore. I want to rewind the last two weeks and go back to my jovial, excited, proud self that I was. I want to believe in what I used to believe in. I feel like now that I've researched what really happens after death, or researched that we probably have no souls, that we are just a product of brain chemistry, that I can never go back to how I was. I WANT to, though. I feel like now that I've gotten a peek at what we really are (sophisticated computers) that I can never be happy again. I don't want to know these truths. I want to go back to how I was. I am losing meaning in anything I do.  I am becoming detatched from my children and spouse. I don't enjoy doing anything with them. It's all just a reminder that they will die someday, too. I don't want to live in a world where they don't exist, but that's where I am destined to be and it destroys me. I can't look at my kids and be happy anymore, knowing that anything we do is meaningless. Yes, I know there are the arguments that YOU have to provide meaning and make something out of the life you are given, but that doesn't help me feel better at all. It makes me feel worse. I feel like I have to work now to assign or find meaning, rather than it just naturally occurring and flowing and being part of my day-to-day life. My kid drew a picture today and happily showed me. All I could muster was a \"nice job,\" instead of my usual effortless pride and happiness in how he was developing and growing.  \n\n\n\n\nEach time I try to make myself feel better, I ruin it.  I tell myself that it is possible all humans, animals have souls. I know there is no scientific proof right now (except for the Lanza theories which I am not sold on), but I feel it's possible for everyone to just have that essential spark in them. Then I feel better, but then realize that our consciousness is just our brains tricking us into thinking we are an \"I\" or we are a \"self.\" That it's impossible for a soul to exist. Where in evolution would we even have developed one? What happened to all the beings in death who didn't have souls? Or were souls present in the primordial ooze we came from? See, that's just not realistic.  I look up stuff online which just confirms this bleakness. There's no hope anymore. Pre-Atenolol me wouldn't have thought these thoughts. Now I'm destroyed by them. Now I'm just thinking that every memory I make, every experience I have is for nothing. \n\n\n\n\nI just want to go back to my happy, silly, proud self. Is this all just the medicine? I want to take pride in my family again. I want the little things to become important again. I want to be carefree and hopeful again. However, I feel now that I've gotten a glimpse of the dark and painful truths of our existence that I'm going to never be able to get over this crisis, never get these thoughts out of my head, and never be happy again for the rest of my life. This terrifies me. I just want to be who I was again, but it think that's impossible. \n\n\n\n\nPlease, please change my view. \n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: One of the best ways to help against Inequality would be to give men paid maternity leave aswell + \n + Whether employers admit it or not, one of the biggest hurdles for women wanting to get in jobs is the possibility that they may at one point get pregnant and have to leave work for an extended period of time, meaning the manager has to find a way to make up for the work the woman may have done, and have to pay them while they are away. This leads many people to have at least a small bias is the idea that hiring a man will be more permanent and a higher chance of more potential profit in the long run.\n\nHowever, if the man who conceived the baby also got maternity leave, this would mean the risk is equal no matter what gender you hire. During maternity leave, the man would take care of the child with the woman, allowing for both of them to take care of the child, and allow the child to get more recognition of the father. \n\nThis may also help stopping the idea that a women is necessarily the one who has to take care of the child, another stereotype that is often regarded as bad.\n\nThis could also theoretically help with rare events such as when male homosexual couples get a women (who would not raise the child) to birth the child for them given that they can\u2019t.\n\nThis would ofcourse not solve all the problems with inequality in the genders, but I think this might be a good way to help (although since I\u2019m posting it here, obviously I\u2019m not /sure/ it\u2019s a good idea)\n ", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Apple banning the confederate flag is bad for business and for humanity. + \n + This issue is very distinct from the removal of the confederate flag from the South Carolina Capitol Building.  I would also argue that it way more harmful than Walmart/Ebay/Amazon banning the flags themselves. \n\nApple can ban whatever they want as a private entity. However, I believe they have made a huge mistake in banning apps that contained confederate imagery. The confederate flag was not the essence of the apps as far as I have seen. They actually **were** historical. While I believe the confederate flag to be rotten, I do not think it should be censored. I believe that when one considers whether or not to ban something, a symbol advocating an idea should be considered distinct from expression or documentation of that idea.  \n\nI believe that this banning is a bad business decision. Not only are they losing the money for the apps themselves but they are alienating a demographic that supports the flag, and a demographic that do not support the flag but support free speech. \n\nI believe this is bad for humanity because the backlash against this banning will turn the confederate flag into a symbol for free-speech, which will muddy up the issue of racial tension even more.  More importantly, I fear that it will set a precedent for large companies that provide information and access to culture to ban essential historical information. \n\n-TL;DR :  **Context Matters!!**  and Apple's execution of the censorship was harmful on many levels.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Police that infringe on constitutional rights of citizens should get the death penalty for treason. + \n + Police take an oath to uphold and enforce our laws, the most important of which are laid out in the constitution. Moreover, they are agents of the state and swore a service to the nation that they serve. Minor mistakes are made my everyone, it is a part of human nature. However, police are expected to know in full detail what is laid out in the constitution and what is expected of them is quite clear. If a cop breaks someone's constitutional rights, we can only assume he did so knowingly, thus betraying the nation he swore to serve.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Country music is absolutely terrible. + \n + Country music was not always bad. There were legends such as Johnny Cash who defined what country music was. \n\nHowever, today the country music culture is full of songs about booze, trucks, tractors, and women. Almost every song sounds exactly the same, following the same chord structure, tone, and melodies. There is no creativity when it comes to country music and it has not had a positive influence on the music industry. Although there may be a few exceptions to this, the majority of modern country is awful, redundant, and lacks any sort of meaning. \n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Gay people culturally appropriated the rainbow + \n + I'm not here to argue about gay people, I really don't care about most of the things they do. \n\nThe only problem I have is when people talk about cultural appropriation they miss one of the big things that has been appropriated in the last 20 years. The rainbow.\n\nIn a different time I would have liked to wear a rainbow tie dye shirt without being discriminated against for supporting the \"gay agenda\". Why did they chose the rainbow to even symbolize gay pride?\n\nIn my opinion a perfectly good neutral color selection has been forever ruined as supporting an agenda that not everyone agrees with.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Faith based organizations (i.e. religious groups) should not be allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of their beliefs. + \n + (Inspired by [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/3hcpw9/point_79_of_the_conservative_party_policy_allows/) post.) My position is that faith based organizations (i.e. religious groups) should not be given any special protection and should follow the same laws as every other organization with respect to discrimination against protected classes.  \n\nFor the purposes of this discussion, I am using the \"[Canadian Human Rights Act](http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/)\" as the thing that defines discrimination. The protected classes from this act are:\n\n1. race\n2. national or ethnic origin\n3. colour\n4. religion\n5. age\n6. sex\n7. sexual orientation\n8. marital status\n9. family status\n10. disability\n11. conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted\n\nMy position is that the right to have freedom of religion does not superseed these rights. If your religion is not able to be tolerant with respect to these rights, then your religion has no place in our tolerant society. These quotations also aptly describe my position:\n\n\u201cTolerance of intolerance is cowardice.\u201d \n\u2015 Ayaan Hirsi Ali\n\n\u201cDon't get so tolerant that you tolerate intolerance.\u201d \n\u2015  Bill Maher\n\n-------------\n\nSome possible criticisms to this position and my response below:\n\n--------------------\n\nQ: But this means that churches would be forced to do Jewish ceremonies!\n\nA: This is not the case. Section 5 of the Human Rights Act states that discrimination occurs when someone is denied a \"provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public\" based on the above protected classes. It is only discrimination if the service is generally available but specifically denied to a protected class.\n\n---------------------------\n\nQ: But this means that churches would be forced to hire atheists as priests!\n\nA:  Section 15.1.a of the Human Rights Act already allows for an exemption for positions established by an employer to be based on a bona fide occupational requirement, which I think would qualify here.\n\n-----------------------------\n\nQ: But this means a bunch of bozos can come in and make a mockery of my church!\n\nA: Being respectful is not a protected class. If someone is not being respectful of your church, it is not discrimination to ask them to leave. \n\n------------------------------\n\nQ: But this means that churches would be forced to perform same sex marriages!\n\nA: Yes, and my position is that if a religious group is not tolerant with respect to sexual orientation, then this religion has no place in our society. I realize that this facet in particular is the most controversial part of my position.\n\n-----------\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: People have a moral obligation to watch ISIS execution videos to expose them to the true horrors of life under extremist rule. + \n + Recently I have begun to fell that when news of these executions comes through on the news many people read about it, talk about how awful it is, then move on to the next news story and give the subject little other thought.  I think that watching these videos would have a much greater impact on people and make them more likely to do something to help.  Personally, if I watch videos like this I feel sick and it disturbs me for about half a week.  I cannot forget about them easily.  Just reading about these events does not have this effect and I can forget about the issues relatively quickly.\n\nSecondly I am sure some people cannot visually imagine how horrific these events are.  Being exposed to footage of it will be a shock and a wake up call to how bad life can be for some people.  This in turn will make them more likely to take action.\n\nI will make it plain that I do not think people should be viewing these sorts of videos for entertainment of any kind.\n\nFinally it seems I am not alone, [this article](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/sean-penn-watches-isis-beheading-videos-out-of-moral-obligation-the-problem-is-we-are-not-seeing-enough-of-real-violence-10127603.html) may help you understand my argument better than I can express it.\n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Labeling people as the \"First African-American\" or \"First Woman\" to do something does more to separate us than bring us together + \n + I think that all humans deserve the same amount of respect, all else being equal. In other words, if I don't know you at all, my respect for you won't change based on your gender, orientation, race, religion, etc (If I do know you, and you give me reason to increase or decrease my respect for you, I will, of course).\n\nI think that referring to people based on their accomplishment is just fine -- being the First Person in Space is a grand title for Yuri Gagarin. But why is he referred to as the first *man* in space? To me, calling Valentina Tereshkova the First *Woman* in space simply emphasizes her difference -- she's female -- instead of her accomplishment.\n\nIf we're all supposed to treat everyone equally regardless of race, nationality, gender, orientation, religious views, etc; wouldn't referring someone as the first *whatever* to do something simply remind everyone that the difference is still there, and make it that much more difficult to ignore in the future?\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Fonts that have ambiguous lower case L and uppercase I should be phased out from use. + \n + Some of the most popular fonts today (Arial, Helvetica, etc) are ambiguous. I can thus spell IIIinois without using the letter L, and it will slip by completely unnoticed.\n\nWhy is this a serious problem?\n\nAside from the core value of having a discrete set of symbols to represent our written communication system (ie alphabet), the ambiguity can also lead to some serious problems. In computer security, usernames and websites can now be spoofed by this simple trick (eg by pointing someone to hotmaiI.com rather than to hotmail.com). Passwords may become confused or lost due to this simple affect as well.\n\nWe should therefore eschew these fonts. Since I know we won't, I really do want you to CMV.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Common usage of \"xe\" or other gender neutral pronoun would improve/make English language easier. + \n + There must have been thousands of times when i was talking about a hypothetical person when it came to picking pronouns and i chose the pronoun she or he, maybe i wrote he/she, and it just feels like using something like \"xe\" would be much more accurate and/or easier than using he/she. Tell me why using xe or something like it in our every day language wouldn't be good.\n\nI can see some people holding the view that this word has been dirtied by some people *cough tumblr *cough but i still believe that it wouldn't matter if a lot of people used it.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: A shrinking population size is a good thing + \n + If population replacement rates are below the rate of no growth or at stagnation, things are going to be better in the future. As automation continues to improve, less jobs will be available. On a nationwide scale, decreasing population means available work. Natural resources of food, water, fuel, and other materials are becoming scarcer everyday. On a global scale, less population means more available goods to all. What result(s) of an increasing population size could surpass these benefits? If we were hypothetically at the growth cap for the human population, would everybody still get frantic like when it's is brought up that the U.S. born citizen population is reproducing below replacement?\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Political party leaders resigning after a 'failure' in a national election is ultimate proof that they were only interested in power the whole time. + \n + A political party leader has a duty to serve their country via their government or via their opposition (if they have not won election to government).\n\nLosing an election does not prevent a good leader from leading, it merely humbles them, but losing an election will cause a bad leader to give up.\n\nIn the UK 3 major political party leaders gave up on Friday when they should be using their leadership skills and good vision to lead the opposition to keep the government accountable. If they had won the election I presume that they would not have retired. which makes it very evident that the leaders of the losing parties did not have leadership skills and/or a good vision but merely wanted to win for the sake of power.\n***\n\nI have to go now, but I will read all the comments and get back to this tomorrow. Thank you.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Bernie Sanders, an independent, shouldn't be allowed to run as leader of the Democratic Party + \n + I like Bernie, love his politics in fact. I doubt there is a politician I agree more with.  I like the fact that, unlike most politicians, his rhetoric matches his actions. Whether it's filibustering Bush's tax cut extensions, standing up against Citizens United or proposing amendments to the Patriotic Act, this is a guy who's politics match mine.\n\nThat being said, I find it problematic for a guy who's never sat as a Democrat and doesn't caucus as a Democrat to be running to be their leader. \n\nCMV Reddit, you can do it.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: \"Love\" and \"Hate\" are both irrational emotions sitting on extreme ends of the very same spectrum. Both are dangerous to feel. + \n + **Context:** As I've been re-organize how I view the world lately, my very conception of Love has come under fire. When dealing with emotionally lofty concepts such as love and hate, things can get messy and abstract. Additionally, these are both words that are used in many different ways, but I am positing a specific semantic distinction that I feel applies to both Love and Hate. The mild caveat is that because people hyperbolize both words, they have lost some meaning colloquially, but if you conceptualize \"Love\" as romantic love or the feeling of being \"In Love\", it may be easier.\n \n \n**Argument:** Both love and hate are on the same spectrum of a type of emotion. They are the very opposite extremes to an emotion that is felt by a human being so strongly that it actually destroys that person's ability to make rational, controlled, and logical decision making.\n \n**Hate** is a little easier to understand, and I certainly contest that it\u2019s an irrational emotion. Hate is experiencing feelings so negative and upsetting that one is unable to think rationally about the concept. If one hates a concept, a person, or a thing, and I mean *actually* hates \u2013 not just hyperbolic expression \u2013 then that person is undercutting even understanding their own reason for feeling the way they are. A person who hates a concept isn\u2019t even willing, interested, or capable of thinking in a level-headed way about that concept. Stubbornness, blindness, willful ignorance or what have you, hate destroys the ability to reason. I\u2019d contest that due to this, hate is never worthwhile and should never be applied to anything or anyone. There isn\u2019t a singular concept, person, or thing that one should hate. Hitler, pedophiles, racism, malaria, or hot-pockets, actual hatred towards anything seems to imply a misunderstanding of the thing.\n \n**Love**, on the other hand, is when you have emotions so positive about a person, place, or thing that the person who \"loves\" it cannot actually think rationally about that thing. That person is so caught up in the emotions that the ability to weigh out other perspectives, to reason in a different way, or to think objectively about that thing is quite literally disabled. In this way people often talk about romantic love. People may debate that experiencing love is obviously positive, and it brings about so many beautiful expressions\u2026 yet it can also lead to de-prioritizing important life events, self-survival, and contemplation of one\u2019s situation. It's very, very rare to have someone so emotionally impacted over an object, however. One example might be Bruce Willis\u2019s character Butch Coolidge in Pulp Fiction, who risks his life to retrieve a watch with significant sentimental value.\n\n\nThe true essence of experiencing love for someone or being in love, is then an emotion that simply disallows rational thought. It, like hate, has an inherent risk. While some desire this type of expression, it can be very unsettling and even dangerous to human beings.\n\n\nAs such, I believe both hate and love are on the same continuum. The actual expression of these emotions (and not merely semantic expression) is borderline unwanted. However, because the emotions that lead to those ends of the continuum are easy to quantify (happiness, pleasure, comfort vs anger, fear, disgust) one seems more appealing than the other.\n\n\n**Semantic Usage:** I don\u2019t believe that I am suggesting that no one should use these terms, because hyperbolic statements and exaggeration are natural to humans. I do believe that maybe, just maybe, there are better terms to express our unyielding, overwhelming expressions of positivity and negativity. It\u2019s certainly healthier to identify a conscious dismantling of the thing one \u201chates\u201d and advocate against it, logically and with supporting evidence. And it almost seems much sweeter to identify to a partner that your feelings come from a place of reasoned, mindful, and intentional consideration\u2026 and not just mere gut feelings.\n\n**Considerations:** Do y'all think that Love and Hate are rational emotional expressions? Are there times that it's beneficial to a person to feel irrational? If so, then maybe Love and Hate aren't dangerous to experience all the time. Is my underlying assumption that irrationality is dangerous also wrong? When is it ok, and more specifically, when is experiencing Hate as I define it ok? \n \n**TL;DR:** Love and Hate both sit on the same spectrum of emotions. They are defined by emotions so strong that one actually is unable to think rationally when experiencing them. I contest that these are both dangerous emotions because irrationality is dangerous to a human being.\n ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: It's sexist that society shames women for selling their body but does not shame men for doing the same + \n + Going back 100's of years, since humans formed societies, men and women offered their natural resources in exchanges for sustenance, but in different ways.\n\nI'm not going to argue what the this is the \"natural\" state of humans as I am not qualified, but GENERALLY, going back 1000's of years unskilled men and unskilled women used different means of acquiring resources need to survive.\n\nMen with nothing to their name can go into town, offer up their body for backbreaking unskilled labor (hauling, digging, etc) for money.\n\nWomen with nothing to their name can go into town and sexually offer their body for money.\n\nAnd again, I'm not saying this is the natural arrangement, but this is GENERALLY what happened for 100's of years all the way up until about maybe 50-60 years ago where society generally started to find it unacceptable for women to sell their body, but did not place any stigma for men doing the same thing.\n\nIn 2015, I can go into any random town with only a T shirt to my name and a shovel and provide my body to any farmer, rancher, warehouse, etc and everybody would praise me for being a hard worker.\n\nBut in 2015, if I were a women and went into town with a short skirt and lipstick and offered my body to truckers at the gas station, society would shame me.\n\nThat is sexist.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Black and white are colors + \n + Artists, pedants, and pedantic artists like to say that black and white are not colors, because of some property about not reflecting any light, or something along those lines. I am not saying anything against this definition. If the experts want to define things this way, I'm certainly in no position to say otherwise.\n\nHowever, \"Black is a color\" should still be a valid statement. My shirt is 'black.' I'm not a color-physicist, but I'm almost certain that it does not completely absorb the full spectrum of colors. If I wanted to be totally correct, I would have to say: \"My shirt is a color that very nearly approximates black.\" (Disproving this would be a very easy way to CMV!)\n\nThere are enough black-colored items in the world for this to be ridiculous. Thus, it's only logical that when we are casually talking to other humans, and mention the word 'black,' it can be assumed that we're referring to this close-enough faux-black, which does reflect (I'd assume) some light, and thus is totally a color. \n\nThe argument for white follows similarly.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Edward Snowden should be pardoned. + \n + Snowden leaked classified information, which is a crime, but the circumstances of the leak, and how he did it, are such that he deserves to be pardoned.\n\nSnowden did not leak for personal gain, but for public benefit.  He did not sell secrets to a foreign power.  The programs he revealed [were illegal](https://www.eff.org/files/2015/05/07/aclu_v._clapper_-_court_of_appeals_opinion.pdf).  If he had not been a national security employee, his actions would have been covered by the whistleblower protection act, and not be a crime at all.\n\nTwo years on from his leaks, it is clear that Snowden has not acted in a way deserving of legal punishment, and it would be better for the United States if he were to be pardoned and allowed to return home, instead of his looming prosecution, especially considering that [he could not raise a public interest defense](https://freedom.press/blog/2013/12/if-snowden-returned-us-trial-all-whistleblower-evidence-would-likely-be-inadmissible) at trial.  \n\nSnowden broke the law.  But the pardon power exists precisely because the law does not cover all possible contingencies, and there is supposed to be the possibility of mercy in an exceptional case.  Snowden's case is nothing if not exceptional, and he should be pardoned.\n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Jack of All Trades and a Master of None is Better than a Master of One + \n + We've all heard the saying that a Jack of All Trades is a Master of None.  I'm not here to say that this is completely true and that if you are good at many things you will never be a \"master\" at some skill or aspect of your life.  \n\nWhat I am willing to argue is that benefits of being a Jack of All Trades far outweighs the benefits of being a master of one or few \"trades\".\n\nFor starters, the possibility of finding the thing that truly makes you happy and satisfied in life is lessened quite significantly if your endeavors are honed into a certain subject at an early age.  The amount of time you spend on a certain skill, hobby, or whatever it may be is inversely related on the amount of time you spend on other aspects of your life.  It is my opinion that when you decide on your calling and devote yourself almost entirely to it, you miss out on other precious and interesting opportunities that your life could include otherwise.  \n\nThere is no doubt in my mind that abundant success in life is generated by the willingness to make a sacrifices for the thing that you believe that you want the most.  It is up to the individual to decide what matters to them the most.  Personally though, I think this is such a misguided approach to life that often leaves people feeling unfulfilled when they approach an advanced age.  Is \"success\" in life really that valuable to humans that they are willing to give up so much of their time to a specific task?  The need to be recognized and respected as a master of a particular aspect of life is a major driving factor of the sacrifices people make.   \n\nA Jack of All Trades in my opinion does not mean you have to be great or even good at the things that you try once, or even do on a regular basis.  For sanity's sake though, let's just say a Jack of All Trades is \"good\" at many things and a Master is \"great\" at one thing.  When you set your focus on being great at one aspect of your life, there is the potential to backseat so many other important things in your life.  I think, perhaps, this is best explained with an example.  I have a co-worker who is one of the most vocally well-versed, decorated, and revered employees at the company at which I am employed.  I am still quite young, and I just graduated college and he is one of my mentors.  Working with him has really shown me what true mastery looks like.  However, he spends at least 60+ hours a week at work for no real reason other than the fact that he is potentially obsessed with his work.  At his age, I know for a fact he would rather be spending time with his grand kids; he doesn't view time the same way most others do, and as a result ends up leaving the office at 7 o'clock every night.   \n\nI try not to work overtime unless we are really running behind on a project, because while I love my job, I don't feel the need to devote myself fully to the task.  As a result, I am able to focus on so much else and I am not constantly thinking about one specific thing.  The ability to detach myself from my career after I leave the office (or job site) really seems to subconsciously effect the rest of my day.  I feel more energized when I workout and I don't mind studying other things or brushing up on languages other than English.  I also get the opportunity to socialize more with friends when I leave work on time.  Having weekends off means I have the potential to do whatever I want and I can pick up new hobbies along the way.  So in short I am sacrificing the potential to be great at one thing for the potential to be good (or maybe even just experience) many other things.  \n\nPlease don't relegate this to being a work-a-holic and not being a work-a-holic.  This was purely a life example that directly relates to the topic at hand.\n\nI am sure it is possible to be a Master of one or more things and still be good at a lot of other things, but my main point is that a Jack of All Trades is a much more interesting and fulfilling approach to life than dedication to a singular practice.         \n\nHere is the delta, thanks **AnecdotallyExtant**\n\nIt will demonstrate that in order to become a master of one, a person must first become a Jack of all.\nAs an anecdotal example: I am myself somewhere right around the transition between the eighth and ninth picture in that diagram. But I am also the handiest person I know around the house. I can and regularly do fox everything in my house -- nearly worthless with cars, but the home I'm solid.\nSo again, to become a master of a single trade, one must first become a jack of all. Or one cannot understand his or her own trade out of context. This is why we start our educations in kindergarten and not in graduate studies. A wide, solid, strong and synthetic knowledge base is an absolute a priori necessity.\nWhich means that it can only follow that a master of one is superior, because it includes a thorough training in the jack of all.\n\nPlease read below if you want to see the diagram.  Many others had the same argument, but you approached it from an angle that makes sense.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I don't see how the poachers who killed Cecil and his brother are evil when peoples' consumption of meat leads to the killing of billions of cows, pigs and chickens. + \n + I understand lions are endangered animals and that these people were poaching illegally which was wrong. However I don\u2019t think it\u2019s fair to call them evil and treat them like monsters for killing lions.\n\nLet me clear something up, I am not a vegetarian. I eat meat and don't feel sorry. Because of my contribution to the market animals have died. The average Joe is also a meat consumer. He\u2019s okay with an industry of mass murder of animals so that he can enjoy their dead bodies with his evening meal. Why is that okay when someone killing for sport isn\u2019t? Why is it okay for farmers to kill animals and sell their remains but not okay for the same thing to happen to lions?\n\nThe men who killed these lions did it illegally and deserve to be punished for that but I don't think they're evil murderers. I fail to see why lions are more important just because we see them as more beautiful or rare.\n\nLions are endangered animals and it\u2019s a shame that two are now gone from the earth. These lions seemed to have been a big deal to their country which is sadder still but at the end of the day, they were killed for money just like farmers do hundreds of times a year.\n\nThese men are not monsters, calling them that is calling everyone who has ever killed or contributed to the killing (by for example eating) of animals.\n\nChange my view.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The public reaction to the Ashley Madison hacks are way out of line + \n + We don't know the situations of any of the people using this website. There is more than one configuration that can make for a stable marriage or LTR. What if you have a non-monogamous partner that consents to your extramarital activities, but you still felt the necessity to be discreet due to societal pressures? Or maybe your partner is unable to meet certain needs but still loves and wants you to find that satisfaction elsewhere? Or maybe, due to circumstance, you are temporarily stuck in an unhappy marriage but still have this crazy feeling that despite whatever mistakes you made to get into this situation, you are a human being and deserve to find happiness? There are really so many possibilities and to say that all of the people wronged met the end they deserved is to [deny rational thinking so that it aligns nicely with our view of how the world should be](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis).\n\nI've never seen this website myself so I really can't say anything about the demographics of its userbase, but imagine being in a situation like this and having your private information stolen from you, seriously endangering your social and professional life (and that of your spouse's) while strangers on the internet as well as peers in real life jeer at you and call you scum and filth who deserved it in the first place.\n\nThere are plenty of assholes who cheat on their spouses. There are also plenty of assholes who don't. But to try to make any kind of sweeping moralistic judgment about some group of 37 million strangers is unjustly harmful and heavily biased in nature.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Vulcans are superior to Humans + \n + Humanity plays an out-sized role in the Federation. Given the numerous races and population of non-humans in the Federation, there's an inexplicable abundance of humans in high positions. It's understandable for the organization to be based out of San Francisco, where the 4 founding races formed the coalition of planets, but with 150 member planets spread over 8,000 light years, why is so much of the leadership human?\n\nThis isn't a superficial skin-color thing, we're dealing with marked biological differences between the races. Vulcans, despite their violent past, have achieved \"superhuman\" levels of mastery over their emotions, allowing them to become excellent administrators and politicians, and even if we were to assume that Humans and Vulcans have the same fundamental capacity for intelligence, Vulcan discipline gives them supreme focus to produce an inordinate concentration of highly educated citizens. Even in sheer physical prowess, Vulcans massively outclass Humans, \"Take me out to the Holosuite\" being an excellent example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_Me_Out_to_the_Holosuite\n\nHere, the Vulcans are shown to be physically far superior, DOMINATING the mixed-race (human dominant) crew fielded by the Human Captain, in a human sport, with a final score of 10-1. Nevertheless the crew of DS9 celebrate their single point as a victory of human will rather than learning from the experience that Vulcans are superior in so many ways. \n\nVulcans are known for logic, they take great efforts to avoid letting their emotions cloud their judgement. We all know of a prestigious Human starship captain for ignoring the odds in a situation and taking great risks over the protests of his even-keeled Vulcan officer. It's convenient that luck favored the crew so often after these brash and illogical decisions. These apparent \"successes\" for making the wrong decision only served to stroke this captain's ego and belief that his \"gut instincts\" are what qualify him to lead. How is this different from a foolish business executive making random decisions and claiming credit for successes, and blaming other factors for failures? The meritorious act is in the decision itself, not in the outcome. To judge the brash decision based on a fortunate outcome is a flawed post hoc reasoning, akin to throwing a dart, sliding a dartboard under it, and claiming an excellent throw! What if even a few of those risks resulted in the *likely* outcome where many if not all of the crew members were killed because the captain ignored the logical choice in favor of an unsupported gut decision? \n\nIf there are any flaws to be noted in the Vulcan people as a whole, it would be low birth-rates, a bias towards peace, and a relative lack of ego(despite whatever projections humans perceive in a Vulcan's taciturn face). Perhaps humans have seized so much power as a direct result of greed, ambition, and nepotism, allowing them to promote humans above more qualified non-human members of Starfleet? Nevertheless, it seems clear that Vulcans are superior to humans.\n\n(The tone's intentionally a bit tongue and cheek to make this discussion more fun, but the fiction really does seem to over-exalt humans in the Federation)", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The severity of police brutality cases has been largely overblown by biased media coverage + \n + Let me start out by saying that I do not deny that police brutality is a serious issue and actions to prevent it are understandable from any viewpoint. My argument however is that the media has been looking for cases with such scrutiny that it has placed a very unfair and negative image on law enforcement as a whole. I believe it is entirely a case of the few bad apples spoil the bunch and that overeager enthusiasts have jumped aboard the hype-train breeding more antipolice sentiments than ever necessary towards all officers, causing those who are indeed just trying to do their job with no prejudice to tiptoe on glass and is actually hindering them from doing their job effectively.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Reddit, and much of the west, has been suckered into an anti-China view by the media. + \n + While I believe this is primarily an American viewpoint due to the US media's tendency to demonize the \"communist\" country, it quite often extends to Australians (mining and immigration) to Europeans. The US especially seems to have the need to pit their country against someone else, and with Russia no longer the biggest threat, they've turned to China. People have blindly bought into it, using China as scapegoat for numerous problems: \n\n* Pollution\n* The economy\n* Human rights\n* Environment\n* Overpopulation\n* Food safety\n* College admission (too many Chinese students)\n* Instability in the South Pacific\n\nNow, I'm not saying there are not problems in these areas, because there are, but I think it's wrong to chastise one group, often to the point of outright racism, when so many of the problems exist in west, and often to a greater degree. \n\nFor example, on the issue of pollution: \n\nPer capita the US produces 3x the CO2 of China while also throwing around significantly less garbage: \n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions\n\nhttp://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/06/daily-chart-3\n\nPeople see these pictures of the pollution and don't realize, or don't care, that the reason for it is two-fold. First being that companies from their country have off-shored not only jobs, but pollution, and it's their consumptive lifestyle that is partially to blame. Second, the sheer population destiny (humans are bad with big numbers). For instance, Guangdong, which has at times been called the factory of the world is a province less than half the size of California, yet has a population equal to that of 30% of the US. That's like taking every person from Texas to the west coast and putting them in California south of Fresno. \n\nOther issues such as over-fishing, which Japan is far more guilty of, and not to mention that a lot of the Chinese seafood is exported to the west. The US gets a staggering percentage of its food from SE Asia. \n\nOn all the issues above there are so many valid counterpoints, or simply a blind eye being turned towards ones own culpability and hypocrisy. \n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:The way women are portrayed in video games has no negative effect on society + \n + I\u2019m a guy and I would say I agree with some aspects of the feminist movement, but other aspects I find silly/trivial. I\u2019m currently dating a girl who is a VERY strong feminist. Over the weekend we were playing Mario Kart 64 and for as long as I can remember my go to character for Nintendo games has been Peach. There\u2019s really no particular reason I do this other than I seem to do the best with Peach.\n\nWhen I won the grand prix my girlfriend said \u201cUgh, I hate Peach, she\u2019s such a weak and stereotypical female video game character.\u201d To which I jokingly replied \u201cWow, that\u2019s a SUPER sexist thing to say, and she\u2019s obviously not that weak since I crushed you with her.\u201d And her response to that was \u201cPeach negatively reinforces the idea that women are weak and can only be saved by men in power like Mario.\u201d\n\nThen I made the mistake of saying \u201cWell I don\u2019t think that\u2019s true.\u201d We ended up getting into an argument over the portrayal of females in video games and how that perpetuates stereotypes in the real world. Her main argument was that most females in video games are portrayed as weak and need help from the male characters and this is detrimental to women in real life.\n\nThere were two issues I had with her argument, the first one being that there are a TON of badass female characters in video games who don\u2019t need no man: Samus, Rosalina, Zelda/Sheik, Palutena, Bayonetta, Lara Croft, Ellie from the last of us, and GLaDOS (just to get a female villain in there). She shrugged this off by saying it\u2019s still not enough because male protagonist characters outnumber female characters in video games. I feel like she wouldn\u2019t be happy unless the numbers of male and female characters are exactly equal.\n\nThe second, and main issue I had with her argument is even if all female characters were represented as weak and helpless, I sincerely doubt there is any correlation between these characters and real world issues for women. For me video games are make believe, fiction, and stories. They\u2019re imaginary worlds with imaginary characters. Saying the portrayal of women in video games perpetuates real societal problems for women (like pay inequality) is about as absurd to me as saying violence in video games perpetuates violence in real life, which from what I can tell [has been thoroughly debunked](http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2014-33466-001/). Most reasonable people realize that women don\u2019t wear bright pink dresses, pick vegetables with faces out of the ground, and get kidnapped from a giant turtle/dinosaur hybrid.\n\nI provided my argument, and also said if Mario\u2019s and Peach\u2019s roles were reversed I could seriously not care less, as long as the game was still fun. Her response was \u201cYou won\u2019t ever understand because you\u2019re a guy.\u201d I tried to continue on the debate but was met with the same response every time: \u201cYou won\u2019t ever understand because you\u2019re a guy.\u201d\n\nSo here I am trying to change my view, while I may not agree with the feminist issue of women in video games, I feel like I\u2019m more empathetic than what my girlfriend is giving me credit for. Have there been studies done about the portrayal of women in video games/stories and their effects on society? Is there any hard evidence for this correlation? \n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The US congressional system is far more representative than the Westminster parliamentary system + \n + Something I've noticed is that there is a prevailing opinion that the Westminster parliamentary system (i.e. the one used in Australia, Canada, and the UK) is far more representative of the populace than the US congressional system. This usually stems from the observation that there are generally more political parties at play under Westminster parliamentary systems than is the case under the US's congressional system.\n\nBut this argument seems to break down when more closely examined. In particular, my biggest problem with it is that parties in a Westminster system are very different from those in a congressional system.\n\nSpecifically, parties in a Westminster system are far, *far* more homogenous and rigid than those in a congressional system. From what I've seen, under the former it is rare to the extreme to vote against your party while in the latter it is notable when a vote is split perfectly along party lines. To give an example, the \"Blue Dog Democrats\" are a subgroup of the Democratic party that often \"crosses the aisle\" to vote with the Republican party. As far as I can tell, that sort of behavior would be likely to get one kicked out of one's party in a Westminster system.\n\nIn other words, party discipline is much stronger in a Westminster system than a congressional system.\n\nThe strangest thing to me is that this homogeneity kind of appears to defeat the point of having parties in the first place - if the point is that the parties are voted into power and do not split their votes, then why bother to have many different MPs? Surely it would achieve the same effect if each party was just given a block of votes equal to the number of seats they would hold, no?\n\nThis all seems rather obvious to me, which tells me that I am most likely missing something significant or perhaps misunderstanding some key feature of the Westminster political system.\n\nFor the record, I am from the US and therefore far more familiar with the congressional system than Westminster systems, though I do try to understand both as best I can.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: If you decide not to participate in elections you shouldn't complain about the results. + \n + I just had a long political debate with my friend and it ended with him stating that he wouldn't be voting. I believe if you don't vote in the system that you live in, you have no ground to stand on to complain about those elected. I have heard this argument before that the \"lesser of two evils is still an evil\" but I find it a moot point when someone is going to win regardless. By not voting for someone who you could even begin to identify with then you are essentially allowing someone you oppose to run  with less competition.\nI understand not everyone has an ideal politician running but if you don't make any attempt to get your say into government, then why would you complain if something doesn't go your way.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: the Earth is alive + \n + The Earth is constantly changing and moving in predictable patterns and cycles. The water cycle and nutrient cycles (carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur, etc.) are Earth's metabolism. The *Homo sapiens* component of Earth is preparing to initiate reproduction by copying Earth's structure onto other planets like Mars; not only in terms of atmospheric composition, but Earth will also give Mars many of its species and possibly its ecosystems as well. The Earth maintains relatively constant conditions over time, like surface temperature, ocean salinity and pH, and atmospheric composition, and these relatively constant conditions are homeostasis. Change my view.\n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The SJW movement uses language of the elite and privileged, and thus does very little to empower or educate. + \n + Let me preface this by saying that I consider myself socially liberal, and I actually agree with *most* SJW talking points. Like other left-leaning movements, it seems to have good intentions, but I actually think it does more to silence non-privileged voices than it does to encourage education, empowerment, progress, or harmony.\n\nA college education (or at the very least, the Internet and plenty of time on one's hands) seems to be a standard cost of entry for dialogue with a typical SJW. Dialogue that consists of terms and concepts such as: patriarchy, heteronormativity, trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF), cisgendered, gender spectrum, gentrification, respectability politics, privilege, oppression, identity, assimilation, queer, otherkin, institutionalization, marginalization, etc....I could keep going.\n\nThese are all terms that I've just pulled directly from SJW Tumblr pages/comments. Some are more easily defined than others, but there are still layers to each concept (such as privilege or oppression) that people may have a difficult time grasping if it was the first time they've been exposed to these ideas.\n\nHonestly, I have a master's, and the first time this language was thrown my way, I felt dumb for not understanding some of it. How might someone who could only afford a high school education feel? I get that they want to use intelligent, specific language to explain some concepts that are difficult to put into words, but how is someone who doesn't have the privilege of a college education, or at least the time to sit down and learn these concepts, expected to engage in dialogue that sounds like it's spoken by a women's studies textbook? It can be intimidating, and no one likes to have a conversation that makes them feel stupid. How is this use of privileged language encouraging those who are economically and educationally marginalized to participate?\n\nI don't want to generalize, but from my own experience, a majority of SJWs enjoy doing what they do because they like winning arguments. It's not about empowering and educating. In the face of ignorance, SJWs tend to belittle and insult, rather than educate or allow for a balance dialogue. The attitude is, \"Oh, you're ignorant? Let me make you feel *more* ignorant by insulting you and using words you don't understand.\"\n\nAgain, I'm in favor of most ideas SJWs tend to champion...transgender rights, #BlackLivesMatter, feminism, etc. I just think they're going about it in a way that turns people off, because they're so concerned with being able to flex their knowledge and with shutting down those who might disagree with their ideas the tiniest bit.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I don't believe in gender, other than biological sex. As in, I don't believe in any set gender norms/the existance of a non-biological gender. + \n + Please understand that I have no hatred for transgender people, and I will not force this view upon them or anyone. I have rather liberal views, really; I'm ready to accept a lot of things... But I have trouble understanding the reasoning behind gender dysphoria and all of that. I identify as my biological sex, yet I really feel more 'feminine' than 'masculine'. Yet I don't really believe in either term due to their outdated definitions and all of that nonsense.\n\nI'm not a very spiritual person. And I don't believe in a lot 'outside' of what we can percieve. Yes I believe there's more to the world, but I don't believe in anything beyond biological sex. Of course it's not binary. Intersex people very obviously exist, that's just scientific fact. \n\n**I'm starting to go off topic here, but I'm not sure how to elaborate on all of this.**\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think /r/politics is relatively mainstream and those that criticize it are generally super biased + \n + I notice a lot of people grumble about /r/politics like it is an absolutely ridiculous cult, far out of touch with real discussion. I notice that almost all of these people that complain are right wing conservatives or libertarians. These are people that are generally part of a huge minority of the 18-30 something vote.\n\nThey remind me of Fox News watchers who think everything to the left of Fox News must be \"extreme left\" and crazy. In reality it's just that their information bubble is so biased, that the normal world appears insane to them.\n\nYes, the subreddit is filled with left-leaning headlines. And a lot of people who are excited by Bernie Sanders. But the demographic of the country, and especially young tech savvy people leans left on the issues (relative to US party leadership) and there's nothing inherently wrong or radical about that. It's just measured against a spectrum that includes a radical right. I have always found the discussion is much more substantive and reasonable and robust than even other political subreddits like /r/PoliticalDiscussion, which is generally very light on real discussion and dominated by libertarians and AnCaps. If you look at polls of teens and young adults, and even academics and field experts, it look far more like /r/politics than like /r/PoliticalDiscussion or /r/news or /r/worldnews which are generally filled with reactionary sentiment and outdated views on race, class, sociology, economics, etc.\n\nRight leaning headlines are allowed. You see at least some conservatives in the comments all the time. The problem is they generally just post to register a vague complaint about all the liberals, and don't actually try to debate the merits. When they do bring their POV into it, it's not met with shrieking hysteria like people pretend, but usually someone with a pretty strong counter-argument. I think the hard truth that people don't want to swallow is that most of the conservative and libertarian movement is pretty intellectually dishonest and disagreeable these days, and the positions are so easily refuted when they're brought out of their bubbles that it creates bitterness and an attitude of taking your ball and going home. As Colbert said, \"reality has a well known liberal bias\". \n\nIf they actually had links and comments of equal merit to bring to the table, they could easily post them and change the dynamics of the sub. There are vigorous debates to be had on the issues, but the range of 21st century scholarly debate on issues like science, economics, sociology, healthcare, welfare theory, etc generally looks like a socialist rally to the average US conservative, but that just says more about them.\n\nTL;DR I think /r/politics is pretty normal and reasonable and the people who complain loudest against it are the infamous Reddit reactionaries, who are much more outside the bounds of sophisticated political or economic discussion.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is nothing wrong with choosing to be celibate for non religious reasons + \n + So I am a 24 year old guy who is probably gay.  I have had sex with a couple of guys and it was fun at the time but now I just regret it and I don't want to have sex anymore. \n\nI don't really think I need sex, despite what society expects of people don't need sex, its not going to kill them if they don't have any and well without it life is less complicated. \n\nI have talked about this with a couple of people i trust and they both think I am crazy or its \"sad\" that I want to live my life that way and i just gets me wondering why society has got this attitude towards sex whereby if you don't actively want it then there is something wrong with you.  My body may on occasion want it but it also on occasion wants a smoke (something which i am trying to deny as well)\n\nI guess I just do fine on my own, I don't have any siblings or that many friends and I don't care, I just really need someone in my life and I sometimes think that doing without sex will also make my life easier and more time to focus on more important things\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Apples are better than oranges + \n + You always hear the saying, \"it's like comparing apples and oranges,\" in a way that implies that it's silly to compare. This is false though and I would like the chance to prove to you that apples are the better, more versatile fruit.\n\nAlcohol: drinking is awesome and fun. Rarely do you hear about anything orange though, outside of being a garnish or in liquers. Apples are the full feature alcohol fruit that can come in cider or wine form, as well and being used in the same fashions oranges could, liquers and garnishes. No one orders an orange wine because they just aren't common, and that's because they aren't very good! Apple is even sometimes used in beer, albeit orange is more common for that.\n\nFood: oranges are pretty good for food, salads sauces and such, but what about an orange pie? As an American the apple pie is a quintessential food associated with America. That may not sway non Americans, with that I say, what about pork? You don't put an orange in a pigs mouth when you roast it, nope that's an apple. Both can be used in a variety of ways, but pie and pork gives apple the advantage.\n\nDiversity: apples have over 7,000 varieties, oranges don't even come close to that. \n\nJuice: both make fine juices, but apple has far more variety to create a wide appeal. Apple juice also comes in carbonated form commonly. That's pretty cool.\n\nPop culture: the technology company Apple owes most of it's success because of the apple, spwcifically McIntosh apples. If macs were called \"Navels\" or \"Valencia\" instead would Apple have been so successful? Not a chance orange fans, sorry to burst your bubble. Also Forrest Gump's infamous line, \"life is like a crate of apples...\" Would never work with oranges due to lack of variety. Lastly, there's no Johnny Orangeseed, check and mate.\n\nLove to hear orange fans change my mind though, let's see it.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The government being able to access my private information (phone calls, emails) or see where I'm going every day isn't so bad. + \n + I was listening to Radiolab's podcast entitled \"Eye in the Sky\" which details the work of Ross McNutt and the technology he developed originally to use in Iraq in 2004-5. The project had a silent aircraft flying around a particular city that was prone to bombing, and the aircraft would take photos of the city all day. If a bomb went off, we were able to look back at that area to find who planted the bomb, and then follow that person or group to wherever they ended up in order to arrest them. The technology was also used in Juares to solve the crime of a murdered police officer, and eventually led to a major break in arresting cartel leaders who were responsible for thousands of deaths in the city. Basically this is surveillance technology that could potentially solve crimes and save lives.\nThe speakers on the podcast were mostly against using this kind of technology, and it seems to be the majority viewpoint. Their only argument seemed to be that it \"felt wrong\" and that they would lose privacy if there was an aircraft flying around the city taking photos, and that terrible things could happen if that information was placed into the wrong hands. \n\nI must be missing something. Unless I'm doing something illicit and illegal, what the hell do I care if the government can watch me run errands or listen to my boring phone conversations or find out how much I spent on shoes in the last year? What could they possibly do with that information that would come back to hurt me, as long as I'm within the boundaries of the law and I'm not harming anyone with my little boring life. If you don't want to get caught doing shitty things, then maybe don't do those shitty things. Why oppose a system that could make the world a better place and stop bad people from doing bad things just because it might make you feel a tad bit uncomfortable for no real reason?\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: \"My condolences\". \"My apologies\". \"My sympathies\". When I hear these phrases, I get irritated because they sound so insincere! + \n + I saw a post on my fb feed that my friend's grandmother passed away, and a few of the comments said things like \"I'm so sorry to hear. She and your family are in my prayers.\" These don't bother me. What bothers me are people who simply say what I listed in the title, and maybe a few words more:\n\n* My condolences man.\n* My sympathies for your family bro.\n\nI don't understand why people can say these things and think it has any meaning whatsoever. They sound so ***insincere*** to me! Hell, even \"shit, that fucking sucks man\" sounds more sincere to me than those other hollow phrases. \n\nWhen my grandma passed away a few years ago, I texted my best friend to tell him, and he responded with two texts: \"Fuck\" \"Tell me how to help\". He didn't say he was sorry to hear and he didn't say anything nice about my grandma like how kind she was or how he know that she and I were close, but I still felt more comfort from those words than I could ever imagine feeling from \"my condolences man.\"\n\nI don't know the people that posted those comments on my friends' fb, and so I don't know how genuine they are, but just the words alone bother me. They tell me that you felt like you should say something, but you weren't really feeling anything, so you picked those empty words.\n\nCMV?\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:The criticism of \"nice guys\" (as seen in r/niceguys) is not valid. + \n + The reasoning behind this view is that everyone is entitled to human companionship, and that these guys are frustrated/critical of flaws they see in our current cultural mating patterns. Single guys suffering deserve as much respect and empathy as women who may face different challenges. Also, these guys are often being vulnerable to their crushes and trying to start a romantic relationship. Even if the other party isn't interested, it's brave of them and they shouldn't be mocked for their courage.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:'Rights' are not a real thing. They only exist as much as the state allows. Talking about (or legislating) 'Rights' without mentioning 'responsibilities and 'limits' encourages faulty, destructive thinking. + \n + People talk about 'natural' or 'God-given rights', but all rights can be taken from you. If rights like \"free speech\" or \"free association\" are 'inalienable', 'natural', or 'God-given', how come so many people don't have them. \"Rights\" are created by the state, on their terms.\n\nI hear alot of people claiming \"The right to free speech\", or \"The right to the pursuit of happiness\". Looking at the world in these terms is false, misleading and detrimental to society. No rights are absolute- the world would be screwed if they were. Laws about inciting violence, truth in advertising, libel, slander, pornography, threats, extortion, racial vilification, sexual harassment, tax fraud and many, many more, all limit free speech, but are vital for society. \nCan I \"pursue happiness\" by running over the elderly in my F150, or selling crack to toddlers? But I got the \"right\"!! right? All 'rights' have limits. Looking at things purely in terms of \"rights\"\ncreates a selfish, narcissistic, entitled, unreasonable mindset.\n\nRights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin, but there's no \"Bill of Responsibilities\". Talking about 'Rights' like this\nmakes people think they can do what they want, coz \"I got Rights!!\". \n\nRights are a myth, and we need a better model for thinking about personal freedom.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The Palestinians had the moral high ground (or at least parity) for statehood back in 1948, but have since lost it after decades of terrorism fueled by antisemitism. + \n + 1. Israel has repeatedly been on the defense in wars with her neighbors, only making aggressive maneuvers after repelling the invaders. Israel has usally given most of the captured land back to the aggressors as a olive branch in good faith\n\n2. Israel treats her Palestinian citizens has full citizens, even holding public office. Religious freedom is the standard, as are most civil liberties expected of a civilized liberal democracy in the 21st century.\n\n3. Israel exercises an extraordinary effort and restraint when engaging Palestinian terrorists in combat by warning innocents to leave an area they are about to bomb. It is impossible to avoid all civilian deaths, but at least they seriously try.\n\n4. In contrast, Palestinians, namely Hamas are foundationally (in their founding charter) committed to killing as many Jews and Israelis as they can, at any cost, as seen by their relentless attack on southern Israel with rockets and raids.\n\n5. Hamas also intentionally uses their citizens as human shields by building their military facilities under hospitals and kindergartens. Even going to the extent of forcing civilians into buildings that they know are about to be bombed to as to increase the casualties for PR reasons.\n\n6. Palestinians have repeatedly, under multiple governments, refused to even consider a peaceful coexistence with Israel. This is seen by the Palestinians consistently refusing to even consider favorable peace terms offered by the Israelis.\n\nI mean even if they got the short end of the stick 70 years ago, that can only excuse being so shitty for so long, right?\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: If you cheat on your SO, and he/she never finds out about it and your behaviour doesn't change, there is no harm done. + \n + Let me preface this by saying I'm currently single but I have cheated on an earlier relationship.\n\nHere's my view: If I can 100% ensure that my SO will never ever find out I cheated, and my behaviour doesn't change, and I do not hurt the person I cheat with, there is literally and factually no harm done and it's therefore ethically acceptable. I know there are people who find out, and I know there are people who change (= fall in love for example), but those are not the scenarios I wanna discuss.\n\nOne example: In an earlier relationship, I cheated on my SO with a girl I liked. I loved my girlfriend and I wouldn't want to ever hurt her, but I could 100% assure that she would never found out and for me it was just sex. After that, we were just as happy, she does not know 'til this day and we were just as happy until we split for something unrelated. So, if you assign it a value, my girlfriend was happiness(+-0), the other girl was happy(+2) and I was happy(+5), which gives you a clear net plus in happiness.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe that universities should have an affirmative action program dedicated to increasing the number of students and faculty who hold conservative political views + \n + One of the major policy appeals behind affirmative action is the creation of a diverse environment. A completely homogeneous environment is unlikely to be as intellectually fulfilling as a diverse one. Universities have done an excellent job in creating an environment that has tons of racial, sexual, ethnic and religious diversity. However, it still lacks intellectual and political diversity. People with conservative or right-wing views are [woefully unrepresented](http://www.criticalreview.com/crf/pdfs/klein_stern.pdf) in academia, particularly in the social sciences. Not only does this make people with conservative political views feel unwelcome and unappreciated in the university environment, it threatens the perceived validity of the research done. [This is even recognized by some leftists themselves](https://inequalitiesblog.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/right-wing-study-of-inequality/). How are you supposed to have valid research, let alone critical thinking, when there is an absolute hegemony of leftist views, which no one dares challenge due to their overwhelmingly disproportionate power and influence on campus? Therefore, to make university a more diverse environment and encourage critical thinking, we should prioritize student and faculty applicants who are affiliated with right wing organizations, and ensure that peer review panels have at least one right wing professor on them CMV.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe that people who are suffering from chronic incurable mental illness should have a right to commit suicide. + \n + I understand that this view is going to be incredibly unpopular but I have witnessed firsthand people who have suffered for decades with incurable depression (failed drug treatment, failed electro-convulsive therapy and various neurosurgical procedures). They have moments of i suppose what you might call reduced-depression where they gather the energy to try and commit suicide only to be stopped by well-meaning health professionals who then ply them with sedatives and get them 'back on their feet' again which usually means get them into some barely-functioning more acceptable role before everything just turns to custard again. I can't help but feel that we are doing a huge disservice to them by arrogantly refusing to consider their viewpoint - that they really have got nothing else left to live for. A few I have seen have experienced tremendous trauma in life and are unable to see much hope in the future other than living a vegetable-type life as a half-person in assisted accommodation. Some others have permanent brain damage from the various mind altering drugs they have been forced to take under the mental health act as they have been deemed a risk to themselves. Seriously, I really think we are being extremely bigoted by assuming that our worldview, although the majority worldview, is what they see. Live and let live. Live and let die.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is no difference between someone choosing their gender vs someone choosing their race + \n + \nA person is born of either the male or female sex just as they are born into a certain race. These things are determined by your genes. However, the concepts of gender(as apposed to sex) and race are pretty much social constructs; and if it's socially acceptable for a person who strongly feels that they identify as the opposite gender to claim they are that gender, then it should also be socially acceptable for someone to claim they are of a different race if they strongly feel that they identify as such. It is logically the same thing.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: NCAA Athletes should be paid + \n + The NCAA made close to a billion dollars in revenue in 2013 and their athletes were awarded with none of it. Yes I understand they get scholarships and are worth thousands of dollars but when players such as Shabazz Napier report to go to bed without eating because of lack of money that becomes a problem. Most athletes put in 40 hours of practice into their sport a week so the argument of getting a job is invalid considering they have classes to worry about on top of their sport. Division 1 college football coaches see a salary of 1.63 million dollars ( on average) and their salary continues to grow while the actual athletes don't see a dime. These athletes should be appropriately awarded with money made from merchandise sales that use their names. I am not saying that these athletes should be given thousands of dollars but be appropriately compensated for their work. \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Most software shouldn't be patentable. + \n + As a software engineer, I always say there are two kinds of problems everything can fall into and besolved:\n\n1. You can build a rocketship\n2. sort a deck of cards\n\n\n99.9999% of all software engineering work falls into the latter, most things that you try to accomplish and solve tend to be easily explained and solved by any person not in the field and for people in the field it is OBVIOUS (patents are for non-obvious things)\n\nEven more sophisticated things such as predicting what other users would like is obvious to anyone in the machine learning field. \n\nfor example, 1-Click -- make it that you need to click once to order a product online using your previously entered information. \n\nAny software engineer will tell you that this could be completed in a few hours and they already have 99% of the design (baring any existing infrastructure to code around) \n\nSo you ask **how do I protect my software from being copied?** simple, you copyright it. \n\nA good example is Voat vs Reddit, AFAIK, voat is open source reddit is not. Reddit is Lisp/Python wheras Voat is C#. Completely different languages, database structures etc. However, if reddit as a site was patentable Voat would never exist even though it's an independently coded and created product. (and if you are going to go on about how they look similar, reddit should file a DESIGN patent as well as Trademark protection NOT a software patent) ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Ignoring religious reasons, it's okay for for towns prohibit the sale of alcohol on Sundays + \n + I think when most people think of liquor laws that prohibit the sale of alcohol they imagine it was conceived of by antiquated religious zealots decades, if not a more than a century, ago. Therefore, if they're opposed towards any sort theoretically motivated law, they think it should be repealed. While that sort of secular thought is sometimes commendable, I don't think this particular kind of law is that bad, and it even has some benefits.\n\nI'm no crusader of temperance. I'm perfectly happy to have a beer with anyone who wants to chill ...on Saturday. The fact is, even though I consider myself very liberal in what kinds of substances people should be allowed to consume, I recognize that many of them, even used properly in moderation, have consequences for health in the long term. Alcohol will do a number on your liver (besides all those carbs you're drinking), so you probably shouldn't drink it everyday. If there was any good day to abstain, it'd be Sunday. Why not go to bed early and sober to start the week fresh?\n\nAnd if you absolutely, positively want to have a drink on Sunday, you still can, it just takes a modicum of planning ahead. So I don't see this as any serious infringement of personal freedom.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: We need to develop alternative energy capabilities, but that shouldn't include an expansion of nuclear power. + \n + I have a couple of concerns about nuclear energy. Overall, I'm not terribly concerned about the risks involved with nuclear power plants - sure, Fukushima and all that, but realistically many more people are killed by other forms of energy generation (I believe!). That's not to say that this isn't a worry, on some level. It's just not my top worry.\n\nI am, however, concerned about nuclear waste. The goal of developing alternative energies, to my mind, is to reduce our environmental footprint and save our ecosystem as we know it. Sure, we might slow global warming using nuclear energy - but to my knowledge, we don't really have any good way of dealing with nuclear waste. Investing in nuclear energy is just a way of trading one environmental problem for another.\n\nSecond, other forms of renewable energy are increasingly cost-effective and efficient. There's no reason to be generating nuclear power when we can do just as well with other forms of energy.\n\nThird, nuclear energy is an international conundrum. If we could move away from nuclear energy in the United States and invest globally in other forms of renewable resources, we would be able to prove, in some small way, that nuclear energy programs are unnecessary - and, therefore, give us more leverage to refuse to tolerate them in diplomatic talks.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Some nation's morals are superior to others. Norway > Somalia in this regard + \n +  may appear ethnocentric by judging other cultures by my culture's standards, but actually I'm using logical moral reasoning valid for all Humans, because we have so much in common. Suffering, grief, and starvation are universally bad. Personal fulfillment and health are always good. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging what's working and what isn't, even across cultural boundaries. However, I don't support the kind of ethnocentrism that thoughtlessly assumes my own values are the best (aside from the universals I mentioned).\n\nSome cultures are better at promoting the good and minimizing the bad. Norwegians are better at it than Somalis, overall. The two countries are near opposite ends of every ranking of national happiness.\n\nA Nord could criticize a Somali for honor-killing his raped daughter because Nordic morals are more successful at promoting overall wellbeing than Somali morals.\n\nThe reasoning the Somali man is likely using is that consent is not a factor in sex, so she is culpable and profoundly sinful. Honor dictates that he protect his family's reputation by killing her. This conforms to his idea of Islam and is the best way to protect the immortal souls of himself and the remaining \"pure\" members of his family.\n\nThe Nord would see a misogynist man selfishly protecting his own standing in the community by harming a disenfranchised girl under the dubious pretext of preserving the purity of \"souls,\" the existence of which no reliable evidence supports. What's more, helping oneself by hurting others should be discouraged because the Nords believe it degrades the level of wellbeing in a society, and they would know-- they're near the top of the happiness charts.\n\nSome people practice critical thinking and do their own moral reasoning. Others follow the less mentally demanding path of tradition. The result is that some people develop moral skills that maximize health and happiness and minimize suffering. Better educated nations do better at this. Norway has great education, Somalia has terrible education. Thus some nation's morals end up superior to others.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Transsexuals suffer from a form of body dysmorphia, or a similar affliction, and should be treated with counseling rather than be allowed to go through with gender reassignment surgery. + \n + I don't really have a biological understanding of the modern interpretation of gender and have developed this view purely out deductive reasoning. It seems to me that we have developed an understanding of afflictions, such as [alien hand syndrome](http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=12655), where those who are affected believe that part of themselves are actually alien to their body. We are also developing an idea of how people who are anorexic or bulimic almost certainly view their bodies in such a way that is not representative of reality and often harm themselves in attempts to lose weight. We, as a society, have decided that these are sick individuals who need medical and psychiatric attention. Certainly, an individual with alien hand syndrome could have a procedure to remove their hand in a safe and controlled environment and continue living a suitable life. We don't allow that, though. How is having gender identity issues different from afflictions I have described above? Also, why are these individuals allowed to make unnecessary changes to their body when we don't provide the same liberties to others? \n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Nonviolence doesn't work. Excessive violence, especially killing or enslaving children, is proven to be the most effective military tactic and is justified for a sufficiently noble cause. + \n + Nonviolence is how the establishment asks us to seek redress when at the same time they use violence against the common people. Your brother got shot by a cop? How dare you even *think* about so much as shooting a cop's brother. This is ridiculous and ineffective; the few times that nonviolence has actually been successful it has occurred in the face of greater violence. The peaceful dissipation of the British Empire occurred not because of Gandhi's or Nkrumah's fortitude but instead because the horrors of the Second World War made Blighty respect African and Asian fighters as their equals on the battlefield. When you're dealing with an establishment that sees both Jamal from Ferguson and Voula from Lesvos as equally dispensable, there is no way to nonviolently deconstruct this system.\n\nOn the contrary, violence against children has proven to be one of the most enduringly successful tactics; as heinous as it is in the microcosm, in the macrocosm it yields very successful results for a noble cause. One can see this in the Old Testament, where the Israelites showed no compunctions towards killing small children and were rewarded with a defensible state, and in modern times the success of the State of Israel as well. You see the same in ISIS; they show depraved indifference towards civilian life and as a result their enemies shut down because their lizard brain cannot condemn a baby-killer. If those who fight against imperialists (in the US, Europe, Canada, Ukraine -- both sides are imperialist scum -- etc) used the same tactic, the global system would not see the threat they faced until it was too late.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The United States should lower or even abolish the corporate income tax. + \n + [This is an old article \\(2008\\), but it sums up my views well.](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/business/01view.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print) It's written by head of the Harvard econ department Greg Mankiw. Not that I want to make an argument from authority, but this idea has some weight behind it.\n\n\nSummary of my reasoning:\n\n- The incidence (burden) of corporate income tax mainly falls on labor (one CBO study suggests 70%), decreasing wages. So decreasing the tax will increase wages, which is good both for the individuals and the economy.\n\n- Encourages corporations to stay in and move to the US, or at least reduces the incentive to dodge taxes.\n\n- Leads to economic growth, both through helping the stock market and reducing distortions in the free market. Most taxes tend to mess with the free market and are inefficient (other than Pigovian taxes on externalities), especially the corporate tax. \n\n\n- Won't mess with the deficit TOO much. The money that corporations aren't paying won't just disappear. It will go into stock transanctions (taxed via cap gains), salaries (taxed via payroll and income), etc. etc. If it drives economic growth, the tax base will also grow, which could actually make this tax cut self-funding. If we do need to fix the budget hole it makes, maybe slightly raise capital gains tax on higher incomes/transactions, and/or raise the gas tax? ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: One should not bring a kid into this world unless they can afford to pay their college tuition. + \n + Specifically talking about the United States.  \n\nCollege tuition, as in, 18 years from now.\n\nI know this excludes about 95% of the population, and I know everyone wants to make copies of themselves, but it seems very irresponsible.  \n\nThe two trends are that seem to be increasing relentlously are college tuition costs and percentage of people attending college, I blame the system for this, not the individuals, as the U.S. moves further away from manufacturing, the need for college educating people in our work force increases, there are less and less jobs available that *don't* require college.  \n\nIt seems downright irresponsible to bring someone into a world that expects them to go to college and be $500,000 (or whatever it will be in 18 years) in debt.\n\nWould like to hear all of your thoughts on the matter.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Modern Art artists and appreciators are lying + \n + First, let me just say that some modern/abstract art looks cool. Some is attractive and worth hanging in the home. \n\nThat being said, I do not believe people who say that abstract art *means something* are being sincere, whether they be the artist, owner, or viewer.\n\nArtists, I believe, create things that 1) others will think look cool, and/or 2) others will purchase. I believe artists invent stories about the \"meaning\" being their art because it makes it seem more sophisticated than it is. By the same token, I believe people who apply meaning modern/abstract art are being dishonest in an attempt to either appear sophisticated or justify their purchases.\n\nI believe it's all a ruse--a lie that no one can be checked on--created to fein sophistication and lofty thinking, and works because \"Who are you to tell me what something should or shouldn't mean to me?\" \n\nChange my view!", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:The fact that the English has lacked a language regulator over the last few centuries has been a detriment to its beauty and ease of learning + \n + I recently discovered /r/Anglish.  Anglish is an attempt to construct a version of English using only Anglo-Saxon and other Germanic roots.  The result is a language that not only sounds beautiful, but is much more intuitive to learn new vocabulary.\n\nTake, for example, this [list of lores](http://anglish.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Lores).  Rather than using Greek-derived names for the sciences, which are completely meaningless to the average learner of English until they learn the name of that particular science, Anglish uses simple compounds from common, everyday words that language learners would already be familiar with.  Many languages do this as well.\n\nThe result of incorporating all these foreign words is that English no consistency of grammar, spelling, pronunciation, or anything.  This makes it more confusing and burdensome to learn.\n\nI should specify that I'm speaking of a regulator with the goal of keeping English clear, consistent, and true to its roots.  Obviously, a language regulator that pushed for the inclusion of these foreign words would be no help.\n\nIt may be too late now, given the use of English as an international language, but I think it is a shame and a detriment to international communication that English wasn't standardized this way a long time ago.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:The USA is the least trustworthy nation to possess atomic weapons + \n + I have come to this conclusion for several reasons.\n*The USA is the only nation in the history of humanity to actually use atomic weapons against an enemy. From past experience alone it is the country most likely to use them again.\n\n*The main positive effect of atomic weapons, that gets brought up a lot , is mutually assured destruction. The USA dropped 2 atomic bombs, not as retribution to an atomic attack. It demonstrated a lower bar for considering using them.\n\n*The USA regularly starts new wars. It's certainly the nation among the big superpowers that is most likely to initiate a new war and, in the case of Irak, can not even explain why they went to war in the first place. A country that is this likely to be involved in wars is more likely to find itself in a position where it would consider using another atomic bomb.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Liberland already failed to be libertarian + \n + **Background:** Liberland is a new, self-declared micronation located on the banks of the Danube River, between Serbia and Croatia. Neither country claims the land for itself. In April 2015, a Czech libertarian activist claimed the land under a new country named Liberland, which aspires to be the first nation governed by  Libertarian principles.\n\n**The Problems:** First, by claiming a new country and giving out the land, the movement may be infringing on property rights of those who already have claim. A journalist found an old house there during a visit, so someone owned the property at some point, and may have descendants who have legal claim to the land. Second, the president of the country already put quotas and restrictions in place to limit the size and make-up of the population. Only a few thousand people will be allowed to live there, and people with criminal records or certain political affiliations are barred from living there. This second point sounds incredibly hypocritical for a nation based on the ideas of freedom and liberty.\n\nI could be wrong, so if there are any libertarians out there who support Liberland and can change my view, please do.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Growth of economy is not interesting. + \n + To me growth of economy is a meaningless statistic. Economy means exchange of goods and growth of economy is thus increase in exchange. What kind of person evaluates actions in their personal life based on this kind of statistic? For example, picking blueberries in the forest is extremely bad for growth of economy: low skill job and doing things yourself means you won't be buying blueberries from other people. Growth of economy means one should buy processed, marketed, branded food producs in the store and abandon working electronic devices whenever a new model comes to market.\n\nOne could do that, yes, but I find it laughable how this is the priority goal for politicians - not health, literacy, justice, equality or some other virtue. When asked why economy should grow, they give contrived reasoning from dynamics of economy. They ignore that economy seems to work in cyclic process of growth and decline. Tragicomically many are ready to *worsen* living conditions of masses to accelerate economic growth. What is the point in all this? How can someone strongly support economic growth while having no interest in either means or results of it?", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I know I am wrong, but I feel robbed when I have to pay taxes. I don't feel evasion as a crime and I hate the Government. Please, change my view. + \n + I've been living in Romania and there have been almost 70 years since our Governments have been stealing our money and spent it on things which didn't concern our welfare but only the interests of an elite. That's why I formed this condition to consider paying taxes a stupid thing.\n\nRecently though, Romania has started to spend the budget more wisely (thanks to our Justice which has been sending to jail lots of corrupt politicians), by my reflex seems to have survived: I simply cannot cope with the idea of paying the Government. I feel it's a waste of money (even though I know it isn't necessarily)", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The George W. Bush years (2000-2008) will be perceived by future generations as a dark age in world history. + \n + If any of you frequent /r/badhistory, there is a rather infamous [chart](http://i.imgur.com/zbue8vU.jpg) that captures a popular perception of the Middle Ages as a \"dark age\" that retarded scientific progress by over 1,000 years. This perception is incorrect but is still commonplace. I believe that the Bush years will be viewed similarly by future generations for the following reasons:\n\nThe much disputed election in Florida was a huge challenge to the world's second-largest democracy. Having the Supreme Court effectively appoint a president upon party lines significantly hurt faith in the US political process and led to the polarization that has led to the Do-Nothing Congresses of 2006-2008 and 2010-.\n\nBush's decision to go to war in Iraq eroded the brief period of global consensus that saw countries from Iran to Russia united in sympathy with the USA against Al-Qaeda. I'm not saying we would be at world peace thereafter, but we could have taken advantage of that unity to seriously reduce international conflict.\n\nClimate change. Need I say more? The Bush years saw inaction on global climate change that has endangered every country on earth.\n\nImperialism. The expansion of the War on Terror to Iraq and other groups was correlated with a rise of police militarization (in the US) and espionage (globally) and led to the installation of treasonous quisling governments around Europe.\n\nEconomic instability. The 2008 housing bubble (heavily concentrated in, you guessed it, Florida) triggered a global financial crisis that the world has yet to recover from. The progress that the world's 99%, overwhelmingly located in developing countries like China and India, made during the 2000s has almost completely been [reversed](http://blogs-images.forbes.com/timworstall/files/2015/01/oxfam1.jpg) by this fucking crisis. Global equity markets are now [as US-centric](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-the-map-of-the-world-if-size-was-determined-by-market-cap-2015-08-12) as they've ever been since at least the Eighties, meaning that \"the rise of the rest\" has been an utter illusion.\n\nErosion in quality of living. In addition to the phony \"development\" of countries like China and India, Western countries have seen a large absolute drop in well-being due to the financial crisis of the Bush years, a drop which treaties like TPP and TTIP may well enshrine into law.\n\nTL;DR: If the world is a dystopia in 2200, George W. Bush will be (rightfully or not) blamed.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Utopia has come and gone, and can never be recovered. + \n + I believe that utopia is being one with the world in such a way that the struggle for survival is meaningful.  As we take from the environment's resources, we give back with our death.  I am referring to hunter-gatherer societies, before the advent of technology progressed as far as to allow us to settle down via agriculture.  Back when labor was purely for survival, all other efforts were treasured and treated as divine.  Art and music and expression were precious excesses that bound people closer to nature and the balance that had been struck between mankind and its environment.\n\n\nThe modern world has destroyed that divinity.  The moment that humanity became the greatest threat to itself is the moment that utopia was lost.  Now those of us who are \"fortunate\" enough to live in a 1st world nation ponder the meaning of our lives and the work we do.  We grasp for luxury that ultimately does nothing but pitch our fortune against others in a meaningless display of power.  Those left in the world who struggle to survive either do so against other humans, via the mechanics of capitalism or the horror of war, or they are admired and envied for the strength and longevity of their customs, for continuing to strike a balance with nature rather than using modern technologies to conquer it.\n\nTrue utopia is to face nature and face our mortality with acceptance, and to strike a balance with nature such that all life and life's labour has meaning.  We have lost this balance forever, and our ultimate fate is probably extinction dealt from our own hand. \n\nAnd of course, the great irony is that we are nature's impulses incarnate.  We are self-interested to a fault, as any natural life is.  We somehow just ended up with the intellectual power to win nature's game, and this is what will keep us from utopia.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: We should totally bring back airships. + \n + I've never understood the vehemence of popular opinion against the hydrogen airship. People balk at the idea of flying around in something filled with explosive gas, yet it seems to me that airliners, when they go wrong, are often just as (or more) fatal to their occupants. The Hindeburg disaster only killed just over a third of the people on board; the majority of airliner crashes kill everyone on board. Overall, the death toll of conventional airplanes, though small, has vastly exceeded that of airships, yet it is airships that retain the reputation of being death-traps. \n\nThe truth is, airships were an idea that was completely out of step with its times; during the period where they were most economically viable, materials and engine technology, among many other things, were barely adequate to deal with their demands. An airship built to Zeppelin scales with modern materials technology and design techniques would be dramatically stronger, lighter, faster and safer, with aramid fibre skins stretched over composite frames. They would have satellite navigation and meteorology, and onboard weather radar to avoid dangerous weather; computerised systems would monitor hydrogen pressure and static build-ups, modern escape and fire suppression systems would provide a final back-up. Moreover, there is the potential to use solar power and electric motors to run these flying behemoths essentially for free, making them far more economically viable, both for passengers who don't mind a slower, more stately trip and for container cargo. You might even be able to use onboard generated power to crack water to produce hydrogen to replenish losses, though I'm not sure how feasible that would be.\n\nAlso, it's very hard to deny that airships are really fucking cool.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Tattoos are just as vain if not more so than cosmetic surgery. + \n + This thought occurred to me some time ago. I do not have any tattoos but I have had minor elective surgeries such as removal of non-cancerous moles. Let me point out that I don't judge anybody for having tattoos or cosmetic surgery. \n\nThe reason I would say cosmetic surgery is less vain than tattoos is because they are often performed after an accident such as a broken nose or breast implants will be put in after a masectomy to make the person feel normal or like themselves again. I think this is done somewhat out of vanity in that the psychological effects of worrying about looking different are caused by vanity but I don't think it is purely vain like many tattoos are.\n\nI think many people will point out that tattoos are often done in memoriam or dedication to a loved one. To me it seems that the love the person has is very real but the feeling that the their love needs to be expressed in their physical appearance ultimately stems from insecurity or vanity.\n\nWith that said most tattoos seem to be an attempt to make the person distinguish themselves with their appearance or as an act of rebellion as teenagers. Additionally in the last 10 years there has been the emergence of the ironic or absurdist tattoo. These are tattoos that are random or meant to be funny. Again this seems like a situation where the person feels a need to let people instantly know they are goofy or funny. \n\nThe reason I am posting this is because I feel that there is a stigma against cosmetic surgery that is not there for tattoos while there should be one. I understand there are many other stigmas against tattoos but I don't think vanity is often discussed. It also makes me wonder if in the future tattoos will be viewed in the same way that plastic surgery is now. \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Mechanical Engineering is not the place for me + \n + So, I've been studying Mechanical Engineering at the University of Alabama for a little over a year. I am a sophomore by hours, but this is my third semester.\n\nThings aren't going as well as I expected. I passed Calculus 1 by the skin of my teeth, and got a D- in Calculus 2, resulting in me being stuck here for a summer semester. \n\nAs far as career goals, I want to go firearms industry, but I have some specifics. I don't want a desk job. Flying a cubicle is my nightmare. I want to have a product. I like hands on work, with a physical result. I hate theory.\n\nI have always been fascinated by machining(look at /r/machiningporn, every link is purple for me) and I've grown to love watching the 3d printers at UA.\n\nIn that light, I fear that ME won't put me where I want to be. Looking for co-ops and internships for this summer(before I bombed calc), everything was for a desk job. I would've either been an R&D researcher, or working with Solidworks in a cubicle. I don't want to get shoehorned into an air conditioned job and be unable to get my hands dirty.\n\nOne class I have this summer, Intro to Private Security, seems very interesting. The professor is engaging, and his topics intrigue me. The textbook reading is equally fascinating. I'm really getting into this.\n\nI feel like I'd be better served by transferring to a community college and getting a Certificate in Machine Tool Technologies and becoming a machinist, or going for a job in the security industry. Both would be fairly interesting to me, I think. Machinist would get me an inroad to major firearms maker as a CNC operator, or assembler(which would be awesome), and Private Security would involve some interesting work with firearms.\n\nSo.  Change My View.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: High Frame Rate (>30fps) is just as bad for video games as it is for film. + \n + The general consensus with frame rates greater than 24 or 30 fps in live action work is that it sucks. The illusion of a flickery alternate world breaks down when the motion is as smooth as reality. The viewer more readily perceives actors in makeup on sets. It all just looks... fake. Any film in HFR, either filmed at 48 or interpolated on a TV, looks like a cheap soap opera.\n\nI recently bought a PS4. GTA V looks WORSE than it did on the PS3. The draw distance is better, there are less pop-ins, but the frame rate is too high. Everything looks smooth and fake and video gamey. Flying over the city reminds me of playing N64, because I can't see Los Santos. I just see a bunch of polygons and textures and shaders. Actors in makeup on sets. *EDIT: GTA5 runs at 30fps on PS4. Why does it look worse? Why does it feel more fake? Is the falseness of everything just... clearer?*\n\nI just wish there was a way to limit the frame rate to 24 or 30. It would look fantastic.\n\nBut I keep hearing people say they NEED 60fps! I don't know why this is but I have some guesses:\n\n1. Gamers want that hyper reality. Video games and live action film are two completely different mediums, so games are expected to (or at least allowed to) look different. There is something about that false smoothness that is appealing to a gamer. It makes something look \"video gamey\".\n\n2. Is it more of a PC thing? As a way to show off? A high frame rate means the computer is powerful/expensive. It gives the user a feeling that their machine is worth the money? I don't know.\n\n3. It increases gamer performance? Does it have something to do with getting the slightest advantage when playing other people? Do gamers with the highest refresh rates perform better? Does getting the most headshots mean more than enjoying an immersive experience?\n\nI suppose that's the sticking point: immersion. A high frame rate does not immerse me in a video game. It does the opposite.\n\n(NB This is my view of games on a rectangular screen; I've never tried a modern VR like Oculus. HFR is probably critical with that.)", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: When minorities complain about cultural appropriation it in itself perpetuates racism and self segregation. + \n + I see black friends complaining about cultural appropriation lately, my issue is the hypocrisy of it all. They say that we shouldn't be taking their culture and traditions while happily appropriating other cultures into their own. It's the \"us\"  against the world mentality that is very hurtful to minorities. One of the most common arguments I hear is in music. They say people like Iggy Azalea shouldn't be around making hip hop and rap  and wearing her hair a certain way because of the color of her skin? Because she didn't earn it? Isn't that backwards thinking? While Beyonce and Alicia Keys sometimes dawn white girl hair. \nCultural appropriation is a good thing because it leads to different people experiencing other traditions and cultures.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: If anyone should replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill, it should be MLK Jr, not Harriet Tubman + \n + From a legacy standpoint, AJ is probably the least deserving amongst the figures on American paper currency (Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Hamilton, Grant, Franklin).  It's not like the guy didn't have good qualities or do good things while in office, but for a country that's trying to go in the direction of racial/ethnic inclusiveness, it's pretty baffling that the guy who's responsible for the trail of tears is on our currency.\n\nThat being said, I thought it was interesting to see in the news that people are trying to change who is on the $20 bill; however, Harriet Tubman seems like an odd choice considering the other possible candidates.  Off the top of my head, I think Teddy Roosevelt and MLK are the most deserving, and if I had to choose between them it would be MLK.  \n\nObviously, MLK's legacy speaks for itself, being the leader of the civil rights movement.  Compared to Tubman I just feel like MLK's impact was far greater.  His speeches and non-violent protests impacted the entire nation, millions of people, while Tubman saved ~70 people from slavery.  That's not to discredit Tubman because what she did was brave and important, and her accomplishments weren't limited to the underground railroad, but I think it's fair to say that MLK had a greater impact than Tubman, and therefore is more deserving to be placed on the $20 bill.  I might even go as far to say that it's not even close.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: it is normal for adults to be attracted to people who are in their late teens. + \n + I did not know this was an unpopular opinion until recently. Basically my stance is as follows.\n\nPeople in their late teens are fully physically developed and have all the qualities that other adults find sexually appealing. They are sexual beings both physically and mentally. So it is evident to me that the Natural Order of Things supports my view.\n\nFeel free to correct me if I am wrong but, for all of human history up until recently people regularly married people in their late teens and they were seen as adults. I think the change in perception can be attributed to three things:\n\n1. People now marry later in life, the norm in this culture is to sleep around when they are younger. Adding on to that...\n\n2. We have a hookup culture. In the past people may have been more serious about relationships (feel free to correct me if I am wrong) but nowadays a lot of people just hook up and marry when they want to \"settle down\" later in life. As a result people more readily assume that anyone interested in a younger person is up to no good and isn't serious. Which is probably the source of aversion to this kind of attraction; because they want to protect them.\n\n3. People nowadays do not consider people in their late teens to be adults while in the past they were. I think this could be a result of how present society coddles people even through their college years whereas many later-year teens have the potential to be a functional adult with a job, spouse and kids if raised differently. Probably a result of people getting married later in life which is a result of promiscuity due to culture and availability of contraception.\n\nFurthermore I would actually assert that forbidding relationships based on age, given that both are ready physically and mentally for that kind of relationship, is immoral; because you are stepping in the way of love, no one is getting hurt (besides pain of breakup if that happens), etc.\n\nSo basically the only thing I see that supports the argument against my view is that culture opposes it. While culture and soceity's rules may be influenced by truth, they are arbitrary. Society's rules are nothing in the face of objective truth (refer to my statement about the Natural Order of Things above) If they are not molded after it already. Adding on to this, I've heard (again, feel free to correct me if I am wrong) that women's brains become fully mature at ~17 and men's brains become fully mature at ~23. Its why in the past, men were legally considered minors at a later age than women were. If you make the argument that someone cannot rightfully enter a relationship with an adult until their brain is fully mature, you would be forced to also agree that ~17 y/o women should be available and that men should not be available until ~23. My own solution to this is that maturity in decision making is not wholly dependent on this one variable. Many adults don't make very \"adult\" decisions and many teens make responsible, \"adult\" decisions. This is, instead, something to assess regarding the individual, which applies to people 20+ as well.\n\nAlso I do not believe that such relationships hurt anyone by default. One person may be more inexperienced but that is a vulnerability that the other person does not have to exploit if they are a decent human being after the right thing.\n\nA bit of context: I'm a 21 y/o college student and do find myself attracted to people in their late teens, as well as adults. I feel that this is normal and natual and not a fetish or somehing that is uncommon. I do not get off on domination or whatever like some people think those who have this attraction do. I just find that my brain recognizes those people as fellow adults. I'm also not looking to hook up, I'm a actually abstaining from sex until marriage and take all my relationships seriously; no \"spring flings\" or whatever for me.\n\nMy grandparents met and started dating when grandma was 16 and grandpa was 21. They were and are both very happy and have a good marriage. Imagine if they had dismissed each other as unavailable or were prevented from being together. (Refer to how I said that this kind of prevention is immoral).\n\nELI5 TLDR: People in their late teens many times cannot be differentiated from other \"adults\" if you did not know their age. So it is normal to be attracted to them and the current taboo is only a recent, arbitrary social rule based on nothing more than culture. \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Babies do not belong at the zoo. + \n + \n\n\nHi everyone! I went to the zoo with the SO yesterday (both in our mid 20's) and the amount of babies there (children under 1.5 years old abouts) was incredible. They're howling all over the place which is a no-no for most zoo patrons as it disturbs and can scare the wildlife. Why the fuck would you bother not only the other zoo patrons but the animal wildlife by bringing an infant in a place they can't comprehend or remember? I had finally had enough at the chimpanzee habitat when a baby in a stroller started screaming his head off which totally freaked out all the chimps. Chaos ensued within the habitat. It's just disrespectful for everyone involved. \n\n\nTL;DR babies screaming at a restaurant is a-ok in my book. Babies screaming, freaking out animals in a \"Quiet Zone\" and not being removed from the premises is most assuredly not a-ok. ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The way Reddit functions insures that you cannot fight against the popular opinion. + \n + First time CMVer, but hear me out. Reddit's comment system creates hivemind tendencies. It does this in two steps:\n\na) Creates a system were downvotes are accepted\n\nAnd b) Forces redditors to deal with consequences if they are downvoted.\n\nThis creates a system, where, if you disagree with someone, you can downvote them. This also means that going against the hivemind will net you downvotes, resulting in people who spout popular opinions being the only ones who can do anything.\n\nEx: /r/movies does a thread about LOTR. You say you didn't enjoy it. You get downvotes and aren't allowed to speak in /r/movies until you wait ten minutes. ", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Minorities can be racist, too + \n + If a person with a minority background holds prejudiced views and acts according to them, that minority is being racist. It does not matter if those prejudices are aimed at another minority group or even the majority group, nor do the power dynamics involved or historical oppression play a part in determining what is racist behaviour. The only factor at play when determining racism should be if someone is treating someone else worse because of their race or ethnicity. Similarly, past oppression can't be used as justification for present day racism. \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV - Long debate posts are ineffective at changing views. + \n + On my mobile, so I'll be short, also it would be ironic if I wasn't.\n\nIf you can't make your point in a paragraph then you're not going to convince anyone.\n\n1. Attention spans are too short.\n2. If you can't distill your point into a few well chosen sentences you probably don't have enough mastery over the subject to convince anyone.\n\nMy point of view is more about rhetoric than being rigorously correct. I'm aware that there exists concepts that cannot be expressed in short form. I'm saying that communicating these concepts cannot reliably survive the medium of the Reddit post and still be effective at changing views.\n\n----\n\n\n1. The optimal length doesn't have to be a paragraph.  However, I contend that there is definite diminishing returns and negative returns associated with making points overly long.\n2. For ideas complex enough to require long explanations, I still believe that the internet is a much less effective medium for this discussion than other options.  However, I will concede that it is not **ineffective**.  That was an overstatement.\n\n----\n\n\n----\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Only cisgender exists + \n + I'd like to start this by clearly defining my position:\n\nI think only cisgender, and by that I mean identifying with the gender you are born with, is a valid gender identification. I don't know if valid is the right world but it's the only one that sounds appropriate. Essentially, I think gender and biological sex are one and the same, gender is just a social construct to express our biological sex.\n\n\nIn every animal in nature we can find two sexes, male and female. Sometimes the sexes have similar roles, sometimes the male or the female has more important roles, it doesn't matter - It's there, and it's happening in nature. I'm not making an appeal to nature as a form of fallacy, I'm merely pointing out that it's a special pleading fallacy to think humans are special because we can get away with ignoring our biological sex. I admit that Humans have less sexual dimorphism than other animals and namely we can find, aside from physical and procreation capacities, little differences between men and women because both are capable of amazing things. I'm ok with abolishing or ignoring gender roles and allowing boys and girls to play with what they want. What we can't do is to pretend that we can magically change the sex we are born into.\n\nTo use an analogy, if I decided to transplant my nose and put some whiskers and called myself a tiger, would I be a tiger or just a nutjob? What would you consider me?\n\nThe primary argument for transgenderism is that gender dysphoria makes people feel bad about the biological sex they are born with or the gender they were assigned at birth, and therefore they have the right to identify with what makes them more comfortable. This sounds nice and reasonable, but the issue is that thinking we are something does not make us that something. I can imagine I'm a dragon in my head but that doesn't change the fact dragons don't exist and I'm still Human.\n\nTo categorize and simplify arguments:\n\n1 - Every or most species have a male and female specimen and, regardless of what roles each one has, to think Humans are different is a special pleading, kinda like thinking Humans will forever be the best species on the universe\n\n2 - The fact someone's brain tells them something is wrong or better doesn't mean it's true. If your brain can identify as a genderqueer or genderneutral, I don't see how I can't identify as a rock or a dragon. Why is the latter less valid? The fact the brain identifies as such doesn't mean we are such, it's irrelevant. If you are born with a penis, you are a man and if you are born with a vagina, you are a woman. There are obvious biological features specially related to procreation and body shape. Some transgender people, even those who have surgery, will forever look similar to the gender they don't want to be associated it, it's inevitable. The fact I want to change my deepest self doesn't mean I am actually doing it.\n\n3 - Why is gender special? In short, why can't I magically change other things about myself? I look white, and I know race is a social construct - It's still a useful concept to categorize us - Why can't I identify as black even with pale skin? Why can't a redhead identify as a black hair? Why can't children identify as adults, etc.? Again, special pleading.\n\n\nOh, I also think the word cisgender shouldn't even be used.\n\nSome notes:\n- I am not promoting violence and hate against transgender people. If I meet someone who is trans, I will treat them like I treat anyone else. I can disagree with the core idea without hating the person.\n- Don't bring up analogies to gay people and gay marriage because both are incomparable and completely different topics.\n- Don't use \"you're a bigot\" as an argument\n- My arguments have nothing to do with religion, I'm an atheist.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Police body cameras are a good option to deal with police accountabllity. + \n + Body cameras for police are beneficial because they increase accountability for both police and civilians. Tony Farrar, the police chief of Rialto, California says \u201c\"When you know you're being watched you behave a little better. That's just human nature. As an officer you act a bit more professional, follow the rules a bit better.\" This increase in accountability would greatly improve police/civilian interaction. \n\n\nBody cameras also reduce police officers use of force. After cameras were introduced in Rialto California in February of 2012, Officers' use of force fell by 60%.  This comes in turn with the increase in officer accountability, and the improvement of the relationship between officer and civilian. \n\nWhile some people may say that police body cameras will infringe on the privacy rights of individuals interacting with the police, the benefits of body cameras far outweigh any possible disadvantage. Additionally it is possible to edit the footage from body cameras in order to protect the privacy of those not involved in a specific incident.\n\n If body cameras had been implemented nationwide years ago, cases like the controversial shooting of Michael Brown may very well never have happened,  and if they had, body cameras would have provided excellent evidence for the cases, making it far easier to determine exactly what had happened. Overall, the benefits of implementing body cameras on police officers far outweigh the disadvantages.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Parking in the expectant mothers spot when you're not one is the logical thing to do if there are no legal consequences. + \n + First of all, I wouldn't do this personally because I don't mind walking. I don't even look for close parking spots. This discussion is purely hypothetical looking at the issue from an objective point of view. This post was inspired by a question I posted to /r/legaladvice and was told that it's a douche move. I didn't feel it was appropriate to discuss the douchiness of it there so I decided to make this post.\n\nYou go into a parking lot and are trying to find a place to park. There's one 15 spots away from the door and then there's one that's 3 spots away from the door. One of them is meant for expectant mothers but there is no punishment for parking there if you are not an expectant mother which makes the two spots equivalent in everything expect for distance from the door. Objectively, it's better to choose the closer one.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: California schools are wrong for banning American flag shirts on Cinco De Mayo. + \n + This issue may have been discussed on this sub but reddit's search is terrible, so I couldn't find anything like it. \n[Watch this video for  some background on the issue](http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Students-Wearing-American-Flag-Shirts-Sent-Home-92945969.html)\n\nI think it's ridiculous that kids cannot wear American Flag shirts on Cinco De Mayo. Schools say it's disrespectful because it's a Mexican heritage day. \nI'm Black and I went to a diverse school, so I know how kids have a tendency to start race wars (especially in gym glass). So I kind of understand the atmosphere. And I think there is some concern that kids who wear American flag shirts on May 5 are sub-textually saying \"go back to Mexico\" or something to that effect against immigrant students. \n\nBut I think the schools is wrong because.\n\n\n \n1. First Amendment - this argument is self explanatory. \n2. Mexican kids can wear Mexican shirts, but American kids can't wear American shirts? Hypocrisy. \n3. Mexican students should not be offended by American flag shirts. And even if they are, see #1. \n4. I am not a republican in any way, and I am very liberal when it comes to immigration. \n5. If Mexican students feel like they are being sub textually attacked or offended or bullied, they should ignore it. AS long as bullying isn't physical, bullied kids should ideally just ignore it. I understand this is ideal and doesn't always work out in reality. \n6. If Kids were wearing shirts that said \"Go back to mexico!\" or something outrageous like that, that would be a different story, but all their doing is wearing the flag from the country they are currently located in. \n\nThe only remotely acceptable remedy is banning all shirts that have a certain country's flag on them. Yep that includes Mexican shirts too.\n\nAm I being insensitive to issues that effect the Hispanic community in America? If I am please tell me because I fucking hate when people downplay and deny issues that effect the Black community. \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:Nothing in life is free. We have to pay our fair share of taxes, just like everything else we buy. And the rich can afford to pay more, just like everything else that they buy. + \n + Kansas is imploding and it's no surprise.  Cutting tax rates on the wealthy, a.k.a. supply-side or trickle-down theory, is a not just \"Voodoo economics\", but a dangerous game that threatens our future.  \n\nMost employers aren't comfortable investing in places with terrible roads, an uneducated and unhealthy workforce, and a dismal quality of life.  Yet, this is exactly what is happening now in Kansas.  Lawmakers thought it would attract investment and create jobs...more than enough to offset the tax losses.  What happened instead is the opposite.  Just like the rest of us, when things start heading south, employers start looking for greener pastures.  It's not enough to say that trickle-down economics is a failed theory.  It's a death-spiral.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: /r/changemyview is the only safe place on reddit to express any viewpoint and play devil's advocate + \n + \"Safe\" = Don't have to worry about the majority of the community using the downvote button as a disagree button\n\n*Example:*\n[The most recent example that is driving my view](http://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/3ahvzg/are_there_any_moral_or_rational_arguments_why/)\n\nIn this thread, I am calmly attempting to offer an answer to the question, without any personal attacks, yet my comments are getting downvoted. Of all the times I've posted on CMV, this issue has literally only happened one time.\n\n*Justification:*\nThe tone of at least one responder to any post that doesn't conform to popular opinion on every other debate/discussion sub is: '**You** are wrong, therefore everything you say is invalid'\n\nThe tone on CMV is: '**Your statements** are wrong, and this is why'\n\nThe CMV community can have a calm, rational conversation about anything, even views that are extremely unpopular. I feel *safe* here, and I think others do as well. Just check out this [Hitler wasn't that evil](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/28ydjm/cmv_hitler_wasnt_that_evil/) post on CMV.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: If porn is legal, prostitution should be legal + \n + Prostitution is dangerous because it is illegal. The black market makes it dangerous. You have to deal with girls who may have STD's, guys who will not pay, pimps, pregnancy, abuse, etc. However, the porn industry has been regulating sex between strangers so that it can be filmed and profit can be made by people who view it. These industries regulate STD screenings, condoms/protection to avoid pregnancy, money/payment, etc. in a safe and professional manner. They are regulated.\n\nNow, many people do not want to be porn stars and they may not even be hired if they wanted to. Yet, the desire to have sex is still there and it is very important to many people. Their should be regulation of prostitution to eliminate all of the dangerous aspects of it. If porn is legal, prostitution should be legal. CMV!\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think right-wing Libertarianism is pure evil and should not be taken seriously by anyone + \n + I just don't understand how in an era when poverty is growing tremendously in America, and inequality is more ridiculous than it's been in any time since the era of lords and serfs, that people can have the nerve to whine and complain that the poor are spoiled and entitled and the rich are being persecuted.\n\nWithout social welfare and programs for people who need them, America would become similar to Latin American and African countries where you have a few hundred families that own everything, a small middle class that caters to them and defends them, and then the majority who are impoverished and have no hope of advancement or any opportunities and live in slums and favelas.\n\nHell, it's ALREADY becoming this way. Tent cities are popping up in America everyone, and homelessness is becoming more and more of a problem. Yet people seem to be in complete denial and will endlessly defend corporate greed and blame the poor for their own suffering.\n\nOur democracy has already suffered so much from corporate control - how the hell can anyone advocate or suggest there isn't ENOUGH corporate power or influence in politics? Abolishing the government or reducing it to a \"night watchman\" state would only mean that corporations and the rich elite would be DIRECTLY calling the shots, rather than have to pull the government's strings to get their way.\n\nThe people who would suffer most from libertarianism are the weak, of course. The elderly, people with disabilities and children, who without support from the state would either die of starvation and untreated illnesses or would have to pimp themselves out to perverts, the majority of them who aren't lucky enough to be taken on by a benefactor.\n\nMinorities would also suffer since their lower financial status would be even more of a burden to them than it already is in a semi-democratic society. Libertarians can claim to be socially liberal as long as they want, but considering they almost always side with the GOP over the Left or even the centrist Democrats it's obvious that money is far more important to them than the rights of minorities.\n\nThese guys are pretty much the same as the Nazis. Don't they realize that if labor had rights and were paid more fair wages, there wouldn't be as much of a need for welfare?\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Tax-breaks should not be granted simply for getting married. Instead, those tax breaks should go to people who support children. + \n + I see no reason why the tax-payers in the US at large should subsidize the lifestyles of people who are married through tax-breaks.  If you support children so that the state doesn't have to, it makes sense to reward you with a tax break since you are saving the state money.  However, just being married without supporting children doesn't actually offer any benefit to society that would justify taking money out of everyone's pocket to subsidize it.\n\nThe threshold for changing my view would be to provide some kind of legitimate evidence that a couple simply getting married provides a greater value to society than the amount that the tax-break subsidy costs.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The criteria for being a vegetarian isnt not eating meat, its not buying meat. + \n + I cant see any logical ethical difference. Ive been trying out vegetarianism and the other day my friend was making this outrageous 3-4 foot sandwich and I got so tempted that I started thinking about it and figured theres literally no ethical difference between me eating meat and me not eating meat, as long as im not ever paying money for it and supporting it as consumer.\n\nEssentially im saying that you can eat meat and still be a vegetarian as long as you dont actually buy it eg. having a bite of your friends sandwich.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Female Virginity is a big deal + \n + Hi, i am a 22 years old agnostic living in a conservative Muslim country that is considered a bit modern and open mind compared to other Muslim countries (Tunisia), i've said that so you know that my opinion is not based on religious rules, however it heavily depends on cultural traditions and moral codes that has been implemented into my way of thinking since i pop-up into this world (yeah that sounds a lot like a religion, it just doesn't include an invisible overpowered sky-man) \n\n\nAnyway, i'll try to keep this as short as possible and sum up my view toward this subject.\n\n\nIn our culture, a successful person is one who has a successful family, that include having a good job, good wife/husband a decent house and if you're good enough you'll have your own house and a car (yup, that's the dream of 90% of people here) so being raised with that goal in mind, anything that you do that could be considered a threat to that goal is considered **super bad** one of these many things is non-virgin girls, to be more precise, girls who lost their virginity in a non-marital relationship, these women are considered a no-no for marriage and the main two reasons here are religion and men's ego (i honestly believe that religion is made of men's ego so there is only one reason here...) anyway, so far i've been only talking about rules made by invisible people and what men wants, i completely ignored the women perspective here and the fact that this is their body, their choice and they can do whatever they want to, and am okay with that! i won't condemn a girl just because she slept with some guy and stone her to death, i won't even look down at her, but i can **never** imagine myself marrying her, why? because i cannot stand the fact that someday, someone, could look at me and say: \n\nThat's not cool bro, it's very embarrassing, and yup, the counter-argument for this would be : \n\n\n\nwell, i don't want anybody to fuck my partner o_O !! even in the past when we didn't even knew each other, that's my view on this. \n\n\nAlso, another argument that i would like to hear your opinion about is that i don't want to live in a society where kids are having sex, no offense but, [16 and pregnant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16_and_Pregnant) has 5 seasons! and i read all the time about 12,13,14,15 years old kids having sex, and i believe the reason this is happening is due to this \"openness\" that western countries have about sex and that's why this kind of things is very rare in a conservative society, this is the only positive point that i can come up with regarding my view on the subject, the rest is like i said, a pure ego of a selfish men dominant society, but if it protect our kids, i think it's worth it, it's also the reason of a an ultimate boring amateur sex life which is the main reason of cheating and divorce but that's an after-marriage subject lol.\n\n\nSo, western men (or anyone who is okay with non-virgin wives) how can you change my view on this ? \n\n\n\nIt seems that i missed a point that come up to many of you here : \n\nYes, ideally a man should stay virgin too, and from a religious perspective he'll had the same punishment as the women which is 100 lash, no idea where the stoning come from but again ignore the religion crap and no none of this happen in my country/culture, however, due to other facts like men are more likely the ones who had the job and the money, and that men are the one who have the option to \"look out\" for their future wives, this will make women more vulnerable to this virginity rules, since they are the one who wait and just decide to say yes or no, while men have the \"option\" to choose, which make the pre-marriage sex \"sin\" for men a lot less important compared to women, and of course you cannot ignore the \"physical evidence\", since we are far from living in an ideal world, a man could have sex as much as he want and just lie about it, while a woman cannot do that (well she can but most of the time they cannot)      \n\n\n\nSorry but i missed another points : \n\nWell, i think it's all related to that \"life goal\", if a girl (or man) take the risk of threatening that goal by having sex then they are simply considered bad people, and no one would like to marry a bad person (i have no idea about forgiveness option though).\n\n\n\nI personally have zero problem with that, but i think it's also a no-no thing in this culture.  \n\n\nThanks\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: If you or I were in charge of the entire nuclear arsenal of the United States and were to find out that another country had launched multiple warheads at the U.S., the correct response would be to not launch our own nukes and instead let them hit us and only us. + \n + So I was arguing with a friend of mine about this recently and here is my main reasoning behind this view.\n\n1: Assuming they have already launched their entire arsenal at us there most likely nothing we could do to stop the missiles from destroying us. This essentially means we have lost at this point and there's nothing we can do about it. To launch the nukes at that point becomes an act of revenge accomplishes absolutely nothing for anyone. \n\n2: To launch these nukes hurts innocent people in whatever country attacked us who likely had no choice in the launches and causes us to sink down to the level that the agressing country sits at.\n\n3: Returning fire almost certainly bears the promise of environmental collapse and in doing so dooms everyone on the planet as well as billions of species of plants and animals. If we don't launch and instead let ourselves be hit we still have the possibility of saving the world entire.\n\nIf i remember any of my other points I will edit them into the main post. \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Paying workers the living wage is more important than profit. + \n + The reason we all come together and form societies is to work collaboratively for the good of us all. We write laws and enforce them to protect us from harm. We pay taxes and build public services for the greater good of us all. We build schools because we believe everyone is entitled to an education. We don't do these things to help businesses or organisations prosper, we do them for the benefit of individuals within society. Despite this, it's considered acceptable (by some) for businesses to pay their workers less than *the living wage*.\n\nDoesn't this view validate the idea that the right of businesses to make money is more important than the right of the individual to make a decent living?\n\nI understand and appreciate the argument that some small businesses may not be able to pay their staff the living wage and make a profit. I don't think *profit is bad*, and I understand that jobs would be lost if small businesses didn't make enough money to get by. However, I don't believe the apparent risk of loosing jobs justifies exploiting workers. If taken seriously, the same argument would justify slavery.\n\nIf a business is run badly, or the demand for the product they produce disappears, I imagine everyone would agree that that business doesn't have the right to exist for its own sake. Surely we can agree that a business *must* exist on its own merits? Why then in a society that exists for the benefit of us all, do we think businesses that can't afford to pay workers enough to live have a right to exist? Why isn't fair pay for workers - enough for them to have a decent standard of living - considered a fundamental necessity of a healthy business?", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Using your mobile phone constantly when with someone is extremely rude and is accepted too much in society. + \n + If you are with a friend, family member, acquaintance, co-worker, at dinner etc, I think it is rude, awkward, insulting and shows a complete lack of respect for the other person/people's time and attention when someone for whatever reason feels like they need to constantly use their phone for social purposes when already socialising face-to-face.\n\nI can't stand being around someone when they are (and there is always one or more of them) absorbed in their phone for more time than they are absorbed in conversation with people you planned to hang around with.\n\nI know that they have no obligation to engage effectively in the moment with other people but when did it become socially acceptable?\n\nI also feel that urge when there is a quiet moment to just start browsing facebook or start sending messages but I understand that it is rude to the other people I am with and consciously choose to not grab my phone. I leave it in my pocket or somewhere else whenever I am with anyone because I feel like they deserve my attention because I am with them. Obviously there are exceptions to quickly check you phone; like if you have been with the people for a long time and need to catch up on work emails or need to plan something, but I am talking about situations where the intention is to socialise.\n\nI think it is incredibly rude- I understand people should be able to do what they want when hanging out but to take yourself out of the social situation in front of you is a waste of my time and is insulting me when I am actively being the person NOT resorting to the phone-absorption.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: A major loophole within modern American Feminism is that many American Feminists don't explore different possibilities and points of views that differ with theirs (NSFW imagery) + \n + I'm an anti-feminist. I support equal rights activism, but I don't support feminism, and here is my main reason (one of them).\n\nI feel that many modern American feminists don't understand the process of argument, and they tend to ignore the opposing opinion.\n\nHere is an example: I see so many feminists take a magazine cover like [this](http://ftape.com/media/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Rihanna_GQ_Magazine_04.jpg) and one like [this](http://www.celebitchy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/JGL-GQ.jpg) and say that the former is sexually objectifying women, while the second is praising men for being successful. \n\nI would post the link to the pro-feminist list that said this, but the link isn't working (TheAmazingAtheist made a video on the list, but the link he gave didn't work for me)\n\nThe reason I feel this argument holds little merit is for a few reasons:\n\n1) GQ is a men's magazine (the magazine in the images), so of course it will use sexually attractive women and succesful looking men to attract men to the magazine, that's called advertising. \n\n2) A magazine called \"Men's health magazine\" has covers that show sexually attractive men. Is that wrong? No, the point of the magazine is to attract men who want to be healthy, and having a man who is sexy on the cover will attract those men to be like \"I wanna be sexy too!\"\n\n3) This argument infers the opinion that human sexuality is \"bad\" and can not be shown off.\n\nThe above three statements can be reworded and applied to many feminist ideas. \n\nI am not saying that all Feminist arguments are illogical, but many of them are, because many American feminists aren't looking at the right issues.\n\nTL;DR: Many American-feminist's ideas have very little backing.\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Taking away the WC from Qatar won't change a thing + \n + Does anyone see anything wrong with the campaign to take away the WC from Qatar? How is it supposed to resolve the issue of slave labour? Yes, maybe the pace of construction of different projects might slow down. Maybe a few projects would even be cancelled. But most probably everyone would forget about the slaves once the WC is shifted to a 1st world nation.\n\nAs someone who's not from a 1st world country, it leads me to believe the conspiracy theories that this campaign is largely driven by the racist tendencies against the middle eastern nation rather than any concern for the labourers.\n\nWhat we need is a campaign against slave labour in Qatar. Instead, what we are getting is a campaign to take away the world cup. The World Cup should only be a small part of the issue rather than the focal point.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Sex in public should be legal. + \n + Specifically, people should not be *legally* punished for enjoying themselves through sexual activity in a public place (governmentally operated), like a park or a beach. This activity should be treated by the state as any other public activity, like having a family picnic, a pickup basketball game, or tanning in the sun, and be liable to the same restrictions. That is, sex on a public highway would be unreasonable just as having a picnic on a highway would. Again, in the same grain, this applies to purely public land, not private areas, like businesses (unless they allow such activities). Finally, this is in the context of the United States, but could probably be extended to other countries.\n\nThere are a number of reasons which some might oppose this, so lets preemptively address some of them:\n\n* **Sex is a safety hazard to others.** This is one of the more legitimate points. Full public nudity is opposed for the same reasons; people could reasonably not want to sit in the buttsweat of someone on a bus. However, this would apply to beaches and parks, where clothing is already very optional and the environment is assumed to be unclean (as opposed to a semi-sanitary bus seat). Furthermore, similarly risky activities are allowed in public places, like pickup football, or parties where litter affects others.\n* **People don't want to see it.** Public spaces are generally viewed as areas where freedom should abound- restrictions on speech and assembly are looked down on. For instance, an 'unattractive' person is not *legally* disallowed from a beach, even though some might not want to see that person.\n* **It promotes STDs.** Telling people that they can't have sex is an infringement on personal freedoms, and as long as the sex does no harm to others, that basic human desire should not be impeded.\n* **Casual sex is morally wrong.** If casual sex is morally wrong from a religious perspective, then seperation of church and state should apply to public recreation areas. If sex is morally wrong from a secular view (like theft), then I would need to see a convincing argument that justifies this stance.\n* **Children should not see sex.** Sex is a activity innate to humans and animals alike, and as such should be considered a part of life that everyone should be exposed to. Certainly, children should be guided to mitigate risks (physical and emotional) involved with sex, which we currently do with sex education, but sex itself should not be seen as something harmful to a child.\n\nI'm open to criticism about any of these points, but for now sex seems like it should be legally treated as any other activity in a public area. CMV.\n\n\n\nI've heard a lot of interesting points today, which is great for a Fresh Topic Friday! Unfortunately, none have been strong enough so far to change my view. My inbox is now overflowing, so I won't be able to reply to every comment. I'll read all of them, but only reply to those that are not addressed elsewhere. If I don't get a chance to reply to you, please take a look around at some of the other comment posts!\n\n\nThe best response so far is due to /u/AtticusFrenchToast\n\n\nOne of the big concerns is that someone might masturbate to you without your consent. After talking with a few people and looking up some sources, it seems that [current harassment laws are underwhelming at times](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/10/upskirt-photos-legal-dc_n_5966406.html). While I still think that sex should be legal in public spaces, just like other activities, our harassment laws would need a fair revamping.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:Every not economically sustainable political ideology is utter nonsence + \n + I mainly want to challange socialists / communists and libertarians. \n\nI think that the sole proposal of a economic Idea is pointless in our current world.\nThere is the socialist approach that would lead to a non competitive environment like in the eastern sector during the cold war. This approach fails when the state has too many payments for salary because the public sector is massivly overstaffed.\nA good example is Greece. Furthermore does socialism encourage corruption of officials.\nIf there is no private interst in consumption of goods no economy can prosper. ( I dont mean grow irresponsible but develop to a certain degree)\nSimilarly the Idea of a basic income while the majority of people is still part of the workforce is just mind boggling.\n\nThe other extreme is Libertarianism.\nI know there are modest versions like with socialism. But:\nproposals like: cut all taxes, no regulation at all are just utter nonsense. In the current world we live in I dont see any chances for a fair market not governed by basic rules and regulations.\nI can understand where the desire for freedom for the individual comes from but I fail to recognize the usefullness for society. When the state has no income it cannot guarantee basic services like water and electicity and the internet. Which would make the idea of \"net neutrality\" invalid. The best interest of this idea would oppose the best interst for all recipients of the impact of the change.\n\nas /u/_stonecoldsaidso pointed out about a month ago.\n\nAnd I agree with his idea. Uncontrolled markets can exist as long as there is no impact on other areas of concern.\nAnd I dont see how libertarianism would deal with this issue especially when impacts on the function of the internet and other basic \"public goods\" can disrupt entire economies and even countries.\n\nThere might me additional ideologies.\n\n\nI appreciate your comments :) And sorry, english is not my first language. \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: It should be mandatory for houses to have their house numbers clearly posted from the street + \n + House numbers should be *clearly* readable from the street, like on their house or mailbox. It would also probably be a good idea to have it painted on the sidewalk, but that's not the best option as it can be blocked by cars.\n\nI only have one argument as to why this should be mandatory; emergency personnel (police officers, firemen, medical professionals, etc.) should be able to quickly find the house in case of an emergency. \n\nAs a pizza delivery driver, even if I know the general area of where the house is, it can take a good minute to find the house when the number is not posted on their house, and the sidewalk marking is scratched out. How are emergency personnel supposed to quickly find it?\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:I want to live in Scandinavia + \n + Hello, I'm Luke and for the longest time a small dream of mine has been to move to a Scandinavian country such as Norway, Sweden, or Denmark. From what I've heard of them they're all great countries to live in. The big thing for me is the weather and the scenery, I love cold weather and I've seen so many beautiful pictures of the forests and towns there. I'm wondering if I'm being stupid and I should just give this up because Scandinavia isn't all flowers and smiles like I think it is.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Society is mature enough to accept human genetic engineering. + \n + This is in response to a recent thread about Elon Musk and his refusal to engage in human genetic engineering because of the \"Hitler problem\". As it were, there are already genetic differentials between people. Some people in society suffer from Downs' Syndrome or various other genetically inherited problems.  Yet in most developed western societies, we do not discriminate against these individuals who have \"poorer\" genes, at least not as a matter of state policy. We donate programs to research about these problems and in the case of Downs' Syndrome, we try to find ways and means to accommodate and integrate these individuals into our society. This is to say I argue that in most Western societies, we can live with the idea that people are genetically different in a very substantial way without any genocidal tendencies. I argue that Mr Musk's fears are at least partially unfounded. Change my view. \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: 51 \"New\" Gender Options are Over-the-Top and Useless. + \n + Awhile ago, Facebook released several new genders - many of them seemed to come out of nowhere and almost all are incredibly confusing, over-the-top, and redundant. To preface this, I am *not* against anyone in the LGBT community and welcome the idea of gay marriage and things similar. However, I've never really been on-board with all these new genders. \n\nAnyway, some of the terms that come to mind are *Agender* and *Androgynous*. The mean the same thing, to not identify as any gender, so why are they two separate words? *Genderfluid* and *Bigender* seem completely redundant too - so, why even have them? I'm also not entirely sure why people can't just dress the way they want to while remaining whatever sex they were given at birth. \n\nDoes it really matter if a man dresses as a woman? Does he really have to be classified as *gender-fluid* because it really just seems like a word that would be less blunt than *cross-dressing*. Again, I have nothing against that, but it seems like people are trying to make other words to someone glorify what they're doing.\n\nAlso, what's the deal with \"cis\"?\n\n* Cis-female.\n* Cis-male.\n* Cis-man.\n* Cis-woman.\n* Cisgender.\n\nIf the definition of \"cis\" is basically people acting within the confines of their gender, why can't they *just* be called women and men? Why do they have to have a special name? Considering that people are giving away names to things that already exist, it seems really indicative of how strong other words in their dictionary are (see: gender-fluid and bi-gender redundancy).\n\nAgain, I can't stress this enough, I have no issues with people being who they want to be and how they want to be that. It just seems overly unnecessary to have a million new Facebook gender options for things that clearly overlap each-other. A lot of this also seems more of a ploy for attention, not someone *actually* identifying as something.\n\nWith that being said, am I just seeing this the wrong way? I get incredibly annoyed when someone tells me they're \"gender-fluid\" or \"cis-female\". It makes me believe that I may be seeing this the wrong way - or maybe these terms really are inessential and pointless?\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think it's OK for politicians to change their public stance on issues. + \n + Same-Sex marriage in the US is one of the \"hottest\" news stories of June, and many people are upset that some politicians (especially democratic ones) have gone from being against same-sex marriage to being for it, with statements often pointing to the (likely true) idea that their stance is based on public opinion. \n\nHowever, I don't think we should be denouncing these politicians for changing their views on issues such as this one. We should actually *encourage* politicians to do so, *especially* when they change their views based on public opinion. Is this not a representative democracy? Isn't the whole point of a representative democracy for our representatives to actually *represent* the public's views on issues? \n\nThis isn't a CMV about whether politicians *really* change their views based on our opinion (I've seen the data; often times they act against the majority opinion due to lobbying efforts).  I just think that it's OK *if* politicians change their view based on public opinion. CMV.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I disagree with the philosophy of not giving any attention to gunmen + \n + I'm not entirely sure if I agree with the \"no attention to the gunmen\" philosophy after tragic shootings. I think we can all agree that a major part of the problem is mental illness, and as hard as it may be to forgive someone for an atrocious crime like this, we have to understand that the shooter's reality is far far different from a normal reality. As strong as the urge is to call the shooter a piece of shit, I believe this behavior will only further alienate mentally ill and perpetuate the \"us vs them\" mentality they have. Contrarily, if we looked past the (albeit powerful) urge to dismiss the shooter as inhumane and instead welcome them to forgiveness and treatment, it may be an important step in bridging the disconnect between the mentally ill and mentally healthy; it may also prompt the mentally ill to seek help early before the illness becomes uncontrollable.\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: In light of the recent Supreme Court ruling, the most logical extension of this policy is the eventual legalization of Polygamy and other non-standard marriage arrangements, which will have a negative effect on society as a whole due to the difficulty of defining \"marriage\" or a \"family\". + \n + To be clear, I support the Supreme Court in their decision to legalize same-sex marriage, and I'm happy that rights that have been granted to heterosexual couples are now going to apply to everyone in society. I am, however, mildly concerned or at least intrigued as to where this debate or issue ends.\n\nThe reason it's troubling for me is that the most common arguments used to support gay marriage are that \"love is love\" and \"loving who you choose is your right\". What these arguments implicitly say is that the necessary criteria to be allowed to marry is that you love that which you are marrying.\n\nNow I won't delve into the typical response of \"Next thing you know, it'll be legal to marry your pets!\" because I find that particularly hyperbolic and non-productive to the discussion. But I do feel that this open mindset of the definition of marriage will definitely lead to a future debate about what \"marriage\" is.\n\nI believe that the next group to demand legal marriage rights will be polygamists, and that the same arguments of \"love is love\" will still apply. My fear is that despite this good ruling today, we have opened up the door to extremely loose and liberal interpretations of the meaning of \"marriage\" to include anything we want it to under the law.\n\n~~Further, I believe that polygamy is harmful to society and that raising children in a polygamous is harmful to their growth. I believe that polygamy is not a natural arrangement for humans, and that no matter what, it will be emotionally damaging to at least one person in this \"relationship\"~~.\n\nBut then as I type those words, I realize that the exact same things were said about gay marriage in recent history. So, Reddit, CMV that this supreme court ruling isn't going to evolve into a culture of people being able to marry whoever (or whatever) or however many people they want.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:Most of the new jobs being created after the recession are low wage \"McJobs\" + \n + So I graduated from college in December of 2012 and started on my job search shortly thereafter. While on the job search I noticed that there were way more minimum wage jobs than actual careers and that the actual middle class careers were really hard to get into because they were sought after by so many people. I primarily looked on job boards like h2h.jobs and the local department of labor, but also applied on companies hiring portals that were known for providing well paying jobs. Further backing my anecdotal evidence was the fact that the city I was living in during my job search built a new shopping mall and a new walmart. Afterwards the politicians and several members of the community wrote letters to the newspaper boasting about all the new \"jobs\" that were created by the new shopping mall and Walmart and how much better the economy was doing. Additionally, there was a section in my newspaper about new businesses coming to the area - 82 to be exact. Each and everyone of these new \"businesses\" was a big box retail store, chain restaurant, or fast food restaurant. [This report](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/10/14/why-were-facing-a-mcjob-recovery) and [this one](http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/high-wage-good-jobs-outpace-mcjobs-in-recovery-report-finds/article_90713e96-44f8-11e5-a0c8-87843f54fdbf.html) make contrary arguments on the \"McJobs\" recovery but they both have data that says middle income jobs have not reached their pre-recession levels and low-wage jobs are higher than pre-recession levels. Please say it ain't so reddit! So do we all live in a low wage economy now?\n\nETA: I had to go back and redo my HTML formatting. Also, I had to move to take a job after college in a different city. I couldnt be happier but I keep reading these doom and gloom articles about the low wage recovery and I believe them even though I hope they are false. While the city I live in now is bigger and has much more opportunity there still are plenty of retail outlets and restaurants.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Charles and David Koch are more harmful to the United States than other super wealthy policy influencers. + \n + [A recent /r/news thread](http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/34pnjw/billionaire_george_soros_may_finally_get_that/) focused on billionaire George Soros and the millions of dollars of taxes that he has avoided, despite advocating for higher taxes for the wealthy. Many commenters took advantage of this story to identify Soros as a liberal equivalent of the Koch Brothers, a view I am not convinced of.\n\nI tried to distinguish Soros from the Koch brothers by pointing out that while both parties take advantage of current laws, the Kochs can be distinguished by their doggedness in perpetuating those very laws. [My comment wasn't well received](http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/34pnjw/billionaire_george_soros_may_finally_get_that/cqx0ij6). Many of the responses that I and other Koch-detractors received accused us of being too selective about the billionaires that we criticized; that the Koch brothers were a distraction (\"boogeymen\")  from a larger problem of rising oligarchy in the United States.\n\nUpon reflection, I realized that I don't know a lot about the Koch Brothers, apart from what I have heard on reddit and NPR, primarily, over the past few years. Here are some things I think I know:\n\n* The Kochs promote climate change denial, which is useful when one is in the petroleum business\n* They astroturfed the Tea Party, which is nominally about freedom from the government and personal liberty (oversimplification?), but conveniently supports a very corporation/billionaire/petroleum industry friendly agenda\n* They have a poor environmental track record and support policies that will allow them to continue to harm the environment\n* They seek to maintain the low tax rate they enjoy personally, despite massive wealth inequality\n* They support low corporate tax rates, through the Tea Party and lobbying\n\nI'm concerned that my opinion is based on years of accumulated sentiments and not much dedicated critical thought. If I'm wrong about the Koch brothers, and as open-minded as I like to think I am, it shouldn't be too tough for you to change my view. Do the Kochs deserve the attention they get as the worst of the wealthy, or are they scapegoats for a self-serving billionaire class?\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Automating low-skill jobs is just part of natural selection + \n + I've been hearing a lot recently of people and unions trying to stop progress in automation technology, such as driverless vehicles replacing truck drivers and others in the transportation industry. The economic benefits of these technologies are incredible as robots do not need salary and benefits, nor do they get tired or slack off. I don\u2019t want to sound heartless, I understand that a lot of people are employed in low-skill positions and may lose their jobs, but to me it seems like natural selection favoring the more intelligent; i.e. those whose jobs cannot be done by robots.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think women should not have combat roles in the military + \n + The primary focus of the military should be only to increase the efficiency of its operations. The military does not owe any group anything, and it has no obligation to accommodate women. Having women in the military will only cause problems. At best you will get a couple more people- the few women who can pass the physical standards. For that you take the risk of the women not able to endure properly and be able to carry heavy equipment, and the possibility of the women being a distraction to the men (or vice versa), among other unforeseen problems.\n\n\nThe arguments for women in military combat roles seem to center around appeals to discrimination, and this is not going to convince me. I do not see any way I could be convinced that men and women are 'the same' and 'not being treated fairly'. The purpose of the military is to conduct its operations the best it can, it does not owe anything to women or to treat people fairly.\n\n\nThe other main argument from the other side is to call people with my point of view terrible people and try to shame us. This also will not be effective. I have nothing at all against women. In fact part of the reason I hold this view is *because* I like women so much. I do not think they should have to endure the horrors of military combat like men do. Men are more expendable than women are. Being responsible for reproduction, I think a woman's life actually has a bit more worth than a mans, and therefore we should keep them out of harm's way.\n\n\nIn all, I don't see any reason why women should have combat roles in the military.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Shampoo and special body wash products are unnecessary. + \n + Bar soap is all you need.\n\nAnd you dont wash your hair at all, you just rinse it. \n\nSometimes I use shampoo, maybe once in a month or two, if I did something specially dirty or got chemicals in my hair etc. But your hair is healthier without it, and if I cared enough to find an alternative I would use something natural.\n\nIf you quit using shampoo, your hair might be greasy for the first couple days, but with nothing but proper rinsing your hair will be able to clean itself.\n\nFace wash is unnecessary as well. Bar soap is fine. Special body washes are unnecessary. It is all a marketing ploy.\n\nI am a clean and beautiful boy who has no problem attracting the opposite sex, and have never been led to suspect that my habits are somehow smelly or unclean.\n\nWhat is the point of using these products? Please, Reddit, change my view: hygene products are a scam.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think speed limits are an overall negative force in road safety and are too often used as tools for revenue generation for small towns who unreasonably lower their speed limits to trap motorists into paying fines. + \n + Too often when driving down the road and driving into a small town off of a major route I see speed limits suddenly plummet and invariably a police cruiser is hiding somewhere around the sign.  This has caused me several times to nearly get into rear end collisions either by almost hitting someone or almost being hit due to sudden deceleration.  I believe that most speed limits outside specific instances like school zones, residential areas, and signage around sudden hidden turns in the road are unreasonable, and if they were removed motorists would intuitively adjust to a safe driving speed that they feel comfortable with.  ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Modern day \"hipsters\" do not exist and the ideas behind them are far too abstract to be a subculture. + \n + Just as the title says, I firmly believe that the modern interpretation of the hipster does not truly exist and never has. I'm going to link an article from two years ago, and I'd appreciate it if you'd read it, [thanks!](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/opinion/sunday/caught-in-the-hipster-trap.html?_r=1)\nIf you've read that, you'll see all the contradictory things that make a hipster look like a hipster. Hipsters like old heritage looks, but they also like all contemporary clothing. Their footwear of choice are trainers, skate shoes, loafers, wingtips, sandals, and all manner of boots. Seems the only shoe that's off the list is a pair of stark black oxfords, but even then, I don't know. Hipsters like Apple products, but also love old technology! Their hobbies are anything outdoorsy or creative, except when they aren't I.E video games. They embrace both irony and sincerity ect., ect.,ect. It just seems like a strawman built up to shun anyone doing anything or acting in a certain way that you don't like. It also seems to be that the thing everyone hates about hipsters is their attitude, but deep down, it's an attitude anyone can have. It's an attitude of snobbishness and inauthenticity. I've mentioned this to a lot of people, I'd like to hear what others have to say, try changing my view!\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Referring to the Pao Gender Discrimination Case in the Change.org petition is counterproductive and makes Redditors look childish, if not sexist. + \n + [Petition.](https://www.change.org/p/ellen-k-pao-step-down-as-ceo-of-reddit-inc)\n\nWhy does this previous litigation have anything to do with her competence as a CEO?  Why reference it?  It makes no sense to me.\n\nBut bringing it up certainly makes any argument against her seem sexist or childish from the perspective of anyone who is unfamiliar with the entire backstory (hell, I am familiar with the backstory and I find it childish to keep bringing it up).\n\nI am more than happy to change my view.  I just don't see a good reason to.\n\n\nSo even if the petition is more productive at gaining signatures, it is not more productive at achieving its end result.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I should refrain from sexual activity due to the potential of false rape accusations. + \n + For context, I'm an 18 year-old male who will be entering college this comming fall. \n\nThis issue has only been a concern of mine in recent months, in part due my exposure to the idea on reddit/other internet sources, and partly because I've never been in an environment where sexual encounters are frequent. I don't think I'm of the party that has difficulty understanding consent. I also understand that there may be a great deal of fear for some women that they may be raped, and I don't wish to sound as though I'm downplaying that. But I have a fear myself of being falsely accused, or accused in a case where consent is retroactively removed. I don't think of this potential as being very high; I don't think most women are that vindictive; however in the event that it occurs it seems the results can be devastating. I've personally spoken to someone who has gone through this process and it took him almost a year to clear his name. \n\nI don't want this fear; I'm very open to the idea that it may be exaggerated in the media I've read, or that there are faults in my reasoning. But these are potentials and I can't seem to confirm them on my own; maybe someone else can poke some holes. \n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Convince me that life is worth living. + \n + Before anything else, let me say that I am not, nor have ever been depressed, suicidal or abused in any way shape or form. My life so far has been somewhat sheltered. \n\nA while ago a stumbled upon the idea, that since entropy can only increase, there will be a time without humanity. A time where all you've done, and all you could have done will be gone, forgotten. The universe will be cold, homogenous and all that has ever been, will fall into oblivion.\n\nAllied to that idea, I also do not believe in free will. You see, we came from stardust, and we will go back to being stardust. I also am not religious and I'm extremely skeptical. \n\nI do not see meaning in any of it. Whatsoever. I wanna change that. I've actively trying to change that for about 2 months or so, but am yet to stumble upon an idea worth living for. So far I've: Read the book 'A man's search for meaning', I meditate and work out. \n\nCan you guys give me some insight on why I should get out of bed?\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Self Driving cars will not be commercially available by 2040. + \n + I know according to /r/futurology self-driving cars are the next big thing, but I don't think we've extrapolated this one properly.  I see car technology slowly chugging along, more of what we are seeing today, help reversing, parallel parking etc.  I see this trend continuing and improving, I don't think the next generation of cars will suddenly allow us to go 65 mph on the highway while we\u2019re sipping margaritas in the back seat.  I don't think that's the goal.  \n\nGoogle had a project where they created a self driving car, they were pretty successful.  I think it's great new technology, but I don't see it transferring it over to average consumers.\n\nIf you disagree with me up until this point, here's my biggest concession.  The trend of car ownership will decrease at a faster rate than self-driving cars will increase.  Meaning, by the time we have self-driving cars everywhere, no one will own a car, it will be a completely different paradigm.  \n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: \"open\" and \"equal\" debate is not the right way to combat ignorance and hate + \n + This morning, the admin /u/spez made a post giving the reason why they're not banning /r/coontown. Here's his posts:  \n\n\n#  \n\n\n---  \n\nMany people in that thread agree with /u/spez there. That to fight racism, we need to *debate* racism *with* the racists. I think this line of thinking is naive, and simply wrong, for these reasons:  \n\n1) There is mountains of scientific evidence that climate change exists (and is a result of human activities) and there is also mountains of evidence of the efficacy of vaccines. No serious, respected group of scientists deny this. Yet, the way the media has addressed these topics (which is to give \"both sides\" of the \"debate\" an equal platform/time) has *not* resulted in these positions declining in belief among the general public. [The BBC has just recognized this](http://www.salon.com/2014/07/06/bbc_staff_ordered_to_stop_giving_equal_air_time_to_climate_deniers/), a bit late though. The anti-vaxxer movement is going strong, and has grown thanks to many \"debates\" being put on air. There are *politicians in the U.S. Congress* who don't believe in climate change. Open debate does not help to weed out such positions, clearly. \n\n2) While I can't say how effective \"silencing the opposition\" is, I disagree with the idea what \"not giving them a platform\" is the same thing as silencing. Nobody is stopping them from shouting what they have to say over the Internet in their blogs and websites. What shouldn't happen is pretending giving them the respect of an open debate and claiming that both sides have merit. You wouldn't bring on a KKK member to argue with a civil rights activist on TV, why should reddit?\n\n3) reddit as a platform itself is very ill-suited to the style of \"open debate\" that /u/spez and his supporters claim will be enough to weed out the racism in society. The upvote/downvote system and the userbase's affinity for liking long arguments that sound logical and scientific is perfect fodder for the white supremacist's style of argumentation, which is basically a Gish Gallop. You inundate your opponent with a bunch of links and cherry-picked facts to *strongly suggest but never outright state* a conclusion (that black people are inferior) which leaves you a lot of lee-way with claiming victory over your debate opponent. Plus, the general disdain for any explanation that deals with \"SJW\" terms and explanations makes it harder for anyone to side with you. The white supremacists come to the debate with the intention to *win* an argument, *not* to debate. So unless you're equally as prepared with your own walls-of-text copypasted, you'll lose unless you have the hours (and the brigade of supporters) to deal with them.\n\n4) As an addendum to #1 and #3, given how the issue of race and biology, sociology, etc. are still not nearly as understood as how vaccines are necessary and how climate change is happening, giving them an equal platform gives them an even better shot than the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers in converting people to their ideology. Dylann Storm Roof became a racist after he looked into intentionally misleading copypasta of black crime statistics posted by the Council of Conservative Citizens. And you can see where that led him.\n\nI think for these reasons that /u/spez's reason for not banning a place like /r/coontown is naive and possibly dangerous.  \n\n---  \n\nThat being said, I'm not exactly sure *what* the right way to combat ignorance and hate is. Better education in our public schools would probably be a good first step.  \n\nAlternatively, we could follow the example in the story of [the Racist Tree](http://lardcave.net/text/the_racist_tree.html).", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The rise of automation in the workplace is seen as something that's going to put a lot of people out of a job who have no other options. I don't think that the advancing technology is as big of a threat as generally considered, and I think (at least US) education is the actual problem. + \n + I was thinking about the future and how there will be fewer and fewer jobs available in the coming years as a result of expanding technology. And I started thinking about if things were ever like that for older generations. And I realized, they probably were.\n\nThink about the industrial revolution. You're a copyist. Every day, you go to work and your job is to read a document and rewrite it. Maybe you have a different document every day, maybe you need to just push out a certain quantity before you move on to the next project. But then suddenly the printing press is invented and you're *terrified*. \n\nI feel like this is just another industrial revolution. Despite the quickly developing technology *and* expanding populations, there doesn't seem to be an overwhelming poverty creeping up on us. \n\nI believe that *education* is the problem. That copyist was probably a specialist of some kind. Not everyone really knew how to read at all, so there was an education barrier to that career that allowed some people to do it and others were out of luck. And most fields are somewhat like that. \n\nNowadays it's hard to find someone in the US who never learned how to read. It's almost hard to wrap your mind around it. Most people even graduate high school, which while isn't required was once a barrier people had to get through. Now it seems as though you can hardly get above a minimum wage job without a college degree. \n\nI think that the purpose of education, any education at all, is to give someone the tools they need to succeed. Which is pretty hard to argue against. I say that education in the US is failing pretty miserably and that's the reason we've got something to fear. \n\nEducation, in politics, is a word you use when you want people to give you votes and money. Saying you're *for education* is like saying you're *against murder*. It's a crowdpleaser. But if you actually look at what's being done for education, it's a total hatchet job. \n\nThat's what we should be scared about. That the education barrier is being raised to a point where the average person can't find a steady and reasonably paying job. Once, all you needed to do was know how to read. Now you basically need a master's degree in your field, which you only have if you've been funded (parents, money, etc.) or you've been so sure about what you wanted to do with your life that you've worked your ass off for that field since you were 15. \n\nSure, there will always be work that the average US citizen is overqualified for. You know, the kind with a bachelors degree, debt, and no real career options. But companies are allowed to ship that work to other countries which have work environments full of parasites and suicides. So unless that changes, the average citizen should be entitled to a reasonable life. Which means billions invested into k-12 education and college tuition regulation or elimination.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: WIC money should instead be spent on providing free abortions to low income women + \n + I like making lists to discuss points, so here goes:\n\n1) Women who need a program like WIC are not in a financial position to raise a baby \n\n2) An abortion would be cheaper than 18+ years of food stamps and Medicaid\n\n3) I acknowledge that not all taxpayers support abortion due to difference in moral opinion, but taxpayers aren't consulted on other moral matters anyway, such as war, corporate bailouts, etc. For example, if a vegetarian, a person is still required to pay taxes for farm subsidies to animal farms.\n\n4) while some recipients of WIC may be in their position due to uncontrollables such as spouse death, job loss, etc, it still takes two people to make a baby, so both parties should be able to financially support a child without spousal help (through their own job, family assistance, etc)\n\n5) one should not rely on government programs to assist with raising children, in event those programs are taken away", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: As a feminist I'm really bothered how male-to-female trans-people portray what it means to be female + \n + I feel like they're acting and it often feels very campy. I don't like how they say \"well my brain is more feminine\", like excuse me that's something that women have been trying to get away from for 1000 years. Why did Caitlyn Jenner feel the best way to become a woman was to get all trussed up in a corset on the cover of vanity fair? Why are so many m2f trans people so into makeup and fashion?! If that's what being a woman is to you then why not stick to drag? In conclusion, an article that lines up with my views. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/sunday/what-makes-a-woman.html", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: B. Sanders-style Socialism will dig our country deeper into debt by spending money we don't have, and despite great social policy, his economic policy is a deal-breaker. + \n + I was raised by decently liberal Republican parents, and always felt that reducing unnecessary spending is the best way to counter our national debt (my favorite analogy is that our debt is like a room full of shit: if it's up to your neck, you don't raise the ceiling, you slow the rate of filling to actually deal with the problem). Socialism was always something my parents believed was for excessively liberal areas, like Canada and Cali; though they were very forward-thinking regarding social issues, such as homosexuality, recreational drug use, and foreign disputes. I love Sanders' social policy, but I can't see his economics winning many republicans or libertarians over. CMV?", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Conviction that you are not the gender assigned to you at birth is the only requirement to be transgender or non-cisgender. + \n + I've tried my best to make this post as clear as possible, and I've included two sections that are very important:**This view is NOT**, and **Things that would CMV** so you can target the key points and not tangents or related issues when you reply to me.\n\nIn reddit and in many other places I've seen a lot of talk about transmedicalism, which states that if a person does not experience dysphoria (Most often specifically the part where you exerience loathing towards your bodily sex characteristics and manifest a desire to change them) they can't be trans and must therefore be cisgender. I know for a fact, that these ideas are a reaction to claims from so-called \"SJW's\" that they are some newfangled stargender, or a magigirl, or identities that seem to be, and that in many many cases actually are a call for attention or an attempted claim to oppression.\n\nMy view is that this reaction is not really representative of reality, and erases people who are most definitely LGBT+, today and in history. I recently came to this conclusion, and it does seem a bit flimsy still, so I'm really interested in hearing the counterarguments so I can either edit my view to something more fitting, learn from the counterarguments, or drop it altogether.\n\nHere are the reasons that i believe this:\n\n* Transvestites, people who liked to wear women's clothes and used female pronouns, but didn't mind being recognized as male when not in drag or crossdressing. Marsha P Johnson was known to be fine with male pronouns from close friends, and never sought to transition, to call her cis would still be inaccurate.\n\n* My own experience. I know anecdotes are not evidence, but I'm explaining why I hold this view. I dunno why I've been obsessed with dresses and gowns since childhood. I came out as gay a year or so ago ad recently discovered drag, and nothing has ever felt so right, the idea of presenting as a woman while having that sort of dual gender feels like it describes me perfectly. I'm still hesitant to call myself genderqueer or genderfluid but I'm also not sure that it's accurate to call myself a guy.\n\n*  The fact that not wanting to chop one's weiner or boobs off implies that one's identity is set in stone and saying anything else is calling for attention in the transmedicalist view. I don't think you can talk about human psychology in such rigid terms.\n\n**This View is NOT**\n\n* That all non cis identities are valid. I'm not gonna defend stargender or magigirl/boy, mostly because I think those either don't exist or in the case of the latter are so close to a gender (it's literally the definition) that they might as well be binary.\n\n* That being trans non-cis is a choice. I still think that this internal sense of how we identify is ruled by things like brain chemistry or exposure to certain hormones while in the womb (as shown by digit ratio)\n\n* That womanhood and manhood are limited to things like clothing, makeup , and roles and stereotypes. A key thing I mentioned is that people above all want to be recognized and treated like a certain gender (through gendered words and pronouns and whatnot) and often their presentation reflects that, rather than interest int he objects of the presentation by themselves.\n\n**Things that would CMV**\n\n* If I have a fundamental misunderstanding of the point of transmedicalism, or the definition of dysphoria that they use\n\n* If I have a fundamental misunderstanding of gender and what it means\n\n* If my feelings and those of others are better explained by things unrelated to gender identity or being non cisgender\n\n* If not being transmedicalist can harm trans people who suffer from dysphoria.\n\n* And of course other things I don't know yet, but these are I think the pillars of my view.\n  \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The United States will never have a multi-party system within my lifetime. + \n + As a young American who will be able to vote in his first election in 2016, I have an unorthodox set of political views, and somewhat fluid ones at that. I subscribe to [progressive](https://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks), [libertarian](https://www.youtube.com/user/ReasonTV), and [conservative](https://www.youtube.com/user/PragerUniversity) youtube channels to keep my mind open. Unfortunately, thanks to my views not being in line within the dichotomy, none of the current major presidential candidates, republican or democrat, are completely in line with my views. I want to vote for a third party, but it would just be a protest vote every time I do.\n\nThe two parties directly oppose each other ideologically, but will fight tooth and nail at the prospect of a newcomer. A major third party and threatening them? How dare they, the two-party system is the only way they keep at least 40% of the vote every single election no matter what. They don't want added complexity, which is why [in the last election, a candidate needed at least 15% of the vote in polls to participate in a debate, which universally shut out everyone except Obama and Romney.](http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=candidate-selection-process).\n\nThere will be a few third party candidates who will gain upsets and get elected, but it will never be enough to change the system thanks to our First Past the Post voting system, gerrymandered districts, and just the fact that the two main parties are far more resourced than all of the others. Even if their views change, we will never have more than two parties in the United States, at least for the next 100 years. Change my view.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Google Is The Most Powerful Company In The Western World, And It Could Become Problematic + \n + While Google may not have the highest market cap, I'm strongly convinced that their owned services provide them an enormous amount of power-not necessarily just for economic gain, but also for political and social gain. \n\nThey control the most widely used search engine in the western world. While a search engine isn't the internet as a whole(iCANN essentially controls DNS, a number of organizations control IP distribution), controlling this search engine means that Google essentially controls the most widely used portal to the internet.(in other words, they control how you navigate the internet)\n\nIn modern society, when people want to look up something, they usually \"Google\" it. Google then displays what is considers the most widely relevant and significant results, in the way it is programmed to do. As a search engine, Google reserves the ability to tweak this engine in any way they see fit. Google essentially controls what results make the front page of a search.\n\nIn theory, Google controls the information that is provided to the user. If a user looks up a controversial issue, Google could in theory manipulate the results to provide information in favor of 1 side.\n\nIn recent years, Google has begun censoring it's search results. You can see /r/googlecensorship if you don't believe it. \n\n**Examples of censored content include:**\n\n- Removal of websites that illegally stream copyrighted material from search results(Google isn't legally required to block these as they aren't hosting the content).\n\n- Potentially offensive, but legal anime content.\n\n- Recent removal of confederate flag from shopping category\n\n\nThese are just a few examples of the content Google has censored. I'm not for or against the content they censor, there's reasons for doing so, and reasons not to, I'm simply demonstrating that Google has the potential to skew search results, and has actively done so in the past.\n\n**Google essentially controls the #1 public information source in the world.** While some people may be smart enough to seek out credible sources instead of Googling, it still provides them the capability to sway the public majority in the way they see fit. In a democratic world, being able to sway the majority of people essentially makes you the most powerful entity in the world.\n\nYou may wonder, but where could this go wrong? As of now, Google is only censoring content that can be considered offensive or illegal, and trying to make the user feel guilty for pursuing it by skewing their search results to make the top results content that convinces the user to change their beliefs/habits.\n\nBut where could this take us? Imagine if the US Government got involved in a huge war. Google could, in theory, be forced by the US government to skew search results to improve public support of the war. Google could in theory kick anti-war webpages/blogs off of the search results, and skew news results to primarily contain propaganda.\n\nIf you don't believe me, look at Baidu. As a prominent web services company in China, they're partially responsible for the widespread censorship of their internet(likely pressured by the government).\n\nOf course, surely something like this would never happen to the US, a glorious free country with freedom of speech, right? That would be true, if freedom of speech was maintained. The first amendment is merely an empty promise that exists to create a sense of nationalistic pride. It has been broken so many times in the past in order to maintain war support and for other reasons. It's essentially \"freedom of speech, except when we don't want you to have it\".\n\nWhether its newspapers, the radio, or television, the government has censored the media countless times to maintain support for a war. It's not unreasonable to expect for the government to make that effort on the internet. History repeats itself, it would be foolish to think this wouldn't happen in the event of a huge war. The only difference would be that the internet is difficult to censor as a whole-but that won't matter, because the government only needs to censor what the majority can reach. China's censorship works just fine for them in swaying the public despite there being a million loopholes, so it would for the US too.\n\nAnd besides governments and war, there's plenty of other ways Google could abuse their power. They essential have the power to manipulate their users by controlling what information is fed to them.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Taco Bell is by far the best fast food choice for vegetarians + \n + Earlier this month I switched to being full vegetarian after experimenting with some restrictions for many years. The transition has been pretty smooth for the first part, although I've had to transition away from some of the ways I've handled my diet. \n\nThe biggest change has been fast food. I work strange hours and am often on the road, so there are many times when a fast food place is the only reasonable option if I'm going to eat at night. Before, that would have meant a McDonalds run, but they are completely ill-suited for a vegetarian unless you just want fries or a boxed salad. \n\nBut then I discovered the joys of Taco Bell. I probably could count on one hand the number of times I ate Taco Bell each year before, but their options for vegetarians are actually quite reasonable. Aside from menu items like a potato taco, they also have nachos, quesadillas which are more flavorful than just cheese and a tortilla, and a full array of menu items which can substitute beans for meat quite easily. \n\nIt's gotten to the point where I've given up on just about every other fast food chain unless I'm really craving a grilled cheese. \n\nPerhaps I'm unenlightened though. CMV. ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Ellen Pao was never on a \"glass cliff,\" as Reddit's myriad feminists claim + \n + The most obvious refutation of the glass cliff hypothesis is that Yishan himself personally selected Pao, and she was soon after approved by the board. The claim that Pao was set up for failure holds the obvious implication ~~what~~ that *Yishan* set her up for failure. Despite this, Pao was originally stationed as CEO in the interim. Her role was never even intended to be permanent; how can she be set up on a glass cliff if she was only temporary in the first place? \n\nThe glass cliff theory also includes the idea that the company was performing poorly at the time or was forecasted to perform poorly in the future. This is patently false; Pao presided over an enormous increase in user growth and revenues, a growth curve that had begun well before her promotion. Furthermore, the company's performance was the not the reason for her ouster; instead, it was due to user and moderator dissatisfaction; nothing that was present or predictable at the time of her promotion many months earlier. It is obvious, then, that none the parameters of the glass cliff thesis were met, and is instead a myth perpetuated by feminists media organizations seeking to portray Reddit as misogynistic and sexist.\n\nCMV.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: What we most hate in others are traits we have, and hate, in ourselves + \n + This is a view I've read about from various pop psychology sources, and it has become conventional wisdom. I believe it contains some truth. Can you convince me it merely reflects the fact that every person has pretty much every trait in them in some form, so if someone says \"I hate X\" they're bound to have some of X in their personality.\n\nAn important distinction: I'm talking about \"hate\" that people regularly bring up, like a person who's known for having a hate or dislike of something in particular (something non-trivial, not broccoli or crap movies): **Things that people hate which they think about regularly.**\n\nWhen people say they hate homosexuals, odds are pretty high they have closeted homosexual desires. This has become a running joke among gay acceptance (i.e. decent) people.\n\nWhen people say they hate intolerance, you'll often find they're very intolerant of views that strike them as incorrect or un-PC.\n\nNow, take something horrendously evil like pederasty/paedophilia. One of the most heinous, evil, horrible acts possible. Most people I know, however, when asked what they hate in people, don't really mention acts like that. They mention less horrifically evil things: I hate bullies, I hate hypocrisy, I hate rudeness. \n\nWe may want to kill a convicted paedophile with our bare hands, but during our day to day lives we don't think about them often or say we \"hate\" them--we save our long-term hatreds for less evil things. (This may simply be because (say) pedos are so rare and don't show up in our lives very often, or, because people don't hate that which isn't in their own psychological repertoire, or a mixture of both.)\n\nWhen I say \"I hate religious extremists\", I don't have to be religious to say it, but the underlying trait I hate may be closed-mindedness, which I may hate in myself and which I am afraid of exhibiting. I am 100% convinced I do not have a closed mind, but I cannot easily prove it. Do diehard atheists disprove the idea that what we hate most we hate in ourselves? I also hate animal cruelty, and I've never hurt an animal (knowingly) in my life and have absolutely zero secret or repressed desire to do so. But then again I don't really think about animal cruelty very often, but I do think about other things I hate: petty-mindedness, mean-spiritedness, etc.\n\nIs it all just pop psych bs? I would like a good argument against the idea that our common/over-time objects of hate--particularly a character trait in other people--does not necessarily reflect a hatred of those traits in yourself and a fear that you will express them.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Public Service should be Mandatory for all Citizens + \n + Tired of that construction down the road? If annual public service was mandatory, maybe that'd be already done!\n\nWhy is the local government spending so much money paying people to pick up trash in a park when citizens could do it for free, and the extra money could be spent in more worthwhile efforts, like the social services to help abused children?\n\nMy view is that every year, every citizen (unless you have a legitimate disability) should be required to perform *x* amount of hours of service to society. CMV.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: BitCoin will never be the most widely used currency because of its inherently deflationary nature + \n + I'll start off by saying all of my economic knowledge comes from some highschool courses and the internet, so I'm bound to get something wrong.\n\nThat being said, my actual argument:\n\nBecause the ammount of Bitcoins is limited to 21 million, these coins will increase in value as the world economy expands and some are lost.\n\nIf the value of a currency increases relative to goods and services, that is called deflation.\n\nThat sounds like it's not a big deal. And if you're an investor, it isn't. But if an economy relies on a currency that is undergoing deflation, that economy slows drasticly. \n\nThe reason: If you can increase the worth of your money just by sitting on it, many people will do so. Why go through the trouble and risk of investing it if you are guaranteed to make profit (in terms of value) by putting it under your mattress?\n\nWithout investments, the economy grinds to a halt. This is why most economists think that moderate inflation is more desireable than even small deflation, some going so far as to say that some ammount of inflation is healthy.\n\nMost people of course already treat Bitcoin as an investment instead of a currency, as you can see by its wild swings in value.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I should avoid relationships my whole life. + \n + I am 23 and have only had one actual girlfriend before, but I had 5 or 6 sexual partners in college, off the top of my head. I don't consider myself socially awkward in the least, but I am often quiet and have had a couple girls I know tell me I am \"aloof\" and \"reserved.\" Several girls I've been with have told me that I could get any girl I want based on my looks and intelligence, but instead of making me cocky, it hasn't done anything to improve my lack of confidence. I have a quick temper, but I'm good at controlling it. During the work week, I don't socialize much just because I don't have much time to. When I socialize on the weekends, I usually \"bro-out\" and go grab a few drinks with a couple of my buddies, although I do often get invited to large gatherings/parties and my friends almost always let me know if there's a big gathering happening. So basically, I'm not meeting girls on a frequent basis and I'm not really sure how to do it doesn't include drinking in some way or another. Sometimes I try to imagine what life would be like if I never get into another relationship to prepare myself for that possibility. I did well with the college hookup scene, but am clueless when it comes to post-grad socializing...\n\nThere are very slim pickings at my work for potential dates (by that, I mean there is only girl I would consider dating, and she is basically one of the guys) and I don't believe I'm going to find the love of my life in one of the dive bars near my house, so I am not meeting a lot of girls that interest me with my current lifestyle. I'm not interested in online dating, either, so I don't really have a lot of options, which is why I'm considering giving up.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe that abortion is morally wrong. + \n + To open, I'd like to say that I am nonreligious and pro-choice.\n\n\nI believe that abortion is wrong from an objective standpoint. I believe that, no matter what, a fetus is a living being, and that it is wrong to kill it. I understand that some people do not have the means to care for a child, but adoption is, in most developed countries, an option. I believe that life is an innate, inalienable human right, and that stealing it from another is wrong.\n\n\nI feel as though pregnancies conceived through rape are still deserving of life and should not pay for the sins of the father, however, I find it much more easy to emphasize and sympathize with women who choose to terminate  said pregnancies.\n\n\nI'd be more than happy to have my view change, but I've never encountered an argument that could do so. Mostly, it seems to boil down to pedantics revolving around whether or not a fetus is a living being or just part of the mother, which I don't find to be a point of debate- even if it isn't \"alive\" right now, it *will* be, so one way or another you are killing it. ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I'm not excited for a Hillary Clinton presidency + \n + It's hard to get excited for Hillary. Even if you're voting party line against the Republicans, she's basically the most establishment candidate out there. No big changes or forward agendas, just another veto point for the GOP legislature. Sure, she's a woman, but the whole \"Beat out the white male lock on the Oval Office\" gimmick was already bested by Obama in '08. \n\nIt's like she's mastered the art of boring, sterile management speak. She's almost like the anti-Obama in terms of Charisma. Sure, she's had experience in law, legislature, and diplomacy - like every career politician out there. It seems like she wants to govern as a technocrat, but I'm not really impressed with any of her accomplishments. She's like a prep school honors student that's in seven clubs and passionate about none of them - it's all just resume and application filler.\n\nI'd rather see the Democrats run Sanders or Warren, but we all know big money wins in the end. Get me excited for the next eight years - please CMV.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Saying that we are in a computer simulation is a meaningless, nonsensical statement + \n + From time to time I come across a theory claiming that our universe is a computer simulation. [Here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis)'s a Wikipedia article about it. I think it's a completely meaningless proposition.\n\nIt's similar to claiming that there is a parallel universe, completely separated from ours, where Earth is populated by lizard-like creatures. Or that the universe is full of invisible dwarfs that can't interact in any way with the rest of the universe. They are nothing more than ideas in our heads \u2013 if we added them to our model of the world it wouldn't change its predictive power.\n\nOur model of the world (physics) is basically a tool to summarize past and predict future observations of the world. Adding a statement that the universe is a simulation wouldn't improve that tool in any way, just make it more complicated.\n\nIf the simulation theory claimed something tangible about the universe, for example that the universe is discrete, it wouldn't be meaningless. But why not simply claim \"the universe is discrete\"? Adding some bullshit about outer universe and computer simulations is completely unnecesary. It's like explaining the gravitation force with invisible dwarfs pushing elementary particles.\n\nHope it makes sense, I'll edit or comment if it doesn't :)\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: It is not vain to listen to, and enjoy your own music that you've created. + \n + I often come across people that react to an artist listening to, and really being into their own music, as being a vain person. Like they are so in love with themselves.\n\nHowever, when an artist creates music, what they are doing, is just creating exactly what they want to hear. Their guide for what they decide what to do is whether or not they like it. If they don't like something, they change it, or re-work it. \n\nSo, when an artist creates music, it makes perfect sense that it would be music they would really enjoy listening to. \n\nIt's like making a sandwich. When you make a sandwich, you make it with all the ingredients you want it to have. You choose the condiments, and cuts of meat or whatever, knowing how it's going to taste. You might re-work your sandwich to build a sandwich that you really like. But eating your sandwich and enjoying it, isn't vain. It's not like you're in love with yourself because you made a sandwich you really like. \n\nIt's like that with music. You create music you want to listen to, based on your taste in music. \n\nJust because you make a sandwich you like it doesn't mean nobody else can make sandwiches you like, but it also doesn't mean you are vain, and in love with yourself if you love eating the sandwiches you learned to make. \n\nSo, I don't think there is anything wrong with listening to your own music, or dancing to it, or acknowledging that you like it, any more than acknowledging that you like your sandwich you made. \n\nEspecially during improvisation, because the ideas you are coming up with are often nearly as much of a surprise for you, as they are for everyone else, it's just you thought of it a fraction of a second earlier than other people heard it. And on top of that, they are your honest idea of exactly the type of thing you want to hear, or feel, that's why you chose to play it. Of course hearing interesting ideas that you would never think of in a million years, is also cool. But anyways, CMV!\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Population decline is a good thing. + \n + Population decline is talked about as something negative. Countries like Japan as an example, have a large old population and not enough young people to \"replace\" them. The argument is that they must increase childbirth and increase immigration to sustain the economy. This is true for many countries. Another country where I live, Sweden. Here one of the main arguments for mass immigration is that we have many old people and too few young people. So to maintain the economic growth rate and taxable income rate more people is needed.\n\nI call bullshit. It's estimated 50% of all jobs will disappear by 2030 because of automation. Most of these are in labour and other areas where the majority of the workforce is located. There will have to be a complete change of the current system of wage slavery and perpetual growth must go. That's another issue however.\n\nMy point is it will be a good thing to have a small population, or at least not a growing one. A decreasing population is the most sustainable for what's to come in the future.\n\n(I'm making this about population size and not immigration per say, thanks.)\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Volunteer Fire departments should not exist, all fire fighting officials should be paid and trained employees of the state + \n + So I've always kind of thought that it was ridiculous that my hometowns line of defense against fires was a bunch of volunteers. I know that they do receive training but knowing some of them personally they really take it all as some joke- not saying that all volunteers do -but I think that if your going to be in charge of saving someones life and are going to risk your own life you should be a paid professional.\n\nOther than the argument that paying firefighters is too expensive for the state why the heck else do all these small towns rely on locals to just figure it out themselves.\n\n\n**Please see thndrchld and Mine's conversation below**\n\n\n**celeritas365 made a good point**\n\n\nI think maybe thats what i mean more- There should be professionals at all depts, no ALL volunteer depts should exist.- that also solves the money issue with for example 1 pro for every 5 volunteers.\n\n**Ada1629 Also had a good point on my thoughts**\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:Donating to an Ivy League university is not an act of altruism. It's a gigantic, immoral waste of money. + \n + I read [this article](http://www.vox.com/2015/5/12/8590639/stephen-schwarzman-yale-donation) today. The author berates Steven Schwarzman for making a $150m donation to Yale, where the students mostly come from very rich backgrounds. Literally any other charity would be a better choice. He could cost-effectively make millions of lives better instead of building a music hall (among other things) at Yale. I donate a token amount of money to the universities I went to (that have much much smaller endowments than Yale) but give larger sums to charities that do work in India and Africa. Any reason I should change my view? \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Modern feminism is hypocritical and flawed + \n + To say that women and men are equal is simply incorrect. I absolutely do not mean to say that one is better than the other, only that there are fundamental physiological differences between men and women that feminists appear to disregard. Now, in my opinion feminism seeks to advocate that anything that men can do, women can also but only when its convenient. To me it seems like feminists want to have their cake and eat it too. I will give a few examples that I always think about to illustrate my point.\n\n1. The Ray Rice incident. What happened was unfortunate and of course he shouldn't have hit his wife. However, if this was Ray hanging out with another football player and knocked him out, this would not have been a story. Its because he punched a woman that this became a big deal. How can the feminist movement suggest \"Men should NEVER lay their hands on a woman\" but still say that men and women are equal. My answer is that its because men are generally stronger than women, but then that's my point. If you are going to advocate that they are equal then they should receive equal treatment. Again, CMV.\n\n2. Rape cases. In college I have been required to watch numerous sexual harassment videos and attend mandatory training seminars on sexual assault. In these videos they always paint the male as a bad guy and its always targeted towards men. Perhaps I have misunderstood something but if a guy and a girl are both under the influence and they decide to have sex, the girl can then decide the next day that maybe it wasn't a good idea and that the guy should have known better. The guy is then facing rape charges. Why is this on the guy? People use the phrase \"Victim Blaming\" and say that its not on the girl regardless of the fact that she drunk. So what if she had gotten drunk and drove her car into a tree. Can she then say \"Maybe that wasn't a good idea\" and then get off the hook?\n\n3. The draft. This one has also bothered me. According to the United States Selective Service Act, all men between ages 18-25 are required to register for the draft and may be picked for military service if the draft were to be implemented. Why are feminists all over the country not outraged about this? Shouldn't it be men AND women that are required to register for the draft? After all, men and women should be able to perform wartime duties equally right? It just seems like people pick and choose when its convenient for gender equality\n\nOf course there are certain things that should be equal. Wages, education, etc. However I feel that a push for gender equality in every aspect of life is fundamentally wrong. CMV!\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Do I have a logical inconsistency in my views on vaccination and abortion? + \n + Ok, I just realized I may hold a logically unsound view in either my pro-choice beliefs or my pro-vaccination beliefs. Abortion is supported by my belief of autonomy, i.e. \"my body, my decision\", but that goes against my belief that vaccines should be required (for things like entering school, etc.). Both abortions and anti-vaccination have the potential to harm others than yourself as abortions could end the lives of viable children and anti-vaccination could harm other children through diseases. Do I have to admit to being a hypocrite, or are my views not contradicting?\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: it should be customary for kids to fight their parents back + \n + Posting on my secondary for obvious reasons\n\nI grew up in a extremely abusive house. I dreaded coming home and the site of my mom made my heart skip a beat. Just the sound of her voice made all hairs on my body rise like a cat. Everyday, physically and mentally, she'd wale on me. I *knew* if I wanted, if I *truly* wanted to, I could easily defend myself. I was defiantly in a situation where if we replaced my mom with literally any other human on Earth I would have broke their jaw. She'd pin me against a wall and call me a fag and hit me and hurt me, and I'd take it. Every. Last. Hit. The only thing that every stopped me was knowing I wasn't allowed to. I never knew why, but I knew I couldn't. Because of some fucked up child memories, to this day I still can't take a photo of myself without breaking down or look myself in the eyes or even say i'm \"happy.\" She would call me a sadist and a pessimist, and as years came on I slowly developed these personas. My entire life revolves around the time I spent with her. I cant even count how many times I've wanted to kill myself. I dont say this to attention-whore my way into your web browser, but to use my story as a example. Child abuse fucks people up, badly. I believe the best way to avoid this is to allow a child to hit his parents back, strictly in self defense alone ", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Sex and Violence should be treated with equal standards. + \n + You know what really turns my gears, the fact that here in the US you can get scolded by the populous for putting a sexual undertone in your creation (in adult media outside of porn) while you get praise for putting a lot of action and violence in what you're creating. I personally think that how the general populous' craving for violence while hating on sexual themes is very counter-productive (at least here in the US). I believe how we got this mind set is how violence and sex was perceived back in the Victorian Era where multiple wars were happening within the US and how the upper class thought of nudity as a \"lower class\" trait. This carried over into World War 1 and 2 where violence pretty much saved the US and made it into the giant economy it was and still mostly is today. And also during the Cold War, religion (mainly Christianity where sex is pretty much looked down especially with Homosexuality) was taking over and the US population perceived Russia as a \"Communist Atheist\" county. This old mindset has to stop and thus we need to move on into a more accepting culture. And I'm not talking about \"Oh let's just legalize Pedophilia and Bestiality\", I'm talking about treating sexual themes and violence in the same matter. Also I don't believe we should expose younger children to sexual themes as the same matter with extreme violence within our media.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: People who say victims of suicide are selfish are the ones who are actually selfish + \n + My logic is pretty simple. People who believe that someone is selfish for committing or wanting to commit suicide just because it makes those around them sad then they are actually the ones who are selfish because they'd rather someone suffer than have them end their misery and be forced to grieve their death. I think there are instances where suicide is selfish (people who have children that still rely on them) but if you have no responsibilities such as that then it could be your reasons are actually very selfless. Furthermore I think that calling people who struggle with suicidal thoughts \"selfish\" is extremely insensitive and misguided as I'd tend to believe that most people who off themselves are doing it for reasons they perceive to be for the greater good. CMV!", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Smartwatches are a fad and a niche product at best + \n + Just to clarify, I'm talking more about smartwatches with OLED/Retina displays, not e-paper displays (like the Pebble) though I would argue that those are still niche products with a limited appeal.\u00a0\n\n\nWith smartwatches running Android or iOS, you're basically paying for a shittier, lower spec and more limited companion phone to your regular phone that saves you from the mild inconvenience of having to reach into your pocket/purse for your actual phone. Even if it isn't tethered to your phone, it still pales in comparison to an actual phone and I can't see the long term appeal of having one in lieu of a smartphone. There are some narrow circumstances in which it would be better (like hiking up a mountain), but that's about it.\u00a0\n\n\nI don't have anything against smartwatches, I think they're neat and I think there is a place for them but anyone who sees them as anything more than a niche product with limited appeal is deluded. They are not the next big thing. A good smartphone is convenient enough for most people.\u00a0\n\n\nAlso, on the subject of the next platform/form factor of mobile devices/wearables, I think AR is the only thing that *could* outright replace smartphones altogether. People today think that the appearance of wearing AR glasses will limit their appeal, but remember people said the same thing in the 70s/80s about walkmans/headphones in public, the 90s about sitting at a computer (trust me: I was there), and the 2000s with tablets/smartphones. Once AR glasses are A) stylish enough and B) useful enough and once they reach a critical mass of users, whatever stigmas surrounding them will gradually disappear. Even before AR glasses are capable of much by way of introducing three dimensional objects into the world in a realistic fashion, just the appeal of having a floating screens/UI elements in front of one's face that one could interact with in a variety of ways should have a lot of appeal.\u00a0\n\n\nAnyway, back on topic: why should I take smartwatches seriously?\u00a0", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Hillary Clinton is obviously the best candidate for 2016. Reddit's love affair with Sanders stems from a dislike of establishment and an unrealistic understanding of the presidency. + \n + While I align more so with Sanders, politically speaking, I can see that Clinton is absolutely the better choice. She's well-connected, influential, and has many allies across agencies, in the private sector, and in governments across the world as well. As president, your job is not only to be the figurehead for the movement, but the backroom dealer who makes the coalitions you need to win. Clinton may not be signaling the way I like, but I would damn sure take a centrist who can get stuff done over a socialist with little pull. \n\nSanders is a great figure, but he has zero influence in the Beltway and, if he were to win, he'd be shut out of most circles of power. Politics is messy and Reddit's fascination with Sanders is a reflection of the user base's youth and black-and-white understanding of D.C. politics. \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I'm a white female and I see nothing wrong with using \"nigga\" as a friendly nickname. + \n + So some background on me\u2026 I'm 19 years old, and I've always been very excepting of almost everyone ( religious extremists not included)   \nI've also grown up listening to tons and tons of rap music\u2026 So intern I picked up the habit of using \"nigga\"  not as a term of deride but as a term of endearment\u2026 I call my best friends Nigga \u2026 And I've noticed that lately lots of other people of my age are doing the same thing\u2026  but we also were blessed to grow up in a time where there wasn't that strong racial tension between whites and blacks, with the growing stamina of the black lives matter movement I'm a bit worried that this is going to get me into trouble\u2026 But I still don't see anything wrong with that as long as I don't use it as a derogatory term\u2026 I totally believe that nigga is very different from nigger. I'm full aware of the reasons that \"nigger\" is an awful hateful term.. But fear of a word's meaning with out adaptability only increases The impossibility of challenging the very things that word was based on. If we start using \"nigga\" in a positive way it won't vanquish all the wrongs done to African American's but it will be everyday proof of progress being made.   \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Executive wage caps would increase jobs, wages and, therefore, tax revenue while decreasing the influence the super wealthy have in politics. + \n + Let me start by saying that I am not an economics expert and I'm sure it's probably not as simple and obvious as it seems or we would've done this by now. \n\nSimply put, I think that many of America's economic problems could be fixed by placing a cap on total compensation for executives, let's say $5 million. This would have no effect on small businesses, of course, but would have a major positive impact on major corporations like, for instance, wal-mart. According to [this](http://www1.salary.com/Wal-Mart-Stores-Inc-Executive-Salaries.html) site, wal-mart paid it's top 6 execs just over $50 million combined. So, with a $5 mil wage cap wal-mart would have over $20 mil in surplus cash which it would then, logically, invest into more warehouses, factories and stores, creating more jobs. \n\nWalmart wouldn't be the only company doing this, though, most of the biggest companies would be doing the same with their sudden surpluses which would lead to a labor shortage which would drive up salaries and benefits for the average workers. More people making more money leads to more business for all companies and more tax revenue for cash-strapped local, state, and federal governments. Everyone wins.\n\nBonus: The super wealthy will no long be willing to make such huge political contributions. Who would drop $50 mil on a candidate, who might not even win, if it'll take them a decade to earn that money back?\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The term \"African American\" should be cast aside in favor of a more accurate classification, likely \"Black\" or something like it. + \n + I believe that \"African-American\" is an invention of an overly-PC culture that doesn't actually address what it intends to address. Clearly this post deals most with the US, as I don't even know what other predominantly white countries use as an identifier. \n\nThe vast majority of the time anybody uses the term \"African American\", it is intended to speak to the person's appearance, not their centuries-old heritage. When discussing issues like racism, your appearance is what matters and your appearance isn't \"African American\", it's a darker complexion. If you were at an African cultural festival or something, then the term might be appropriate, but otherwise it's not. \n\n\"Black\" is  by far a more appropriate classification for conversations about race. Were you harassed by police because of your skin tone, or because your great-great-great-great-great-great grandparent was from Africa? There are obviously other physical characteristics (hair, facial construction, etc) that generally go along with the complexion, but the one that is most readily identifiable is skin tone. People also already associate \"Black\" with those attributes.\n\nFurther, many Black people don't identify as African American. Many of them immigrated directly from non-African countries or had parents who did the same. A Black person from England isn't classified as an African-European-American, despite that being more accurate. Additionally, many White people DO meet the requirements of being African-American, having been born there or had some family stop-over there, but obviously in a discussion about race, their experiences were not the same as a black person.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is nothing wrong with allowing knives in a high-school + \n + 1. **They are no worse** than any other every-day scchool utilities. A mildly grinded metal ruler would be the exact same, a normal pen can be just as deadly, and you can be damn sure a pencil/compass will go right through pen\n\n2. **They are just utilities.** I worked while in HS. A lot of my friends worked. Almost everyone I knew with a job habitually carried a knife as a utility for simple things such as opening boxes. Hell, I once had the police called on my (by my school) because I wore the same pants as I had the previous day and still had my knife on me. Never brandished it or anything, but I was suspended, almost expelled.\n\n3. ***With the exception of schools with metal detectors*** **anyone who wants to bring a knife can't be preemptively stopped**. Just like the issue with gun control, people who want weapons can get them. If they are brandished with malicious intent by a \"bad person\" (rule breaker) the rule-followers won't be able to defend themselves.\n\n---\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: [The Martian] Earth would not have expended the resources to try to bring Watney home. + \n + **Massive spoilers below.**\n\nI just finished the book version of The Martian, which has Mark Watney, a NASA astronaut, stranded on Mars when the rest of his crew leaves, thinking him dead.\n\nWatney is not dead though, and has to survive on Mars via his wits alone til he can make some contact with Earth (his crewmates having taken all but one radio, and the one they didn't take having stabbed him before flying off.\n\nIn the book.  Watney establishes contact with NASA by driving over to the Sojurner rover and stealing/fixing it to transmit to Earth (which...*awesome*).\n\nA few plans are developed to save him, one involving a hastily built probe to resupply him which blows up on takeoff.  That first one I buy.  But the latter plans I don't.  And I have two principal objections.\n\nFirst, it seems like NASA executives make the calls on these.  This would not be the case.  It would be the President of the United States making the ultimate decision to greenlight projects.  And at that level, it seems very unlikely that they'd get the greenlight.  The independence of NASA in the book is greatly at odds with how I see government agencies working.\n\nThe Chinese government would not give a large booster over to NASA like they did.  This is portrayed as happening at the agency level coordinating with the Chinese space agency and then presenting it to political leaders as a fait accompli.\n\nThe plan is super-risky though, and depends on a single resupply mission with a quickly built supply ship - one of which just blew up on the pad.  If the resupply doesn't work, all 6 astronauts die.  Or 5, if they do space cannibalism.\n\nI just don't think the governments of two countries who don't get along great would coordinate to waste hundreds of millions to billions of dollars (the plan also scrubs Ares 4 by taking its ascent vehicle), all to have a very low chance of rescuing one guy at the substantial risk to 5 more people.  And the Hermes mutiny to force the government's hand just seems absurdly implausible to me.\n\nMuch more likely is that Watney would have been asked to compose letters to whomever he wanted, perform science til his food ran out (assuming he was willing) and then take a lethal dose of morphine.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The YouTube comments aren't that much different than Reddits. + \n + On Reddit, people like to shit on YouTube comments and how horrible they are. I personally don't find them bad, same for Reddit, but the complaints and reasons for why YouTube's is bad can apply to Reddit as well. \n\nHere are some of the complaints: \n\nStupid/pointless comments. \n\nPeople arguing a lot\n\nShit, there is more, certainly more, but that's all I can think of right now because of a stupid brain fart. I don't know, reply with some other complaints. \n\nLooking at just those two, you can most definitely see that on Reddit. I mean, how many times have people bitched about \"pun threads\" how many people bitch about \"F\" comments and whatnot. As for arguing, oh boy do people argue a lot. Especially when feminism pops up. I can't say I'm not part of what others would consider \"the problem\", but oh well. So, those two complaints can be seen on Reddit and YouTube. \n\nThere are other things, too, like the Reddit hivemind. You know, disagree with the majority, get downvoted to hell, see those askreddit threads about unpopular opinions, or things people dislike, and when someone dislikes something popular (Though, in those threads they tend to not get downvoted) people reply with \"2edgy4me\" which from my experience, also get upvoted/don't have a lot of people shitting on the person. That kind of a thing. \n\nOn YouTube, it's pretty much the same. Disagree with the majority? As in, \"I didn't like this video because so and so\" and you'll get completely shit on. Constructive criticism or not. \n\nThere is an important difference, though. On Reddit, this \"hivemind\" is more...effective, because downvotes (Depending on what you set the hide thing to, which you can change if you didn't know...least I'm pretty sure you can.) make the comment hidden and it's buried at the bottom of the thread so that your opinion shall not be questioned or challenged at all. It's like a combo of a hivemind and an echo-chamber. \n\nOn YouTube, least I believe this is how it works, comments with lots of replies and likes are usually the first comments you see. A comment with a shit ton of comments can be above a post with lots of likes and just a few comments. This means that someone posting against the hivemind, and since people like to argue against people who appose their beliefs or what they like, it can result in a post saying \"This video is fucking awful because so and so\" being one of the first comments you see, somewhat getting rid of the hivemind and echo-chamber. It doesn't, but it looks like it does. \n\nSo, that's what I think.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Having more than two children is an absolute evil + \n + Allow me to explain. \n\nYou and your spouse/partner want to have kids for one or more of the following reasons: \n\n* because your hormones are screaming at your your whole life to do so, \n\n* because you or your spouse's biological clock is ticking, \n\n* because it would make your parents proud, \n\n* because you want to play catch with something,\n\n* because you need strong backs for the wheat fields, \n\n* because you think your genetic profile is so important and precious that is deserves to be preserved throughout the ages, \n\n* or maybe just because you'd like to see what you'd look like if you didn't eat so much cake. \n\nNow, let us accept that overpopulation is a cause of the most important problems facing mankind: drinking water, food availability, climate change and pollution, deforestation, etc.. \n\nReproducing new people (by using your own cock/balls/snatch, not by adoption) can therefore be seen as a you casting a vote on how you feel about this problem. **You have no child**, that's two people being replaced by no people, and excluding just going around killing people, is practically the best thing you can do to curb overpopulation. **Having one child** is one person replacing two, that is you saying that overpopulation is a problem and I'm going to do something about it, just not as much as I could. **Having two children**, that's two people being replaced by two people, that's you casting your vote for \"population is perfect the way it is.\"\n\nNow, having **more than two children** is you casting a vote for population growth, and in doing so your are knowingly exacerbating the problems mentioned above, actively creating more human suffering in the world. Therefore, having more than two children is an absolute evil. From [wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/evil): \n\n**evil** Adjective\n\n1. Intending to harm; malevolent.\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Bill Nye is not a real scientist in any meaningful way to the public. + \n + I submit that Nye's public perception of 'being a scientist' is largely overblown by childhood memories. In his history, he had one 'scientific' accolade: he developed a device for Boeing years before he was every famous. Beyond that, he's just been a guy on TV reading from a script.\n\nEven working at Boeing, his primary job was that of a TV persona: he made the training videos. \n\nI feel that Obama's use of Nye regarding global warming is strictly an appeal to the populace who grew up watching a kid show, not the opinion of a professional with a background in anything remotely related to climate. This doesn't mean I disagree with what he said, but only disagree with the idea that he should be trusted 'as a scientist'. He's a PR tool in that regard. He only parrots others' research - in everything he's done -not anything he actually observed through his own research. \n\nFurther, simply having a degree in a scientific background makes you aware of that background (he has a bachelor's in *engineering* from Cornell), but that doesn't make you a scientist in the field. I know many people with degrees in one field who work in an entirely different field. A law degree doesn't make you a lawyer, for instance. My father has one and he's a retired contractor: never worked a legal case in his life. Nye's background hardly applies to the vast majority of his TV demonstrations and appearances.\n\nAnd to the point of Carl Sagan, Neil Tyson, and others: these are actual scientists who have been published, who do(did) research in the field of their degree and beyond. Yes, these men are TV personas, but unlike Nye they're actually also scientists. \n\nSo? Change my view. He's one of my childhood heroes too, but I simply can't accept him as a scientist. I feel that cheapens real work by real scientists.\n\n\nTo many of the comments: \n\n- Education is important and admirable, but that still doesn't make you a scientist in my view. If that's the standard of calling oneself a scientist while being displayed on news media as an expert to be listened to, then really, there's no measure for what an expert is in that regard.  \n\n- There are many qualified scientists who are also good on TV: I still assert Nye's appearances were heavily caused by his association as the funny lab-coat and bow-tie 'science guy' and childhood memories, which is a manipulative and deceptive thing to do when appearing in support of public policy (regardless of my agreement and my own support of the same policy). That deception was not unintentional, but calculated. Herein lies my problem and reasoning for this post. I should note that this still stands as my view, and the delta awarded was awarded basically because I worded the post in a particular way. If anyone would like to address this view, I'd award another delta if the mods are okay with it. \n\n- I really, honestly think that comparing Nye and people like Neil Tyson and Carl Sagan is an insult to the latter two. That's like comparing your high school bio teacher to the same two men. That's utterly absurd in my mind: Tyson and Sagan contributed more to their fields than Nye ever could at this point. \n\n- Nye's only contribution I can see, which is the reason for the single delta awarded thus far, has been in the development and design of a hydraulic pressure resonance suppressor used for 747s, to this day. I concede this is a meaningful, scientific advancement for the public made by Bill Nye. ", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: My enjoyment of Bill Cosby's comedy has not decreased at all. + \n + Bill Cosby almost certainly raped a number of women.  That's horrible.  It's awful.  It's inexcusable.  It also has nothing to do with whether Bill Cosby is funny or has intelligent things to say about family life (within the boundaries of his comedy).  I grew up listening to his comedy, I loved it then, and I love it now just exactly as much as I ever did.  I don't care what personal faults, foibles, or felonies the man has.  CMV and tell me why the art someone creates is degraded because of the artist's unrelated transgressions.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Economic Refugees should be deported immediately. + \n + Europe has a hard time dealing with refugees from all over africa.\nBecause of a variety of reasons. From persecution because of race, gender, sexual orientation or religion. Because of war or because of famine. This are all valid reasons to seek refuge.\n\nBut many people enter europe to have a better life here. To work here because we are rich.\nI think those \"refugees\" should be send back immediately. Because they have no right whatsoever to stay here. They dont have to fear imminent risk of life or property and currupt the economic system of the EU through illegal emplyment.\n\nAnd they make it harder for those who have real reasons to enter to get access into the Union.\n\nInstead of fleeing they could risk their lifes in a more meaningfull way and change their respective countries to offer a more prosper future. Because risking their lifes is what they do anyway.\n\n\n\nChange my View\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: It's okay for kids to hear and say 'bad' words. + \n + I mean they're just words. It's not like its dangerous for their health. If a 6-year old says \"fuck\" when she stubs her toe where's the harm? I understand not wanting kids to use slurs like \"nigger\" or \"faggot\", and it should be explained to them that slurs can be very hurtful to other's feelings, but otherwise I don't see any problem with it. They're gonna start using those words eventually anyway, why censor it when they're young? It makes no sense to me.  I work in childcare, and I scold kids for saying those words because I have to in order to keep my job, but how is a kid saying \"shit\" any different than an adult saying it? \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The health drawbacks are more than enough reason to outlaw Marijuana. + \n + Should the war on drugs be eased up and should the punishment for possession be smaller? Of course. However, Marijuana slows brain function, dulls reflexes, can get you fired from jobs, can cause brain irregularities, etc. Medicinally it should be allowed, for people with seizures, PTSD, etc. But recreationally, feeling relaxed is not a good enough reason to hurt your brain. It contains carcinogens. It seems to me that stoners are using the same reasons that Tobacco smokers use, it is all feelings over facts. I understand that it woild create more revenue, but I care more about the health of people over the government's revenue.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Google Chrome is currently the most overrate browser and it continues to fall further behind + \n + I been using Google Chrome as far as i remember (probably since 2010) and it's been my default browser on all the computers/laptops I've used. Chrome was fast, reliable and most of all it had a great materials design. \nHaving said all that, recently Chromes has failed to live up to its name. Many browsers out there have the same if not better look and feel which also hold up in the speed department. To put it simply, other browsers has closed, if not overtaken the Chrome and everything it stood for.\nSaying that you use Chrome means nothing anymore, and might as well use IE (or the incarnation Spartan)   \n\nPlease change my view\n\nThank you for your replies  \nAlso, I am aware that the word overrated is misspelled  \n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I hate those little minions from the Despicable Me series + \n + They're *everywhere*. I know people that love them, they're even getting their own movie. But I just can't stand seeing them in any situation. They just seem annoying to me, or somehow \"gross\". Like a particularly smelly toddler with snot on their face who wants to give you a hug. Im going to Universal again this summer and they're all over the place there, so im hoping having some appreciation for them will make my time better.\n\nThis is very subjective and hard to really \"Debate\", but I suppose just hearing why people like them is nice. Most of my family and friends agree with me, and the lone friend I has who loves them just says she thinks \"They're cute!\".", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: nightmares are fun. + \n + Dreams are DMT trips or something, and bad trips are important for growth (good and bad; teaches balance). Also, it's a free trip, so it's got that going for it. \n\nBut let's say you don't care, or let's say I'm wrong about the DMT; bad dreams are interactive horror movies. How can you go wrong? Sure, you believe that everything happening to you is real, but you'll be safe and sound once you wake up. It's like a more intense version of those touchy-feely rides at Disney World or Universal Studios; like if The Shining was a ride like that. \n\nEven if you didn't volunteer to be on the ride, you can just brace yourself for a nightmare every night. \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Life is boring + \n + I'm in my late 20s. I've traveled a bit, done a bit of drugs, had some nice relationships. At this point I'm just so fucking bored with everything. Everyone I know is just working an office job for some corporation and getting drunk on the weekends. Over and over with no end in sight. \n\nLife used to be exciting. I feel like at some point I thought about it too much and you know that effect where you say a word over and over and it loses all meaning? I think that's what has happened with my life or my attitude about this planet in general.\n\nI feel like this makes me sound a bit depressed so don't worry Reddit, as Rust Cohle says \"I lack the constitution for suicide\". I'm just bored.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Those who buy from telemarketers are responsible for the existence of telemarketers. + \n + \nMy major gripe was in people behaving against their (and by extension all of our) best interests.  I also *assumed* that we all had the same best interests.  By and large I still think that, but it's not as clear cut.  Thank you all\n\n(1) /u/rustyrook - While it *sounds like* a sales pitch, it is easy to see that some offers may not be readily available at all times.  If the buyer feels that they have a rare opportunity, it is in their best interest to seize the opportunity.  Even if they were aware of the social impact, it would still be a worthwhile trade off.\n\n(2) /u/DaFranker  - While we might think that we are logical and think/act in our best interests, we often do not (akrasia).  This is common in every field and impossible to completely eliminate.  \n\n(3) /u/CurryThighs  - Telemarketers have predatory practices.  Just because they call me to find that I'm not worth the effort does not mean that they are not more persuasive with others.  \n\n(4) /u/nllpntr - Non profit organizations have different thressholds for what constitutes a successful campaign.  They are not subject to the national dnc list.  \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nI think most of us will agree that telemarketing is an intrusive practice.  It interrupts our day with unsolicited, unimportant offers.  It is generally a social burden.  \n\nHowever, I can't blame the telemarketing companies. They provide a service, follow the law and get a result for their client.  I can't blame the person working as a telemarketer.  Each person has to earn a living the best way that they can.  So long as it's a viable & legal model, it's fair.  I also don't blame the legal system.  We have national do not call lists, but there is only so much that big government can do.  It is a general, public good to allow strangers to contact one another.  Without breaking that down, the loopholes abound for companies.\n\nBut I do despise anyone who is willing to pay any amount of money for a product or service sold by a telemarketer.  This single handedly propagates the cycle and causes everyone else the annoyance of having to deal with a telemarketer.  Even if the person were interested in the product, I think it would be better to hang up the phone and purchase it elsewhere.  \n\n\n(A) I am in the United States\n\n(B) I am already registered in the national do not call registry.\n\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Countries besides USA (and a small select otheres) have had a long, rich history of a certain ethnic group. I think it's okay for these countries to severely restrict immigration to preserve their respective nations. + \n + There's been so much uproar over Sweden and the Netherlands and other countries that have been dealing with immigration issues. I would like to move to another country in the future so I understand wanting to move to a country in Europe, although I am not seeking asylum from a war torn homeland. At any rate, these countries have a history of an ethnic population and when one thinks of Sweden, there's a certain image just as when one thinks of what and who constitutes any specific country. I would hate to have Sweden be overrun by rampant immigration from any country (my problem is not with the Muslim population specifically/Middle eastern immigration but the idea of rampant immigration in general) just as I would hate for any other country, let's say Bangladesh, to be overrun with let's say, British immigration.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Agnosticism, under the definition of a \"middle-man\" position between theism and atheism, is incoherent. + \n + I believe that the \"I'm not taking sides in this debate until more evidence is established\" kind of agnosticism that many agnostics accociate with, is rational *only* if both theism and atheism has the burden of proof set upon them at the same time. However, I personally believe that the burden of proof is put on theism exclusively, which as a consequence renders this type of agnosticism incoherent.\n\nI can understand why someone for personal reasons would still label themselves as this kind of agnostic during some kind of transitionary phase, in the sense that one is still actively contemplating for which side to side on. But other than that, I view it as a completely irrational position to hold.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: \"Lockdowns\" should not be the default response to armed intruders in institutions. Lockdowns should not be drilled. + \n + This post is not about coming up with a solution to individuals engaging in mass violence. This post is about the effectiveness of lockdowns and specifically using a lockdown as the default, go-to solution that should be trained for, and drilled for. I do not believe schools should be drilling lockdowns. Which is basically described as:\n\n* Locking and possibly barricading doors,\n\n* Turning off lights\n\n* Hiding in the corner\n\nI understand why a \"lockdown\" would be the best thing to do in certain circumstances. For example to avoid bottle-necking exits and police are on-scene and when no other options are available.  I don't think it's a good first choice. I view it as a choice of last resort.\n\n**Effectiveness**\n\nThe rationales I've heard for lockdowns look good with a cursory glance but do not stand up when examined rationally in detail. That the ideas and goals behind them have not bared out true in real world cases. Where the assertions involving lockdowns are a series of logical fallacies, like bandwagoning, false cause, special pleading or other logical fallacy. Where basically people want something to be effective and therefore assume that it will be effective, all without looking at evidence if it was effective or not.\n\n**Security Theater**\n\nSomething must be done! Something will be done! Something is being done. Something has been done. All is therefore well and the masses are happy.\n\nI believe lockdowns are more about optics and emotion than about logic, evidence and effectiveness. That drilling for school shootings are the modern equivalent of \"Duck and Cover\" to avoid a nuclear attack. I'm sure that \"Duck and Cover\" could help some with falling debris. But like lockdowns, that's not what it was really about.\n\nDoes anyone honestly think that turning off the lights and being still in a corner is going to help in any meaningful way? It's a human being bent on violence and murder, not a velociraptor that is attracted to movement and does not understand a light switch.\n\n**Doors**\n\nThe first argument I hear is that locked doors slow an attacker down. No matter how strong it is, locking the door is never going to be effective if an attacker has the key. Keys can be acquired in advance or via force from a victim.\nPeople wildly overestimate the amount of time it takes to break down a door especially when the person expects to be breaking down a door. It's seconds. It's not hours, it's not minutes, it's seconds to destroy the kind of door at a school. The types of doors that are effective are the types of doors you find in prisons. \n\nFor example, [Sandy Hook Elementary](http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/12/us/sandy-hook-timeline/?sa=X&ved=0CBYQ9QEwADgUahUKEwjMub3DmIDHAhWIz4AKHWgEB-w#1) was specifically 'hardened' against outside attack. Administrators viewed it as a credible threat and took precautions. There was a security door that required buzz in and the school locked it's doors at 9:30am each day. The attacker in that case destroyed the security door, and broke into two other locked classrooms in order to kill 20 children and 6 adults. The ones in the classrooms were warned via the announcements and followed procedure. Police responded in 2mins 41 seconds and it was over before police could do anything. I don't know what could have been done-- if anything. I do know for certain that 1) locking doors, 2) turning off lights, and 3) hiding in the corner, did absolutely nothing useful. Which should not be surprising since it's not particularly difficult to break down a door.\n\n**Drilling**\n\nDrilling is so that people know what to do. This the part that I object to. Having a plan, sure. Taking precautions, sure. Talking about scenarios, sure. Practicing huddling in fear when someone is at the door-- No.\n\nDrilling one thing beyond all others reinforces it as being the 'right' solution and the one that 'should be' followed. It is a dynamic situation where all options need to be considered and drilling locks into one train of thought. It is harmful in that it is limiting. The correct solution is the one that they go home alive and unhurt. That should be the only thing that matters.\n\n**Knowing is half the battle**\n\nDrilling has another drawback. Odds are it is also going to be teaching attackers how best to find their victims. In most cases of school shootings the perpetrators were students. Knowing how everyone else will respond helps them plan how to do more harm. \n\n**Panic**\n\nA spurious reason I've heard for drilling is that it reduces panic. It's not going to do anything for panic in a real situation. If something does not go according to the drill then it is suddenly an unknown situation. The drill itself is creating a situation where panic is going to set in at the crucial moment.\n\nThe reason why panic is a problem is when someone panics they can freeze. Freezing is bad. However in this case the entire point of the lockdown drill is to teach children to freeze!\n\nDrill every day for a year and it will not matter. Muscle memory is not going to kick in. Nobody is going to know while huddling in the dark if the shots and scream they heard means their best friend is dead. Nobody knows if the person shooting has a key. Nobody knows if their room is going to be next. Nobody knows if they will be saved in time. Sitting in the dark all these things will be the only things they are thinking about. When [a school did an unannounced school shooting drill](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/19/principal-suspended-shooting-drill-jewett-academy-jacquelyn-moore_n_6188418.html) it was terrifying for all involved and the consensus was it was bad idea.\n\n**Meh. I'm sure it is fine.**\n\nKids generally do not take drills seriously. Drills themselves (as opposed to the real event it is simulating) are always kind of silly. Kids will make light of pretty much anything especially something like shooting up their friends. Drilling for anything carries the danger that when it really happens that people assume it is a drill especially for something that is a one in a million chance. \"Meh. I'm sure it's fine.\"\n\n**Triggering harm**\n\nThere are 55 million school children in the USA. About 20 suffer violent deaths on school grounds each year\u2014a 1 in 2.5 million chance. Those are the odds that harm will occur. How many of those deaths would have been prevented by running drills? Compare that to how many of those 55 million school children had a real traumatic event similar to the drill. If all 55 million go through lockdown drills how many kids are going to be triggered and suffer real harm by the fake drill?\n\nDrilling lockdowns wastes time that could be spent educating kids doing an activity of questionable value that is potentially psychologically scaring. Change my view. Make me believe that **drilling** lockdowns is a good idea. I do not believe that lockdowns are a good response to an armed attacker.\n\nNote that I do not have alternative but I do not believe I need to champion something else in order to criticize something I believe is a terrible idea. However the merits of lockdowns is a secondary concern. My primary concern is that actively drilling them causes real harm.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: women only want sex from folks that will provide for them in the long run + \n + before you guys bombard me with downvotes i would simply like to point out that i am not saying this is true. i am just expressing my conditional views that i am forced to live with. these are obviously the views i wish you guys could help me conquer.\n\nto get started i'm pretty sure that by now you guys are probably thinking \"this fool has spend too much time at /r/theredpill\". but i'm not gonna lie, i was a member there once. in fact i had this mentality years before being part of that subreddit. it wasnt till last year when they decided to banned me over some stupid post that i finally woke up and ended up realizing how stupid and ignorant i been by using such sexist tactics to fulfill the grudges i held towards women for my past unsuccessful moments with them. i simply moved on and said \"fuck it! i dont want to be miserable like these guys.\"\n\nanyways growing up i was always conditioned to believe that we men are always happy and conformed with life just as long as we got a vagina to stick our penises in whenever it is available to us while women in the other hand dont just want a penis in them. they only want a penis that...\n\n-will provide for them and take care of them in the long run\n\n-is as hot as Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt or Christian Bale\n\n-that is rich and wealthy\n\n-that's gonna give them the will and ability to make all their other girlfriends jealous\n\n-and the list goes on\n\nanyways those these things are common logic in today's society unfortunately i know that this cant always be the case. i feel like i got these things engraved in my conscious now and no matter how much i try to see it from a positive perspective i always get a rush of negative thoughts from my past experiences and old believes that force me to end up back in the old pessimistic mindset that i been stuck with all of my life.\n\nso can anyone please help me conquer this mindset once and for all? \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I don\u2019t see anything wrong with the legalisation of polygamous marriage + \n + In the argument against gay marriage, people often use the \u2018slippery slope\u2019 argument that it\u2019s legalisation would lead on to polygamous marriages also becoming legal. I\u2019m not interested in arguing whether or not this *will* happen, but why it would be a bad thing if it did. This would be within the context of people being allowed to have multiple marriages, you would not automatically be married to your spouse\u2019s other spouse, although you could choose to do this.\n\nWhile I personally am not interested in polygamy, what's wrong with it? \n\nIt's natural for humans to live in groups. 'Tribes' or 'family' whatever you would like to call it. I don't see anything wrong with families that have several adults to act as role models for children. I just can't see why it would be detrimental to children to be raised in that environment.\n\nTo be allowed to marry you need to be a consenting adult and in being one people can make their own relationship decisions. As long as there isn't a sex bias (e.g. men can have many wives but not the other way around), then I think that people can make their own decision about whether a polygamous relationship is something they want. They retain the right to get divorced if their spouse marries someone else when they want a monogamous marriage, just like people retain the right to get a divorce if their spouse cheats on them.\n\nPeople sometimes argue against polygamous marriages saying that people are already legally allowed to have polygamous relationships, why get married? Because of the legal privileges associated with it? When I get married the legal benefits of being married are going to be way down on the list of reasons. Getting married is a way to show your love for someone. \n\nA big argument going against it is that the legality of it would be very complex. I don\u2019t think that\u2019s necessarily the case. If you died your possessions would be divided up amongst your spouses. Your children would either go to their other parent or be claimed by a next of kin who wants them, with fitness to look after them being determined by a court of law. As is the case currently with children whose parents die without leaving a will e.g. should they go to uncle A or uncle B? There are lots of examples of legal contracts which are binding to groups of people, why couldn\u2019t this be applied to marriage? It could be encouraged, or even possibly mandatory, to have pre-nuptial agreements which define legal aspects of the marriage relating to property ownership, etc. prior to getting married if you\u2019re married to more than one person. With current spouses also signing this document.\n\nI\u2019m not really that interested in ethical arguments. Why should one person\u2019s ethics determine how other people live their lives? For example, I don\u2019t think I would ever have an abortion for my own personal ethical reasons. That doesn\u2019t mean that I\u2019m against other people having the option.\n\nI'm really interested to know if anyone has any good arguments against polygamous marriages. I think a lot of people are against them for their own personal ethical reasons, because they don\u2019t want one themselves, rather than for an actually good, justifiable reason.\n\nSo please try to CMV! I\u2019m going to try to reply to every direct response to me. I get really p***ed off when people cherry-pick arguments and ignore the ones that don't suit them. If there are a lot of responses it may take a while though so please be patient! But in saying that if you reply purely because I\u2019ve committed to responding; if you put forth a low-effort comment you will get a low-effort answer.\n\n\n\n\"While I still think there is nothing wrong with polygamous relationships & the concept of some sort of legal commitment, this couldn't be marriage. You could have some kind of legally binding partnership with multiple partners which has some of the benefits of marriage, such as recognition of the partnership affecting things like visitation rights and a legal claim to be next of kin, but this wouldn't be the same as marriage as we have it now. It's not so much about when people in the marriage are living together, but if things later needed to be taken apart. There is just no way to predict every possibility for a pre-nuptial agreement, and the situation could get so complex that you couldn't have a standard that could be fallen back on every time.\"\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: A system in which students offer \"shares\" of their future earnings is preferable to the current student loan system. + \n + My post is inspired by [this article](http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/politics/chris-christie-suggests-students-sell-themselves-to-investors-to-pay-for-college/) in which a major politician proposes allowing college students to sell \"shares\" of their future earnings to investors in exchange for funding their education.    \n\nI have seen people criticize this system as one of \"indentured servitude\", presumably because for a period of years students could not be released from the requirement to pay a portion of their earnings to the investor(s). \n\nHowever, the current system of student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy, amounting to a lifetime obligation anyway (or longer, if they die early and there are co-signers on the loan).  \n\nAdmittedly, fixed-amount loans are better for students who have unexpectedly high earnings -- so this system might discourage some risk-taking.  But so does the current system for those who want to avoid the down-side unemployment and no long-term relief from student loans. \n\nA system of \"shares\" would likely also discourage investors from paying for worthless online degrees, or college amenities that do not advance future earnings. \n\nThis is a relatively new concept for me, so I'm eager to hear from those who want to change my view, or at least help me refine my understanding of the trade-offs.  Thanks for weighing in!\n\n\n\n\n* Investors would find this product more risky than loans, and so it would not fit the business model of banks\n* Stupid people would no longer be able to, literally, mortgage their future to \"dream\" unrealistically\n* Direct taxpayer funding of college might be better than either system.\n* This deal would be better for some people than for others.  For those who wind up making higher incomes, it would on average be a worse deal than existing student loans, for those who wind up making lower incomes it would on average be a better deal.\n\nEven if I agreed with these things, and mostly I do, they would not change my view.  Finally, there has been a lot of discussion premised (and I was guilty of this too, at first) on the notion that your field of study would be a major driver for attracting investors.  I'm coming around to the view that except in the case of very specialized programs (e.g. engineering, medicine), field of study won't be as big a factor as student achievement and quality of school overall. \n\nFrom this point forward, I may not respond to all (or any) further responses, except if I feel they are really adding something new.  Nonetheless, I hope the discussion continues with others participating as desired!\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: As a man I think that peeing while sitting on the toilet is more comfortable and more hygienic except when using public restrooms. + \n + I don't see any reason why men should be taught only how to pee standing or think it is the only proper way to do it. I've been often mocked by my dad or friends when I revealed I actually prefer to sit while peeing cause I don't have to worry about aiming it in the hole, I don't risk to get my hands too dirty and overall is more relaxing. I pee standing only if I am in a public restroom but in any household I prefer to sit, even if the common opinion is \"You act like a woman, you are weird, you don't know how to pee like a real man\".", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: All our airforce bomber pilots are disgusting violent savages + \n + \nThis idea hit me when I came across this [NSFL video](http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c5f_1309711220) video of two men who stole potatoes getting beaten with bricks then burned alive. I was full of rage and anger thinking to myself how humans can be so extremely evil. Taking a persons life is already horrendous but doing it to a innocent person in this manner is just atrocious. \n\nBut then I realized, this is the exact way civilians die in the cities we bomb and help bomb. When Israel bombs Gaza, what happens? Do the over 1000 civilians drift peacefully into death and become a statistic or do they suffer like in this video? Or when we relentlessly bombed Iraq, what happened to the people? Bombs cause fire. Bombs cause bricks to hit you. What's different? The fact that we don't see it? \n\nWe all can agree that the perpetrators in this video are disgusting violent savages, but the pilot that does the same thing in Iraq is regarded as a hero. We can't even think for a second about how evil a person that does such acts is. A bomb both causes fires and ruble to fall on people. In fact, that's usually how most people die of airstrikes. So why do we call one person who does it a disgusting pig while the other we call a hero. \n\nIt's no secret that nearly all our bombings result in civilian casualties so this leads me to the conclusion that all our bomber pilots are at the same level of the people in the video and thus are disgusting violent savages. CMV\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: If I don't plan on buying a brand new car or a house, then credit doesn't matter, and paying medical bills doesn't matter, and there are no real repercussions for not paying them. + \n + If I go to the hospital, and can't pay my medical bill, I understand that they bump it over to collections, and my credit score takes a hit. Collections calls me, I still don't pay, then they sell the debt to another collections agency. Rinse and repeat, eventually my debt is worthless from the lack of payments, and collection calls stop. Of course my credit is shit at this point, but I'm not planning to buy a house or a new car, so it never affects me. Or am I wrong?\n\nI ask because I work with the chronically poor in America, and some of them have racked up $60,000 in medical bills they will never ever pay off. And they know this. But because they aren't really relying on bank loans for anything, it seems to not matter.\n\nI've also noticed as a middle class white person, that every apartment I've applied for has explicitely told me they check renter's history, and not credit score. So not paying medical bills doesn't seem to affect that.\n\nWhat am I missing?\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is nothing wrong with a young gay person choosing to be celibate + \n + So I am a gay guy in his 20s who has decided to abstain from sex for the rest of my life. I am not religious to be honest but I just don't really think that my life needs sex or companionship to be 1/2 decent.\n\nWhen I told a couple of people that I know they were shocked and wanted me to get some therapy or some other waste of time but its nothing to do with homophobia, I just don't get along with other people, don't like people being close to me and I don't get lonely so I see it as a rational choice, I am perfectly happy in my small flat with my pet dog and that's it .\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There are such things as wrong opinions. + \n + I'm not sure how to entirely explain this, but I'll try.  There are things in society like racism that are just wrong.  There's a kid at my school who defends his extremely conservative views (e.g. anti-gay marriage, anti-black...really old-school-80-year-old-man-from-Alabama type thing) by saying that it's \"just his opinion.\"  I think any level-headed person on the planet wild agree that racism is fundamentally wrong and that it is not valid to defend it by claiming it's your opinion.  \n\nSome argue that the First Amendment allows you to say whatever you'd like.  While that is true, if you go up to a minority person and make a racist comment and they punch you in the teeth, I don't think anyone is going to give a shit about your First Amendment rights.  ", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:Due to the high rate of divorce & infidelity in our society, legal guardianship should automatically revert to parents, not spouses, should the need arise. + \n + Looking at the divorce rate, the Ashley Madison database of 37 million and the unhappy marriages implied therein, it seems that hundreds of thousands if not millions of people are putting themselves at risk of having legal guardianship automatically assigned to a person who does not have their best interest at heart.\n\nGiven that your parents are much more likely to have your best interests at heart, unlike a cheating spouse, legal guardianship should default to them first. \n\nTo clarify, I am speaking about making medical, financial & legal decisions on behalf of a person when they are unable to due to a major injury, such as after being in a car crash or suffering a stroke.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think that for someone like me with real & consistent access to vegan options, every time I eat animal products, I'm doing something selfish & morally wrong. + \n + I've been a vegetarian with no problem for 18 years now. 7 months ago, after reading [this AMA](http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2h8df0/i_am_an_80yearold_holocaust_survivor_who/) with Dr. Alex Hershaft, a Holocaust survivor and animal rights activist, I decided it was past time that I went vegan. I no longer believe there is available to me (presently, vat-grown stuff is looking pretty neat) such a thing as 'humane' eggs or dairy-- among other examples, egg-laying hen breeders kill roosters when they are still chicks and dairy cows are forcibly impregnated and their babies taken away from them. I understand that there's no way to completely avoid harming another creature, especially in our current industrial agriculture system, but I think it's my responsibility to reduce the harm I do as much as I can. I live in the U.S., have a good income, real & consistent access to vegan alternatives, and have never experienced health problems from not eating animal products.\n\nYet, I'm still struggling. Even after I added a 'freegan' clause that I can eat animal products I am not paying for that would otherwise be thrown away (just as I can buy used leather shoes-- I'm not contributing to demand for the product), I often give in to temptation when, say, ice cream is on the table. I know veganism is not about being perfect, but still, I know better. And there's a lot of social pressure-- everyone seems to hate vegans, thinks we're self-righteous pains in the ass, up to and including my live-in boyfriend. \n\nI truly believe that contributing to the demand for exploitative animal products is wrong, deeply wrong and utterly fucked. And at the same time, I desperately (forgive the adverbs) want to give up veganism altogether and eat a plate of cheese fries from my favorite dive bar every other day. Change my view?\n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I support the idea, but I think Anita Sarkeesian is a hack + \n + I consider myself a feminist, but it bothers me when people support Anita Sarkeesian. I feel she has played a victim to generate income, and used that income to produce less than she suggested she would, as her videos seem cheap from a production basis and weak/underresearched/selective in content. It seems as if she used her attackers, even minor trolling, to generate money for her Kickstarter, and then used the money from Kickstarter and the fame it brought for personal means and to benefit her career. The content itself is very iffy, even for someone who wants to find flaws in the way women are depicted in games and feels that the industry is very troubling for women and female depictions. I feel that taking someone with even a somewhat iffy background and making them your forefront of a movement is a poor choice, and it bothers me when people use her as such. That said, I fear that a lot of the evidence of her misdoing may be purported and bolstered by people who have a vested interest in making her seem like a fraud because of her entire movement, not her alone, so I am here to hear your insight. CMV.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:The Jaegers from Pacific Rim are an incredibly bad solution to the Kaiju problem + \n + \nFirst, let me get this out of the way. I understand that this is a movie, and that the idea of giant robots fighting monsters is a far more appealing concept for a movie than a destroyer shooting a missile at them.\n\nThat said, the Jaegers are an awful solution to the kaiju problem. There are other methods which would work far more cheaply, easily AND effectively than a gigantic, expensive robot that only a few people in the whole world can crew.\n\nFor example, we see Striker Eureka employing anti-kaiju missiles in the film effectively. Since these missiles exist and are proven to be effective, I have to question why the jaeger is necessary. Why can't these missiles be fired from ships, vehicles or airplanes? \n\nI understand that kaiju are evasive and fairly quick for their size, but we already have cruise missiles that can travel at over mach 7, and targeting systems capable of hitting targets far faster, more evasive and smaller than any kaiju. \n\nInstead of, say, attaching these effective warheads to cruise or ballistic missiles, we instead build gigantic, expensive, hard to crew, hard to produce and frankly not that effective robots. \n\nThat's not even mentioning the plasma cannon, which could also be employed without the Jaeger. Something like a gigantic tank with anti-kaiju missiles and a plasma cannon would be a superior weapon to the Jaeger in just about every way. \n\nHello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules[1] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views[2] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki[3] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us[4] . Happy CMVing!", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Under capitalism, the wealth of the \"rich\" works to the general benefit of everyone. + \n + It is my belief that the great majority of average people's opinions about economic policies are predicated on a central false assumption: that the wealth of the \"rich\" provides only a private benefit to the \"rich\" themselves. Or, if people recall the basic lesson of economics that, in a free economy, wealth is not zero-sum, they still dramatically underestimate the degree to which the wealth of the \"rich\" benefits not just the \"rich\" but everyone in society.\n\nThe fact that people believe this can be seen in virtually any reddit thread on political-economic debates. There are the usual cursory dismissals of so-called \"trickle-down economics\" (itself a pejorative term for supply-side economics). There is the condemnation of income inequality and the call for redistribution. There are the constant demands for more government intervention into the economy and allegations that the cause of our economic and political troubles is lobbying by corporations and the \"rich\" for policies that benefit only their class interest.\n\nThere are two separate lines of argument here: the economic and the political. The economic argument is that the rich are \"hoarding\" too much wealth, which is no longer finding its way to the common man. The political argument is that the lobbying of the rich is the cause of governmental \"cronyism\" and special-interest politics. I think the political argument has more of a kernel of truth than the economic, but they are both utterly off-base.\n\n**The Economic Argument**\n\nWhy is it somewhat natural for the naive person to think that the wealth of the rich benefits only the rich? It's because the average person thinks about where the great majority of *his own* wealth lies: in consumption goods. If I've got food in my refrigerator, you can't eat it. If I've got a car in my driveway, you can't drive it. If I've got a bed in my house, you can't sleep on it. Consumption goods provide a private, exclusive benefit which only one person (and perhaps his friends and relatives) can enjoy.\n\nBut the wealth of the rich does not consist exclusively\u2014or even predominately\u2014in ever-larger piles of caviar and champagne. If it did, then it really would just be wasteful \"hoarding\", and calls to stop it would be rational. On the contrary, however, the wealth of the rich consists predominately in *capital goods* and in claims to wealth such as bank deposits, stocks, and bonds, which are claims on wealth loaned out almost exclusively to businesses for the carrying-on of production.\n\nThe **fundamental** point to realize is that capital goods\u2014as with productive spending in general\u2014provide *no special benefit* to their owner in their capacity as means of production. As means of production, they provide a *general benefit* to everyone. The only special or private benefit derived from means of production is the ability of their owner to exchange their proceeds for consumption goods, instead of reinvesting the profits into additional capital goods.\n\nFor example, does the ice-cream man's truck provide him a private benefit? No: it benefits all the children who are willing and able to buy ice cream from him. Neither does the gas with which he fills the truck or the additional ice cream he buys to restock his inventory provide him a private benefit. The only private benefit comes insofar as he decides to sell the truck or use the profits not to buy more gas and ice cream, but to buy consumption goods for himself.\n\nThe same goes, on a larger scale, for a company like Toyota. Do Toyota's factories only benefit the shareholders of Toyota? Obviously not. They benefit everyone who is willing and able to buy a Toyota, by making those cars available to him at a lesser cost. The only private benefit to the shareholders comes insofar as they decide to use their dividends not to buy more stock, but to spend them on consumption goods for themselves.\n\nFrom the opposite direction, it is necessary to address the \"broken window fallacy\", which is extraordinarily common when dealing with questions like this. Many people, apparently having taken the lesson that wealth is not zero-sum too far, think that **consumption** provides a general benefit to society\u2014and therefore that we should encourage as much of it as possible. This is not the case.\n\nFor example, take the purchase of a Ferrari, which is a consumption good. The naive view is that this \"creates jobs\" and is therefore good for the economy. The fact is, however, that the Ferrari represents, from the point of view of society, the consumption of wealth. In other words, it is the *destruction* of wealth. Yes, it transfers some wealth from the buyer to the Ferrari company and its employees, but it is a *net loss.* The engineering talent and factories which made the Ferrari could instead have been allocated toward the production of industrial machines and trucks which contribute to further production.\n\nNow, this is not to say that we ought to ban Ferraris or other forms of consumption spending by the rich. They are necessary as an incentive to produce, and innovation in the form of toys for the rich often results in technologies that have wider application. But there is no need to \"increase demand\" or \"stimulate consumption\": we already have enough *needs* in the world; what we need is more *supply*, more ability to produce.\n\nThe connection to this to the point about the general benefit of the wealth of the rich is: contrary to most people's assumptions about \"trickle-down economics\", the rich do not benefit society insofar as they frivolously spend or give away their fortunes. (I really do think this is what many people think: that tax cuts for the rich are supposed to be good because it will encourage them to be more charitable or maybe buy a few new Ferraris.) Rather, the more parsimonious and Scrooge-like a rich person is\u2014the less he spends on personal consumption and the more he saves and invests into productive enterprises\u2014the greater does his fortune benefit society.\n\nAnd that's the essential point: the world's richest people may control a large share of the total *wealth*, but they do not spend nearly as much of that wealth on *consumption* as does the average person. Now, if the goal of leftist movements were to decrease the amount the rich spend on consumption and make them save and invest more, it would at least be understandable (if unwise). But the desire to increase *corporate* and *inheritance* taxes or, worse, have a *capital* tax could not be more counter-productive. These represent the taxing of wealth which goes almost exclusively toward production and which therefore provides a general benefit to everyone.\n\n**The Political Argument**\n\nI will deal with this much more succinctly, since it is less complex. It is observed that our political system grants all kinds of special favors to connected companies, such as corn, sugar, and ethanol subsidies. And reddit is always blowing up over the Trans-Pacific Partnership and similar deals which grant special protections and favors to certain companies.\n\nBut do such deals exist because of the lobbying of the rich? Absolutely not, when you turn to the question of the fundamental causes. No company could ever stand up and say that, purely out of naked greed for the unearned, they demand that the American people subsidize them. They come in on the grounds the socialists and interventionists have already prepared for them: that the government has to step in and intervene in the economy for the good of society. They merely argue that the good of society is achieved by interventions on their behalf.\n\nNow, of course, each individual voter cannot take the time and effort to lobby for the *general* interest, as opposed to the special interest of a cronyist company. There is the familiar problem of concentrated gains by the special interest and diffused costs of the general interest.\n\nThe weapon of the individual voter is the principle of *laissez-faire*: that he will not tolerate *any* intervention in *any* case, and that he will vote out any politician who votes for such an intervention. But it is precisely this weapon which the dominance of interventionist economic ideology takes out of his hands.\n\nThis is all to say: cronyism does not exist as the product of lobbying by the rich for their class interest. It exists because the average voter *believes* in the philosophy of the mixed economy and the welfare-regulatory state. Cronyism is simply the inevitable consequence of the concentration of economic power in the hands of the state. If one wants to stop money going into politics, one must take away the power of politics to control the flow of money.\n\n**TL;DR: Everyone benefits from the wealth of the rich, insofar as they spend it on production. The cause of political cronyism is not wealth inequality but the concentration of economic power in the hands of the state.**\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: It is annoying when photographers place their logos like \"Clearwater Photography\" on pictures you pay them to take, because it devalues the picture for you the customer. + \n + My main complaints with this are that:\n\n1. To be branding all your pictures make you seem amateur and unprofessional.\n2. It makes the picture less personal for the customer at their expense when you have your logo so large on their picture.\n3. With all the publicity, you won't be known anyway since for every square mile of land, there are at least 5 amateur photographers or people with high-tech digital cameras.\n4. It looks ugly in general, and does not belong in the picture, I can clearly where you put it even when you try to hide it by camouflaging it to the background. \n5. And usually quite noticeable, especially when near the centre, beside the main object or person of the picture.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Remote Work is the way of the future. Companies that offer little or no remote work options have an ethical obligation to explore and implement remote working flexibility for their knowledge workers. + \n + The office as we know it is a relic from a time before internet and the digital tools to work, plan, and collaborate from any location with an internet connection.\n\nMost office jobs are already done on a computer connected to the internet, with email and different business applications. Business workflows that still involve physical papers in an office usually exist not because there isn't a complete digital solution on the market to replace and streamline the process, but that an effort to research and implement that solution has not yet been prioritized.\n\nA great deal of office communication is done by email or over the phone. Communication which is done in person usually stems not from necessity, but social instincts from being obliged against your wishes to share a physical space during a certain time of the day as a condition for employment. If employees want to see each other during meetings or one-on-one conversations, there are tools like Skype to do that.\n\nWhen office jobs only include work  that can be accomplished anywhere with a laptop and internet access, and necessitate communication that can all be accomplished through email, phone, webcam, that job has the capability to be done completely (or at least partially with little exception) remotely.\n\nTo accept this premise about most office jobs, and to agree that a great majority of people would be fully willing and extremely happy about the flexibility to do some or all of their work from home or a location of their own choosing, I am left to conclude that businesses with these jobs have an ethical obligation on the part of owners and upper management to dedicate as much working time as necessary (that doesn't interfere with the company's livliehood) to researching and implementing a flexible remote work option for all personell completely or partially capable of performing their duties from any location with phone and internet access.\n\nIn 2015, company owners, directors, and mangement in a position to implement remote working flexibility for their employees that refuse to do so are probably lazy at best, and at worst are also abusing their leverage as the employer in a job market by persisting the now archaic model of the office, and are being inconsiderate towards possibly increasing their employee's happiness exponentially.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Trying to save the pandas is a waste of time, money, and resources. We should let them go extinct. + \n + First off, I like pandas I think they are cute and interesting; however, I think we should let that species meet whatever natural end is coming. Many valuable resources are devoted to saving the panda because pandas are extremely well known and popular, not because they have a good chance of survival.   Here are the reasons I believe this:\n  \n1) Pandas have lost much of their natural habitat due to the population explosion in China.  While this is regrettable, it is not likely to get fixed anytime soon. This means that even if we are able to revive this species they won't have anywhere to live.   \n  \n2) pandas, as a species, have chosen poorly. They are carnivorous animals who's main diet is bamboo. Their digestion can only process about 5% of the stuff in bamboo. That means they have to eat huge amounts of bamboo everyday. With the reduced habitat this is getting harder and harder. Either they need some microevolutionary shift to eat more nutritious sources of food orthey should join the likes of the dodo bird.   \n  \n3) human efforts to revive the population have shown some increases, but at what cost? It is incredibly difficult to get pandas to mate with one another, it's like they don't even want their species to survive. I get they aren't actually making this choice, this is just a facetious way of saying that their instincts and biology do not support the kind of growth in population hey need. Hell, half of their births are twins and the mother almost always lets one die because she doesn't produce enough milk. I realize this would take evolution to fix and this problem is way too short term, but it means that their survival requires an exorbanant amount of human intervention. Since their is a finite amount of resources conservationists can dedicate to endangered resources they are killing other more likely to survive species.  \n  \n4) I'm not saying we should encourage the decline of the panda. We should still try to preserve what habitat they have left and ban hunting them, but they are so far gone and require so much help that we shouldnt waste too many resources on them. Let the panda try to support a small and natural population without our interference. If they cannot achieve this goal, I don't think it's worth the resources to help them grow.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Even for conservatives in both Israel and the US, there is no good reason to oppose the Iran Deal except for political capital. + \n + If we (the US) don't sign the deal and then a war ensues (which assumes Iran is actually developing a nuclear weapon and conservatives in the both the US and Israel aren't bluffing), we will look bad. We will be the ones who sabotaged our own diplomatic efforts (that the US spearheaded, hurting our reputation and clout abroad) and who preemptively started a war that will take not only Iranian lives, but also likely Israeli and even American lives. We will be the aggressors who forsook a diplomatic solution for a likely disastrous war in a region that can hardly afford any more instability. We will lose our allies, and be seen as weaker than if we had not made a deal.\n\nNow, if we do sign the deal and Iran continues to develop a nuclear weapon in violation of the agreement and the aforementioned war does come to pass, the onus of starting the war falls on Iran for they are the ones who broke the agreement they signed and built a nuclear weapon despite they continued insistence that they are not, have not, and will never do so. They will be the ones to draw the condemnation and ire of the world, knowing full well the military consequences of building a nuclear bomb (which, on a side note, they will never actually use). Strategically, even for the conservative, the Iran deal is a win-win, and any opposition to it is either for short term political gain or born out of strategic myopia. There will not be a better deal, nor will there be another chance for negotiation if we don't uphold our end of the agreement. In short, the only thing anyone has to lose in this deal is some political capital. \n\nCMV that this deal is actually harmful to anyone", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: It's just a lion and I see no reason to care. + \n + To me, a human's well-being and enjoyment always trump an animal's. It's why we can morally justify continuing to eat meat despite rampant abuse of animals and despite no specific human need to continue to eat meat in much of the western world. This is the same thing; most of the time, we aren't hunting because we need to, we're hunting because we want to. \n\nWhat this selective outrage over Cecil tells me is that we, as a society, simply don't have any unified logic towards how we are supposed to treat animals and instead attach our moral views of animal treatment to whatever our culture finds fashionable. Walter James Palmer is potentially going to face criminal charges while Tyson and Perdue make an industry out of their treatment of animals. There is little difference. \n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Anti-Victim-blaming culture is suppressing the spread of helpful information that can prevent rape. + \n + I often see any talk about rape go hand in hand with two sides: people advocating increased safety of all people, and people defending victims of rape by saying that information triggers victims, and therefore the information ends up at ends. This includes language such as \"Pepper spray can deter attackers of any kind, and therefore it is strongly recommended that ANYBODY carries it with them at all times.\" or \"Hot zones for crime include times after dusk and before dawn, so it is advised to travel in groups at this time to deter attackers.\"\n\nPeople rage at this information saying that I should not ask anything of the victim, and that this information is useless. People often use the argument \"We should teach people NOT TO RAPE\"\n\nMy issue here is that the suppression of this information in lieu of pursuing an idealistic rape-free culture neglects the current standing of our surroundings, and that dangerous people still exist, and will exist for the foreseeable future. I see no harm in telling anyone that safety is important, and that there are very cogent steps to significantly lower your risk of being attacked and/or raped.\n\nThe only instance I would excuse my previous statement would be people telling actual victims of rape what they COULD have done. This does nothing to change what happened, and is a slimey thing to do.\n\nMaybe this is just an Anti-SJW rant that I didn't even know I was making, or maybe I have an actual argument here. If I am not clear on this classic argument, I would appreciate some clarity, and am always open to thoughtful and courteous discussion.\n\nPlease no flaming, arguing, or fighting. Thank you!\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Reddit's \"hive mind\" is creating a cycle that encourages unoriginal content rather than thoughtful comments + \n + I have this opinion for a while now. I feel that Reddit is slowly becoming a place not for thoughtful comments or discussion, but rather a website for obtaining worthless internet points with unoriginal content. Even without considering submissions, I have found the comment sections to be very frustrating. I know that Reddit (occasionally, and often jokingly) acknowledges the \"hive mind.\" However, this seems more as a means of allowing the user to seem not a part of the hive mind and therefore unique, rather than actually criticizing it and attempting to fix the problem. \n\nFor instance, on a recent post pertaining to the Columbia rape ordeal with the girl carrying her mattress around, the link directed to an article with pictures of posters around the university claiming the girl is lying. There was no evidence or even speculation in the article that said she was/wasn't lying. However, in the comment section for the post, almost every single comment was able how terrible the \"liar\" was and how she deserved it. I immediately thought her claim was proven false, as everyone was so adamant. A quick google check did not confirm anything, except that there is not enough evidence. I did not even bother to comment explaining this, as previous commenters who deviated away from the \"witch-hunt\" were downvoted to oblivion. I am not making a comment on the actual event. As there is no evidence, I feel that I cannot assert that she was or wasn't raped. I know that the concept of false-rape accusations against males comes up quite frequently on Reddit. I completely agree that these claims can seriously hurt and damage an individual's social reputation and mental health. I don't have a problem with that. It just seems that Reddit has become infatuated with this concept and is making claims without any evidence; which is a bit hypocritical given the situation. Anyone who dares to voice their opposing opinion is immediately drowned out.\n\nI realize that not all of Reddit is like this. And of course, I will admit that I have been caught in the moment and contributed to some degree. However, I feel that a large portion is caught up in the hive mind and is not even aware of the issue. Please change my view. Thank you.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Zach Jesse should not have been banned for life from MtG tournaments by Wizards of the Coast + \n + So I'm not sure how many of you guys are aware of the recent events in the MtG world but today a professional player, Zach Jesse, was banned presumably because of his past criminal history which includes a sexual assault guilty plea when he was 19. I'm not aware of the exact circumstances surrounding his offense. \n\nWhat unsettles me about the ban is that it seems to have occurred because another player, Drew Levin, pointed out Jesse's criminal past with a Twitter post: \"\"Quick reminder: Zach Jesse is a literal rapist who got away with serving three months of an eight year plea deal.\" It should be noted that this is a very speculative and misleading statement, as the public is not aware of the details surrounding his plea.\n\nWizards of the Coast gave a short statement saying that the reasoning behind the ban was to ensure that players feel safe at events. Obviously a worthy endeavor, but I don't see how it really applies here. We are talking about large events at convention centers with thousands of people, security, etc. If, in the eyes of the law, he is not considered a threat to the public (i.e. not in jail) then how can Wizards see him as one?\n\nAnd what's the point in attempting to rehabilitate criminals if they are to be forever shunned from participating even in large public events? It's not like the guy is applying for a teaching job at an elementary school or something. They even banned him from online play.\n\nLastly, I do not think Wizards should have taken this action based on a Twitter witch-hunt that was started by another player. If they want to have a universal no criminal record policy at all of their events, then maybe it would be justified. But to selectively ban one person because he was villified on a social media site is pretty unreasonable, IMO.\n\nI want to hear people's thoughts on this because it seems like the r/magictcg community is vehemently opposed to the ban. I'd like to hear some outside opinion's. The SRS crowd seems to support the ban, calling r/magictcg a bunch of rape apologists, etc, but then again the SRS crowd is not very logical or reasonable. So I'd like to hear what you all think. CMV,\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Your job is not a right and thus any associated benefits are not a duty for your employer. CMV. + \n + I have been thinking a lot about the ACA and recently watched the Last Week Tonight on the Hobby Lobby case which I disagreed quite a bit with. It brought up a lot of thoughts about what I think about the interaction between business, employees and government.\n\nSo my basic presumption is that your job is not a right, because if you do your job poorly your employer should have the ability to find a better employee (feel free to CMV here). Thus, the associated benefits associated with your job (read: heath insurance but also including pensions, paid vacation, etc.) are not duties to be provided by the employer, but rather *benefits* to incentivize better employees to work for that business.\n\nIt mostly stems from the idea that even if just theoretically, the basis of the Hobby Lobby case could dis-incentivize business. Say for example Hobby Lobby had lost its case in the Supreme Court. If the owners of the company were truly opposed to providing whatever certain contraception they had been forced to provide, they would close their doors or sell their company. Should this be an acceptable potential outcome?\n\nPlease be aware, I am NOT saying that health care is not a right (nor that employers do not have duties to their employees). I am saying it is not a duty of an employer to provide insurance or for a law to state employers must provide it. Rather health insurance should be, in regard to an employer, a benefit that should incentivize the type of employee to apply at the company. If a company didn't find they were getting enough, or skilled enough employees, the company could choose to alter its considerations and provide things they would not have otherwise. This puts the decision clearly in the hands of the company (and the market for labor). A universal healthcare could be provided by the government, and taxed for. \n\nFeel free to address the statements like \"My boss shouldn't control what I do with my body.\" It seems a bit exclusive. I hear \"provide me additional benefits at your cost but if it isn't to my liking I would still rather keep this job and blame you for providing me more than pay but not enough stuff instead of taking my skills elsewhere.\"\n\nI've been awake for a long time so I probably could've formatted this better but I think most of my thoughts are here. Is a job a right? Is employment as a general whole a right but not any specific job? Is it a duty for an employer to provide benefits like insurance, retirement plans/pensions, vacation etc. Am I incorrect that it could provide negative incentives to business? \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: With the drought in California, I should no longer be proud to eat local produce and support local farmers (in most cases) + \n + Everyone knows there's a terrible drought in California. I've noticed tons of people talking about how bad it is, how they are going to take shorter showers, etc. But then those tend to be the same people who \"eat local\" and love these restaurants that serve all locally grown produce / meat, etc.\n\nThose local farms are, in many cases, growing crops that require an incredible amount of water compared to the amount of food they produce. I understand that there is a complex issue here, and I'm not saying they should all stop growing rice overnight, but I certainly don't feel *good* about eating locally grown produce anymore, and I don't think it should be seen as such a great thing in light of the drought.\n\nLocally grown food may be superior  because it is fresher, or because it doesn't use as much gas to ship here, etc. But I don't feel good about consuming produce that is contributing to the water shortage, when we could be getting it from places that aren't in a drought.\n\nIMHO, the whole \"locally grown\" craze should be replaced with \"grown with responsible water usage\" or something like that. Of course that isn't trivial to define, but that's a problem for another day. I'd love to support local farmers that were growing crops well suited to the terrain.\n\n\n\n* I live in Northern California (San Francisco)\n* I don't have a great definition for \"local\", but let's say within 50 miles. I may have mentioned international before, but the real \"local food\" thing seems to be around 50 miles, e.g. not mega-farms in the central valley\n* I'm considering all food products, produce, dairy, meat, etc.\n* My main hypothesis is that by avoiding \"local\" and instead going for \"water efficient\" (which may, in some cases, be local), we encourage local farmers to care more about water usage than they otherwise might, and that this is a good, helpful thing. So my actual view is that always supporting \"local food\" is actually making the water shortage worse because it is encouraging poor distribution and usage of water.\n\n\nSome things that could convince me:\n\n1. The carbon footprint of bringing in produce from further away is worse, short and long term, than the extra water usage\n2. Local water usage isn't actually a problem, or its only mega-farms in central valley that are a problem (also related to different watersheds, which someone below brought up), in which case other benefits (supporting the local economy, etc) make it positive\n3. Some other unanticipated benefit of buying local that I hadn't thought of", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Its not possible to know that teachers should make more money + \n + A popular opinion among the American electorate is that teachers should make more money. \n\nI'm not an expert in economics but I think the assumption here is a labor theory of value. People look at the number of labor hours and the \"difficulty\" of teaching, plus the social importance of teaching, and conclude that teachers are underpaid. It also pulls on the heart strings to support teachers. The same layman economic presuppositions underlie the idea that sports players are grossly overpaid.\n\nHowever, prices cannot be determined beyond supply and demand. Since teachers do not operate in a free market, for the most part, we cannot really say how accurate their salaries are. \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Even if climate change is indeed \"a hoax,\" we still benefit greatly from addressing the problem by moving to renewable energy and sustainable resources + \n + A lot of the Climate Change 'debate' focuses on whether or not it's real or human-caused or not. I believe this is the wrong thing to focus on, as with or without climate change we still encounter oil spills, exploding oil/coal trains, pollution in the atmosphere, the expense of purchasing fuel for our vehicles and homes, the danger and war caused by procuring resources from overseas, the waste accumulation from non-biodegradable plastics and styrofoam materials, etc.\n\nSo even if we do not want to believe, or even find out, that climate change is real, we should still switch to renewable energy and sustainable resources and localized sources of energy and resources. Focusing on whether or not it's real is the wrong argument and a lost cause.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Religion is the only thing in the Universe that objectively compels us to live for something other than ourselves + \n + *tl;dr* - **Nature dictates  that the strong survive and the weak perish. Those with power will do and those without power will not. Human beings are naturally selfish and self serving creatures even through our acts of love and kindness. Due to these 2 facts, there is nothing in this world that compels us to live for another human being other than the threats of punishments and promises of rewards religion brings.**\n\nI've broken my argument down into 4 parts and a final part to make it more digestible.\n\n**Part I: The Law of the Land**\n\nRight and wrong are man made concepts that apply only to humans. No other creature on earth follows rules of morality and ethics other than human beings. Nature dictates that the strong will survive and the weak will perish. Who tells a lion it is wrong to slaughter a gazelle for food when it can just as easily find plant life to eat? Imagine if cows and chickens could talk. Imagine one of them walking up to you and saying \"Human, I have feelings and emotions. You capture and breed my kind as livestock and reduced our existence to the mere purpose of providing you food. We have hopes and dreams and aspirations. We do not want to die\". You, like myself and like the lion would reply \"HAHAHA I eat you because I have the power to and you do not have the power to stop me. I have been equipped to exert my dominance over you and will do so because such is the law of the land\" and you would have every right to say so. If you have the power to do so, whatever it is, then it is in your right. Morals and ethics are immaterial, there are only absolutes (strength, speed, intelligence). This is the world we live in. \n\n**Part II & III: The Nature of the Human Psyche & The Mysteries of Love**\n\nI am not religious nor do I believe in a god but I am a visionary. I often thought of how to create a \"perfect\" society free of corruption and greed. No matter how much I contemplated on how such a society could be formed, I always arrived to the same conclusion: perfect societies are impossible because of human self interest. The most basic instinct in every living creature is survival. Every living creature on earth seeks to increase its own utility (content, happiness) through primary needs such as food, water and shelter but also through secondary needs such as entertainment, love, and companionship. Our entire existence is a goal to acquire those needs and serve our self interests. Greed will always exist because it is in our best self interest to be greedy. Corruption, cheating, stealing, lying - we do all of these things because they serve us. They work to achieve our desires and fulfill our self interests. \n\n\nRight now you're probably saying something like \"well then how do you explain the love we have for other people\". Understanding \"love\" is a mystery unto itself that I can't fully explain but I can say that for the most part, it still functions (for the most part) under self interest. The love we show our close family and friends is a result of having familiarity (and I would even go far as to say a sense of belonging/ownership) to them. MY son, MY daughter, MY mom, MY dad, MY friend, my my my....We typically don't develop love for other people until they have a stake in OUR lives. Whether you find them funny or charming or simply and inherent love that comes with coming from the same bloodline, we appreciate them for the joy they bring into our lives. Next you might say what about the compassion and kindness we show strangers less fortunate then ourselves such as the homeless people downtown or starving children in Africa. To that I ask you can anyone truly appreciate the pain of others without ever experiencing it or having the ability to sympathize with it first themselves (empathy)? Without familiarity to one's suffering on at least a basic level, I believe it is impossible to truly care for that person's well being. Think about it, when you give a homeless man $10 to buy lunch that day, you're doing it because you understand the pain of going hungry. Had you never experienced hunger or at least been able to empathize with his feeling of hunger, you almost certainly would not care for that individual's problems because you simply cannot relate to them. It is not until you can put yourself (literally, psychologically, or emotionally) into someone's situation that you feel compelled to make a change in that persons life. So I will repeat myself when I say everything we do is dictated by self interest, even the love and kindness we show others. I cannot think of one thing human beings are known to do that does not give us some kind of emotional, psychological or literal satisfaction.\n\nWhether they are from a different race, sex, religion, or culture, we fail to empathize with those who we view as different than ourselves and cannot place ourselves in their situation. Most genocides are typically predated by a period of propaganda used to besmirch the victimized group and dehumanize them from the people who commit the act. The German people didn't let the Nazi power commit their terrible acts because Germans are inherently evil, they did so because they were brainwashed not to identify with Jews as fellow human beings but as trash that needed to be exterminated. Everything we do is dictated by the self interest we hold in ourselves. \n\n**Part IV: An Inconvenient truth**\n\nAnd this brings us to the crux of my argument. When you live in a world where the only thing stopping you from doing as you please are your own capabilities and your main drive for living is serving your own self interests, what use is there to care for other living creatures? What compels us to help those less fortunate than ourselves other than the satisfaction we get from knowing we did something \"good\"? What is there in the world to compel us to live for someone other than oneself? You guessed it: religion. The only thing that objectively compels us to live for other human beings are the punishment and rewards religion brings. The only thing that truly compels humanity to care for others is knowing that if you don't, an infinitely more powerful being than yourself will punish you for it. There is no subjectivity here: either you do it and get rewarded or don't and pay. Even if you hate the person you are helping and cannot empathize with them whatsoever, you do it because it is in your own self interest. I have literally met people who have said they help others not because they want to necessarily but God wants them to. I will use Judaeo-Christianity as an example because it is the religion I am most familiar with. As awful as some of the messages in the Bible are, there are some good virtues in them as well such as helping those less fortunate and embracing your fellow man with love and kindness. The problem with this is most of us don't care about helping people we don't know and very very few of us would go out of our way to do so simply out of personal satisfaction. Without the threat and rewards religions bring, there is nothing compelling us to live for our fellow man.\n\n\n**Part Finale: Common Counter Arguments:**\n\n**But you even said yourself religion is motivated through self interest. Aren't there also scenarios where showing other human beings kindness serve our self interests and compel us to live for our fellow man?**\n\nNo. Showing kindess does not compel us to live for our fellow man because there is always the use of force. Remember the law of the land: Those with power will do and those without power will not. I cannot think of a single scenario where the use of kindness cannot be substituted for the use of force.\n\n**Religion does not compel us to do anything because you don't have to believe in a god**\n\nI'm not saying everyone has to believe in a god or that identifying with a religion automatically compels you to live for other people. I'm saying those who truly do believe in the existence of a heaven and hell and truly do hold the values of their religion are compelled and those who do not believe have nothing in this world to compel them to. \n\nMy rant is officially over. Now someone change my view. \n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Human laziness is not a valid argument against communism + \n + One argument that I've heard in that past for the inability of communism to function is that people when given everything they want have no incentive to work hard or at all. This was first presented to me by a teacher and I remained unmoved by their argument for the following reasons:\n\n1. People like doing their jobs. People like to go out and do their job. Many extremely rich people choose to continue working even when they have no need to due to the amount of money they have and I would assume this is because they enjoy the job they do.\n\n2. A sufficiently educated populace will realize that if they don't go to work and work hard they no longer have things. This won't prevent laziness from everyone (tragedy of the commons) but should limit overall laziness in workplaces.\n\nThanks in advance to everyone who replies to try to change my view :)\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: People who have sex with multiple partners (I'm talking many, many one-nighters here), are often deeply insecure or in some way damaged. + \n + I have a few friends who sleep around a lot. One person in particular told me yesterday that they had slept with 6 people in the last two weeks (I'm keeping this purposefully gender-neutral to avoid a biased response). They didn't massively like any of the partners as people, they just wanted to have sex. Which is fine. \n\nI love sex, and I think it's great, but I could never feel okay with having that many sexual partners in such a short space of time. I can't help but feel that there must be something deeply broken about someone who IS okay with it. Either they're very insecure and in need of some sort of validation, or they have no respect for themselves and a very low sense of self-worth.\n\nChange my view please!\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Since it's inception, Christianity has resulted in more harm than good in the world. + \n + I'm not anti-Christianity. In fact, I was raised in church for most of my life. That said, I've come to the conclusion that at least as far as our physical world goes, Christianity has ultimately made the world worse. Things that happened centuries ago (e.g. the Crusades) to the Westboro Baptist Church today seem to outweigh the charity and good that Christianity has brought to the world. I don't think this belief proves Christianity is wrong or inferior. After all, lots of people have done extraordinarily awful things in the name of something good. However, I do think that it should be acknowledged that in general, the death and despair done in the name of Christianity far outweighs the virtue done its name. That said, I'm not fully educated on the topic, and I'm willing to be proven wrong.\n\nCMV.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: To Secure Economic Interests is a Reasonable Cause for Military Action + \n + I should start by saying that I believe all other options should be pursued to the fullest before putting the lives of anyone in danger. \n\nThat being said, I believe that protecting, and even strengthening our economy and therefore our nation is a moral enough cause to put lives on the line. The role of government, especially in the modern world, is to protect not only the lives of its citizens, but to increase their quality of life. A stronger economy leads to better infrastructure, more social services, less crime caused by necessity.  (theoretically, though obviously not always true in practice)\n\nWhether it be:\n\n* Securing trade routes\n* Security of natural resources\n* Military action that stabilizes regions in which we do commerce\n* Assisting allies who strengthen our economy with military aid\n\nReal world examples of this could be:\n\n* The money spent, and the lives endangered by patrolling coastal waters for pirates.\n\n* The soldiers we sent to defend Kuwait from Iraq\n\n* Soldiers on the DMZ of the Korean Peninsula\n\n\nKeep in mind the assumption of this post is that the military action is a peace keeping, security purposed, deterrence force. Not a raiding party to steal the oil tile from the Mongols in CIV5.\n\nFor the entirety of existence, humans have felt that putting the lives of the few on the line for the prosperity of the many is not only morally acceptable, but commendable. (To carrying degrees of willingness and volunteering vs drafting and consignment) In the modern world, the \"World War\" is not over land or sovereignty, but economic prowess. You are still fighting for your country, even if it is not for it's \"very survival\".", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The European left has failed + \n + Hey r/CMV,\n\nThe topic I'd like to discuss is the current position of the political left, represented by parties such as the British Labour, the German SPD or the Sweden Social Democrats (which are very diverse, of course). Over the last few years most of these parties have suffered significant losses and have not been able to keep up their role as \"people's parties\" due to this. An exception is Southern Europe where parties such as Podemos and SYRIZA attract large numbers of new followers (I suspect SYRIZA will be a huge disappointment for many, keeping in line with my thesis).\n\nNow I think there are various factors to this. First of all, a lot of people in Europe feel their economic situation is worsening compared to the others. Governments talk about \"..% growth in the past 5 years\" or \"the average Belgian is now ..% richer than in 2010\", and I don't claim they are wrong, but a lot of people are not seeing this kind of development. The poor to lower-class people. There's been talk of a widening gap between rich and poor for ages, and it seems that this is taking its toll. The left parties in general seem to have failed in coming up with a solution and sell it to people, even though these should be their main target audience. Besides this they don't have a lot to offer politically (in general; for me they still do).\n\nAnother issue is the increasing adoption of traditional left-wing policies by conservative and right-wing parties. Take the FN in France, which claims \"it's neither left nor right\" because they have very right-wing policies (I don't have to elaborate in which areas) coupled with typical welfare state ideas. So to a lot of troubled people, the FN have taken the role of the protecting \"worker's movement\", and in fact one of the boasting points of the FN is that it wants to spend more money on the French poor by cutting welfare for others. In a non-judgmental way, the FN is like a selfish left-wing party. The same you see everywhere, in Denmark etc., where a lot of parties like the DPP or the SD claim things along the line \"there's not enough money, and elderly people go first\".\n\nSo why do I not count these parties as \"left\" or \"centre-left\"? I don't like the 1-dimensional \"left-right\" distinction, but in the traditional political spectrum the left has also a social meaning. Left-wing parties tend to be very socially liberal (homosexuality, drugs, protection of minorities) while right-wing ones are usually not (conservative family ideals, drugs, etc). Of course a lot of the right-wing parties I've mentioned have moved with the times (the FN is not as toxically anti-semitic and homophobic anymore, Wilders is supportive of LGBT rights), but they are still on the conservative spectrum, especially when it comes to the rights of LGBT people and foreigners. The \"left\" ideal is not to make any distinction based on those things.\n\nIt seems that a lot of people can't identify with the traditional left ideals anymore in times like these (which are difficult for everyone) and the right-wing spectrum has been able to take advantage of that. These have been my observations. I've also got a troubled relationship with the left parties in my country, but I consider them my best option. Thus I'm very open to having my view CMV'd, although I'm sceptical as of now. I hope we can have a balanced debate!\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: People should try to catch shiny pokemon before playing the lottery. + \n + As a person who has never caught a shiny pokemon, I think people should try to catch some before playing the lottery Im not talking about scratch cards, I mean things like megabucks and powerball. Both are a huge gamble, and people who play the lottery regularly (and havent won) are throwing their money away. I think that people should play pokemon and try their luck if they can catch any shiny pokemon (legitimately) before they try to play the lottery to see how ridiculously low the odds are. If someone cant achieve that, why bother trying to do something with an even lower chance of success? \n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: draws should be eliminated from all professional sports. + \n + My opinion is based on the idea that professional sports people are supposed to be the best, and are striving for excellence. A draw is not a win, so it should be counted as a loss. Especially in team games like professional football (any code).\n\nI think a draw system does not encourage offense play. And defensive play is almost always boring. \n\nIn sports with points and a time limit, a system should be used to determine a winner. Be it either a period of extra time, a tie break competition, or both sides should be considered a loss.\n\nProfessional sports are a spectacle for entertainment, I believe that this will be more entertaining.\n\nChange my view!\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe being inspired by other tattoos makes you unoriginal + \n + I've seen it a dozen times. Someone wants a tattoo and so they look at magazines or websites or celebs or tv shows (Miami Ink and the like) or other people from real life for inspiration.\n\nEvery time someone does something like that, I can't help but think less of their tattoo.\n\nMany a times, I've seen a really nice tattoo and it's always a bittersweet feeling. On one hand it's a beautiful piece, on the other, I never want to have a similar one to that, as I'd feel I was just copying the other person.\n\nWhenever I ask a friend why they picked a tattoo from a portfolio, their answer is never far from \"because I think it's cool\", so elaorating beyond that would be best I suppose.\n\nIs this a normal feelling? It seems perfectly normal to look for inspiration on other things, but then again, it makes me feel as if the art isn't as original as it should be.\n\nThanks!\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I don't think Jesus was an actual, historical person. + \n + Right now there is almost an unanimous consensus among scholars that Jesus was a real human being. They even go as far as comparing the Christ myth theory to the Moon Landing conspiracy theories and Holocaust deniers. I think their confidence is unwarranted and here's why:\n\n*We have ZERO evidence of any Christian activity whatsoever before Paul wrote Galatians around 40-60AD, and no conclusively Christian artifacts have been found dating any earlier than 70 AD. Supposedly Jesus was already attracting huge crowds during his lifetime, and Israel has been studied extensively by archaeologists for a long time. You would think we would find some sort of trinket or writing contemporary to his life, but we've found nothing. Israel was already very literate during Christ's time. Despite what people popularly say, we do have much more evidence for Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great than we do for Christ. That's to be expected of course, but considering how popular the Gospels portray Jesus as being and how much of Israel has been dug up, you'd think we'd have SOMETHING from his lifetime attesting to his existence.\n\n*The attestations by Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius are very dubious. Scholars even admit that part of the Testimonium Flavianum was forged. \n\n*Paul seems to be writing about a heavenly Jesus, not an earthly one at times in his letters.\n\n*The Principle of Embarrassment is a very weak argument. We just don't know enough about the context of that era.\n\n*The Gospels are written in Greek. Jesus spoke Aramaic. It's possible he also spoke Greek, but you would think the Gospels would have been written in Aramaic originally if they were genuine accounts of Jesus's life.\n\n*The Gospels have huge issues. Aside from the fact that they describe magical happenings, they can't even get things like the year he was born right. One gospel suggests that Jesus was born around 5 BC, another suggests 6 AD. Since it's obvious the magical parts didn't happen, is it really that radical to come to the conclusion the whole story is a work of fiction?\n\nI think what happened is there was a preacher in Israel (who was maybe named Yeshua) at the time who claimed to be God and tried to overthrow the Roman client state with his followers and was executed for it. His followers, mostly poor illiterates, started telling tall tales about things he supposedly did while he was alive.\n\nEventually decades later, some literate Greek believers, most likely in Anatolia wrote made-up biographies of this preacher's life and tacked on moral sayings they attributed to him. Some of these stories became very popular to the extent that people were willing to die for their faith.\n\nIn other words, there may have been a person who Jesus was very loosely based on, but the Jesus that Christians worship is essentially a character from political fanfiction. Either that or entirely made up.\n\nCan anyone point me to some evidence that proves Jesus was in fact a real man, who was born under Herod, performed miracles in front of masses of crowds, and went fishing with his buddies in the freshwater Sea of Galilee, only to be killed for it?\n\nI'm not looking at this from a snarky anti-theist view, though I do happen to be an atheist. I just don't think the evidence is compelling or very convincing.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Podium girls are not a problem + \n + The subject of Podium girls is quite controversial on cycling subs, good enough to generate all-time top and controversial threads and I would like to know what people think about it.\n\nMy position is simple: When the issue is brought to discussion I always end up concluding that **the** problem is the lack of TV coverage of women's cycling and not the concept of podium girls.\n\nObviously there are some podium girls moments that belong on r/cringe like [this one](http://static1.squarespace.com/static/53dd44b5e4b0a4970a8b838e/t/5599bf8ce4b0b41e79752cf8/1436139405145/?format=750w) or [this move of a fan-favorite cyclist some years ago](http://static1.squarespace.com/static/53dd44b5e4b0a4970a8b838e/t/5599bb6be4b00d130d5cdf9b/1436138348644/?format=750w), but these are extreme examples which do not represent the majority. \n\nI really like to watch women's cycling and would really be pleased to see more of it on TV (there's like 3 or 4 days of racing a year on Eurosport right now) and the fact that women on the sport are more visible on the podium than on the bike is the problem, IMO. I've seen examples on twitter of happy parents talking about little girls thinking \"ooh I can do that too?\" when La Course was on TV on the last day of Tour de France. And that is an example that there's a lack of coverage (but that's not the issue I want you to discuss).\n\nThen there's the semantics, \"podium girls\" sound quite worse than \"podium women\" which would sound much more reasonable, and I agree with that, let's change the name of it. There's a very recent example of \"podium men\" on a Norwegian race, which sounds a fair way to balance the absence of men on the podiums of women's cycling and apparently would be a reason for people to say we're in a fair position. \n\n**Yet, people think the idea of podium men/women is disgusting and distasteful.\nAnd that's the part I really don't understand and the reason I came to CMV** - maybe because I see podium women since I was a kid? \nThere's the argument of objectifying people, but they are models which are pleased to do their job.\nAlso it's a thing that takes seconds, kisses are a way of congratulate people and how many times have we joked about it and created similar photos with our friends, while having a good time?\n\nSome argue that there's embarrassment between podium girls and the riders, and that may be true, but they're not displeased. [Slightly out of context - this video was spread on the web](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V70R9hYECW0) and people think it's cute while being a much more embarrassing thing at the start.\nI've seen riders a little more embarrassed when they had to greet politicians.\n\nThe argument against podium women that I agree with is the fact that most of them don't know about cycling. On a recent event on my country, only 2 out of 8 or 10 (I can't recall) had good knowledge about the sport according to a TV report which only had the intent of talking a bit about those girls. Young riders or kids could be there on the podium congratulating the riders and meeting their heroes. Yet, we should consider that podium girls usually represent brands, and they're a way of sponsoring a race and that would need to be rethought if we replaced them.\n\nNote that I'm talking about cycling, on other sports you can see examples that could be easily labeled as sexism, which do not apply to the regular cycling podium, even though I welcome your arguments if you talk about other sports.\n\nAnd well, if you disagree with me, [just don't do this](http://i.imgur.com/LayxpFt.gif), I want to know why you think I'm wrong and I want you to change my view\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Bernie Sanders is at least as electable as Hillary Clinton. + \n + I'm planning to vote for Bernie in the primaries but, if Hillary gets the nomination, I'll still vote for her in the general - I will do anything in my power to help make sure the next two SCOTUS nominations are not controlled by the GOP, end of story. \n\nThat being said, there seems to be this idea that Clinton would be a lock for the presidency but, if Sanders were to get the Democratic nomination, it becomes possible or even *likely* that the GOP will take the presidency. If that were *true*, then it would behoove me to support Clinton in the primaries, if I really am committed, above all else, to keeping the GOP from taking the presidency in 2016.\n\nMy primary reason for believing that Bernie Sanders is *at least* as electable in the general as Hillary Clinton (I actually think he's *more* electable, but that's immaterial to this CMV) is a set of thought experiments, which simply revolve around considering the behavior of individuals/groups voting (or abstaining) in 2008/2012, how that behavior would respond to Hillary being the nominee, and how that response would be *altered* by having Bernie as the nominee instead. For ease of illustration, I'm going to use Jeb Bush as the stand-in/proxy for the eventual Republican presidential nominee - if you think the GOP will likely nominate someone else, and it will make a difference in how a significant number of people vote (or abstain), feel free to specify why/how in your reply, and then proceed within the context of your chosen Republican presidential nominee.\n\n-----\n\nSo, here are some examples of the general form of the thought experiment - this set of examples is, by no means, comprehensive, but I've yet to think of one which significantly advantages Hillary over Bernie:\n\n * Describe to me the person or demographic, who voted for Obama in 2012, who would vote for Hillary over Jeb in 2016, but who would vote for Jeb over Bernie in 2016. (Impacts: Swing votes)\n \n  * Now describe to me the opposite group (Bernie>Jeb>Hillary) - which group seems larger?\n\n * Describe to me the apathetic Democrat who, once they are familiar with Bernie as a candidate, is more energized by Hillary than Bernie. (Impacts: Democrat turnout, i.e. harmful abstentions)\n \n  * Now describe to me the opposite group - which seems larger?\n\n * Describe to me the Republican who would make it to the polls to vote against Bernie, but would be like \"meh, fuck it\" and not bother to vote against Hillary. (Impacts: Republican turnout, i.e. helpful abstentions)\n\n-----\n\nNow, outside of that form of argument, one thing I've seen cited as evidence against Bernie in this respect is a particular Gallup poll, regarding attitudes towards those who identify as socialist:\n\n\n\nMy problem with that is as follows:\n\nEvery one of those descriptors, except for socialist, is a largely apolitical identity - whereas being \"a socialist\" is a political ideology.\n\nThe phrase \"just happened to be [black/Muslim/Jewish/a woman]\" implies that the nominee would have said identity, but would still mostly follow the tenets of whatever \"your party\" was - whereas \"just happened to be [a socialist]\" implies an ideological leaning that potentially conflicts with whatever you feel \"your party\" stands for.\n\nTherefore, comparing the numbers for \"a socialist\" to all those other identity-based descriptors, without also including numbers for \"a conservative\" and \"a liberal\" simply doesn't provide a useful context in which to interpret the numbers for \"a socialist\".\n\nI also think that, due to the way the question is asked, the poll winds up *seriously* underestimating the impact of *strategic voting* (i.e. voting for the candidate with the best chance of beating your least preferred candidate) against the GOP - I think it's just plain ludicrous to suggest that 41% of Democrats would prefer Jeb Bush to Bernie Sanders, simply because of the socialist label, but maybe I'm wrong on that point?\n\n-----\n\nAnother argument is that the GOP media machine will be able to use the socialist label to get their base frothing at the mouth and drive turnout (this relates to the 3rd example thought experiment).\n\nMy feeling here is that, considering that has been Fox news' sole purpose for the last 8 years, they are already well beyond the point of diminishing returns - there is no part of the base, who is amenable to this sort of strategy, who isn't *already* frothing at the mouth, socialist or no - trying to use the socialist label to wring *even more* turnout from their base, at this point, is trying to squeeze blood from a stone.\n\n-----\n\nFinally, while the GOP's fear/anger-based strategy for motivating turnout is a finely-tuned machine at this point, turnout among Democrats is much more variable - so many on the left feel entirely apathetic towards the party, so turnout is unreliable.\n\nI will admit, I don't even know exactly why, but Hillary seems to *personify* what people on the left are apathetic towards - nobody, *nobody* I've talked to, on Reddit or IRL, seems excited about Hillary. On the other hand, among those who have become familiar with Bernie as a candidate, he seems to energize people in a way that I've simply seen no recent evidence of *any* other potential candidate even coming close to.\n\nSince voter-apathy seems to be a fairly huge problem on the left (relative to the right, at least) this seems like a *huge* point in Bernie's favor - especially because it could also have a fairly significant impact on Congressional races.\n\n-----\n\nOne last thing: I know the socialist label is a big part of this discussion, but I don't want it to devolve into an **exclusive** focus on that - I am interested in how Bernie stacks up *against Hillary*, so if you are going to talk about how people respond to the socialist label, please keep it in the context of a comparison with how people respond to Hillary as a political fixture.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Socialism is Undermined by Diversity + \n + I can only see socialistic systems (The harder variety that imposes 90% tax rates and such) work out in ethnically, culturally homogenous societies like the Nordic states, or certain Orthodox Jewish sects. My hypothesis is that extreme racial/cultural difference (Skin Color, Mutually Exclusive Religion, Colonial Grievances, etc.) between populations leads to self-segregation, behind-the-back othering/scapegoating, and lower interpersonal trust on average - the foundation for a socialistic society where all are to be treated equally. You might be willing to do business with the other group, but god forbid your family invite them over or get intimate with them. As long as visibly different groups with past antagonisms exist, people will judge members of the other group differently, at least with no other information available. \n\nI suspect the primary reason right-wing parties against the EU and Social Democracy are on the rise, is due to lower interpersonal trust brought on by 1.) The Continuing Employment Slump and 2.) Immigration, particularly from Africa and the Muslim world. As the economy continues to slug along in the midst of austerity, the natives are feeling a tad powerless, with the lower classes having to compete now with immigrant labor - leading to scapegoating and resentment. This is not a new phenomenon - the entire history of the industrial age is replete with labor-fueled resentment from the lower-class establishment toward foreigners trying to take their place.\n\nStill, despite this - I can't help but get pissed when liberals rag on the native working class as \"Rednecks\" or \"Bogans\" (Or for black people trying to get ahead, \"Uncle Toms\") that supposedly vote against their own best interest by voting to halt immigration. This might be the only form of protectionism I can genuinely sympathize with. Please change my view - I'm open to your ideas.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe mentally challenged people are just a huge drain on society. + \n + Read: Mentally Retarded / Downs.\n\nSee, we've got a few people in town that have these diagnosis and every single person in their family seemed to be completely drained of life from taking care of these people's every need. I'm talking changing diapers on a 35 year old man that likes to put his finger in his butt and \"poopy-poke\" people while laughing obnoxiously. \n\nIf I ever learned my girlfriend or a family member was pregnant with a mental retard, I would fully push for an abortion immediately.\n\nI don't see any good at all from keeping them around and saying they all have a \"Good Heart\". That's all they seem to have, either a good heart or a completely fucking asshole. Hell, my dog has a good heart too, except he can actually fetch a ball and bring it back without sticking his finger in his ass.\n\nIt's pretty ingrained, but... CMV?\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I don't want Sanders to get the Dem nomination because I think he can't win a general election + \n + So much Sanders hype on Reddit lately, yet despite some of the good ideas he has, I don't want him to win against Hilary for the nomination. Isn't he a really far left candidate? This is a country where Trump is #1 currently among Republicans, and to win the general election you have to appeal to moderates. I don't see how he can do that with a lot of the very liberal positions he's taken (not to mention his unabashed acceptance of the 'socialist' label), and my fear is that if some moderate Republican like Jeb Bush takes the nomination, he will win a general election in a landslide by taking all the centrist votes. Or am I being too pessimistic?\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: A government-only backdoor into encryption is impossible. + \n + So the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have been vocally asking for software companies to be required to [introduce backdoors into their encryption](http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/07/08/421251662/fbi-director-says-agents-need-access-to-encrypted-data-to-preserve-public-safety) so that warrants can be served.\n\nFrom what I've read, this is not technically possible, or at least it's not technically possible to have a backdoor that couldn't be used by someone without the government's authorization, such as a hacker.\n\nI lack the compsci background to evaluate these claims myself though, and would appreciate if someone could point out a way this could be done.  I don't know if the privacy advocates making this case are overstating their cause, or if they're correct.  They sound correct at first blush.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: It is very difficult to oppose financial abortion while remaining logically consistent. Most people who oppose financial abortion hold other positions that are logically inconsistent with said opposition. + \n + By financial abortion (FA), I mean that men could choose not to be forced to pay for children they do not wish to raise (could only be done pre-birth, ideally pre-conception).\n\nMany people oppose financial abortion. However, it seems to me that it is extremely difficult to oppose financial abortion without using logically inconsistent, and therefore invalid, arguments.\n\nWhy are arguments that are logically inconsistent invalid? For example, suppose I stated that it's wrong to eat cows as food since we do not need to kill animals in order to meet our nutritional needs. I then state that it is ok to wear leather jackets. We can see that this doesn't make sense - it is logically inconsistent. So it must then be dismissed, unless I can resolve the inconsistency.\n\nThis is different than mere hypocrisy, which does not invalidate an argument. Suppose I said that people should not smoke, because it is bad for your health. I then admit that I smoke a pack a day. My statement is hypocritical, but that is irrelevant since my argument is still just as strong or weak regardless of whether I am a hypocrite or not).\n\nIn order to oppose financial abortion while still remaining logically consistent, one must also hold a great deal of other beliefs, which most people do not.\n\nWhat do I mean? I'll explain:\n\nSuppose I stated that children are entitled to support from its biological parents. Therefore, FA is wrong.\n\nHowever, those who believe this must also oppose sperm clinics to remain logically consistent. Children born from sperm clinic donations are not entitled to support from their father. But most people have no objection against sperm clinics. Note that under this argument, it doesn't matter if the mother is a multi-millionaire. If a child is obligated to support from its parents, that does not change regardless of the wealth of its mother. \n\nIf we then made the argument that \"the reason children are entitled to support from their parents because most mothers are not rich enough to support it themselves. So it's ok for women to sue sperm clinics if they can support a child on their own.\" - then we would have to agree that men should not be forced to pay child support if the mother is rich, in order to remain logically consistent. Yet this belief is not popular.\n\nIt also means that you must believe that male rape victims - both boys and men - should be forced to pay child support. After all, they are the biological parent. However, most people do not support this.\n\nThis usually leads to an argument along these lines: \"male rape resulting in a kid is quite rare compared to consensual sex resulting in a kid. Only people who consent to sex should be forced to support resulting children.\"\n\nHowever, if you support this argument, then you must also oppose adoption or abandonment, as they currently stand. A woman who adopts out or abandons a child (which was from consensual sex) is not forced to support it.\n\nThe common rebuttal to that is something like \"If neither biological parent wishes to raise the child, then it is fine for neither of them to be forced to pay. Adoption means someone else agrees to raise and support the child.\"\n\nBut wait - didn't we say earlier that a child was entitled to support from its biological parents? If so, then they are entitled to that support whether only one parent wants to abandon responsibility, or both parents do.\n\nMoreover, not all kids given up for adoption are taken in by families, particularly older or non-white ones (in America). Many remain in foster care indefinitely. Therefore, one would have to believe that the parents of children who are not successfully adopted should be obligated to pay for them. But I have never seen anyone put forth this argument.\n\nAnother common objection to financial abortion is that without forcing men to pay, we would have to increase welfare to prevent kids from living in poverty. And that should not be done because it would burden the taxpayer.\n\nHowever, a poor man and woman who have a child would also have this burden. Many people do think that poor men and women should not have children, but most do not think there should be any legal consequences for doing so.\n\nAlternatively, a poor woman is perfectly entitled to have one-night stands, and not tell the father if she becomes pregnant. She may then move to a different city, have the child and go on welfare. \n\nI do not see anyone claiming that women should not be allowed to do this, even though this is also a burden on taxpayers.\n\nOf course, it is quite possible to have logically consistent arguments against financial abortion. For instance, I could state that financial abortion should not be allowed, because I think that men, as a class, are obligated to give money to women as a class. With that argument, it would be relatively easy to maintain logical consistency with other beliefs. However, that is not a common argument, in my experience.\n\nIn order to change my view, I could see two things:\n\nConvincing me that positions such as opposing sperm clinics or agreeing that male rape victims must be forced to pay are widely-held among those who oppose financial abortion. Perhaps some surveys showing that large percentages of people oppose sperm clinics under their current usage, for example.\n\nProviding some reasoning that would make it logically consistent to state (this is just an example) that \"parents are obligated to support their biological children\" and \"it's ok for a woman to use a sperm clinic although the father will not be supporting the child.\" This seems quite difficult however.\n\nNote: **Please don't give me reasons as to why financial abortion should or should not be allowed. The thread is about the logical consistency of opposing financial abortion with other beliefs, not about whether FA should be allowed or not**.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There will never be another military draft (forced conscription) in America. + \n + Not really an opinion so much as a prediction, but its still a view i hold.  My prediction is based on a number of factors and you can address any or all of them or bring up new issues I haven't thought of.  \n\n1) Unpopular: The draft for the war in Vietnam was extremely unpopular with massive protests and draft dodging.  After the draft was eliminated the protests died down even as the war continued.  It seems that America will support a lot of military activity (Iraq War 1 & 2, Afghanistan, etc) as long as they are not personally forced to serve.  \n\n2) No close border crisis: Other modern developed countries have forced selective service (South Korea, Israel) but usually these countries face bordering existential crises to their very existence.  America does not have this, has not ever had this, and presumably will not ever have this and so there is no need to have millions of men and women be conscripted every year for a tour of duty.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription\n\n3) Nuclear Weapons: America may face small attacks here and there but no nation state large enough to possibly overthrow the United States government seems likely to attack for fear of nuclear weapons retaliation.  While 9/11 was a tragedy, there was no hope of terrorists taking over the country or overthrowing the government.  The only world forces strong enough to do this would be large nations with large militaries of their own and if they did have a mainland ground force invasion of US soil it would almost guarantee a nuclear response.\n\n4) Women, and the out of shape:  This is a minor reason but none the less I'll bring it up for discussion.  In a modern draft there would be seemingly no way for women to avoid serving.  Currently women face demanding physical aptitude tests to qualify for the most demanding positions or in some cases are barred from service for fear they will not be able to handle the physical requirements of the job (front line combat, Navy Seals, etc).  In the 21st century when men and women have equal rights and are largely treated equally there would be pushback if those less capable of serving were thought to be more likely to get an easier or safer assignment.  This would create a race to the bottom for applicants seeking to avoid dangerous duty.  Furthermore the vast majority of Americans are overweight, out of shape, and would require extensive training to become combat ready.  If diabetes, heart conditions, obesity, or any number of conditions would disqualify a person from service I imagine people would quickly engage in unhealthy habits (or bribe doctors) in order to avoid service. \n\n5) Conscientious objectors: In previous generations there was a much stronger sense of duty, warrior culture, and sense of imminent danger which cultivated a value in service.  In the modern world, where people increasingly distrust their government, have more access to information, and are more likely to have diverse religious and philosophical views I do not see the public getting behind any major military involvement that would require a draft.  I would imagine there would be a rush to qualify yourself as a conscientious objector to the war in order to avoid combat even if that individual didn't feel that way immediately prior to the draft.  \n\nPlease change my view!", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think agnosticism is the only religion (or lack thereof) that really makes sense + \n + I was raised Catholic but now firmly believe that agnosticism is the only religious view that makes sense given our limited knowledge of the universe.\n\nI generally dislike organized religion for creating an either-or-view of divinity. Either you accept my god or yours, my rules or your own. People are often raised to be a certain religion from a young age, so their religion is almost wholly contingent on their upbringing, location, etc. I think it is foolish to say \"my god is the correct god\" or \"my god is the only god\" when others just as vehemently believe their own god story. If anything, I can accept the more Unitarian philosophy that each religion's god story is pointing towards the same divine force. I am against the idea of a personified god, but I can understand the notion that there is some binding, transcendent force in the universe. I think one must abandon what John Rawls calls the arbitrariness of fortune (i.e. the societal and environmental preconditions that have shaped you) and try to consider religion more objectively. In doing so, I find it hard to choose one religion over another. As I said, I believe if there is a god, it is more of a force than a \"he\" or \"she\", and it exists at the intersection of religious thought rather than firmly in the confines of any one school.\n\nI also think it is foolish to be completely convinced that there is no god at all. The burden of proof may be on the people who believe there is a god, but it is equally impossible to deny the existence of one. If you view god more as a unifying force than a gray-bearded old man doling out punishments from on high, I think it is perfectly feasible that such a force may exist.\n\nSome view agnosticism as an admission of defeat. I think such a level of resignation is necessary. We simply cannot know if there is a god or godlike force at play in the universe. Though I generally reject organized religion, I think it is impossible to entirely rule out the possibility of a god figure, and I do not think this remains a possibility in my mind solely because I fear death or want there to be something more (i.e. my desire for survival). I just look at the universe and our limited knowledge of it and think maybe. Maybe there is something else. Maybe there is a transcendent reason why so much of our existence is so cyclical, why nature is so beautiful to us, etc. But maybe there isn't. We simply cannot know. CMV.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Coupes and manual transmissions are both novelty/useless items. + \n + \nEconomy coupes used to be a budget choice for younger people who didn't need the space, so auto companies can also save money on two doors. Marginally better gas mileage may be an incentive as well. High end luxury sport car manufacturers can argue that the coupe offers better aerodynamics/lower weight to improve performance and handling.Today, coupes cost the same if not more than the same model sedan. I don't believe a slimmer profile can noticeably improve performance in an economy 140HP car, similarly, I find the fuel economy improvement from 30 to 32 mpg hard to justify the loss of two doors at the same price.\n\n \nAutomatic transmission performance used to be inferior to manuals, and an expert could handle a car with manual significantly better than an auto. Today, the highest performance cars come with automatics, and manual often isn't an option anymore. Even in models that offer both, the 0-60 and quarter mile speed is quite a bit better in the automatic, which offers \"manual shifting\" anyways. \n\nI believe that their long history and inferior counterparts has created a aura of superiority over automatics, similar to the Stradivarius violins. Due to production quantities, a manual transmission costs the same as automatic if not more.\n\nThis leaves me with only a few situations where one would practically want a coupe:\n\nHigh end 400-500+ HP sportscars which accelerate and go fast enough that the profile and marginal weight makes a difference.\n\nAnd for manual transmission:\n\nOld classic imitation cars for the nostalgia? They're plainly under performing now.\n\nWhenever I see a Bentley or Benz S550/600 coupe, I cringe a bit since they're very obviously not performance based cars. \n\nManual freaks who refuse to own any other cars also seem illogical as hell. \n\nAny thoughts?\n\n\nPlease leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post. Thank you!\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Medical research should be allowed on humans without proper animal trials + \n + Note: this is purely a theoretical discussion. I don't actually feel that way, but someone has convinced me in a discussion that the fastest way to achieve medical advancements is to directly test it on humans. \n\nMight be a sensitive issue, but it is undeniable that without the work of Nazi doctors (and their victims), a large number of people would have died post-war and perhaps even today without the knowledge of limits of hypothermia/hyperthermia, amongst other important discoveries. \n\nIn brief: is medical research ethics hindering the progress of our species in acquiring new information?", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Hiragana are superior to Kanji + \n + By superior, I mean more practical/usable as a writing system. I do not mean to argue about the aesthetics of the two writing systems. \n\nBackground: I am a weeaboo, so I elected to take Japanese for my college language requirement (3 quarters). I don't feel like I have all that great of a grasp of the language, but grade wise I received 3.9, 3.9, 3.8 so its not as if I am just completely awful at it. Towards the end of the course though, I found Kanji to be frustrating. Early on we learned simple kanji such as \u4e00, \u4e8c, \u4e09, \u4e0a, \u4e0b, and \u4e2d (these mean 1, 2, 3, above, under, and inside respectively). With these it wasn't had to see how the character corresponded to the meaning. Towards the end though, we were learning kanji with many strokes to express one syllable, and I couldn't see any connection between the kanji and the word - take for example \u52c9\u5f37 (to study). With this, let me outline my points\n\n1. It is easy to entirely memorize Hiragana, and difficult to do so for Kanji: There are ~50 Hiragana, and ~3000 Kanji. Just by numbers, its clear that the former would be easier to learn. Kanji characters in general being more complex than Hiragana ones compounds this issue. Even native Japanese speakers study Kanji through highschool. Furthermore I'd wager a lot of the more complex Kanji don't seem to be very tied to their meaning. This is to be expected given that abstract concepts, colors, etc are difficult to express through said strokes, but even if its to be expected, it still increases the difficulty of memorizing Kanji\n\n2. Hiragana directly correspond to how something is pronounced, Kanji do not: This has several benefits. If you know how to pronounce a word, then it is simple to write it in Hiragana, not true for Kanji - you have to have memorized the Kanji. Furthermore, say you are reading and you come across a word that you don't know. There are two cases - either you can guess the meaning of that word from the context, or you can't. I argue that it is better if the word you don't know is written in Hiragana. With Hiragana, you can simply type out that word and search for it, either verifying your guess, or learning what word it is. With Kanji, it is harder to search precisely: since you don't know how the word is pronounced from reading a Kanji you don't know, you can only search for 'your guessed meaning + kanji' and see if they are the same. If the sentence has multiple possible meanings, or your guess of the meaning was wrong, you are simply out of luck: Consider a sentence like \"X event occured, so Y person felt ___\". Without knowledge of Y's thoughts regarding X, any number of emotions could fill in the blank, and so searching by meaning isn't going to be effective.\n\n3. While Kanji may use fewer spaces/characters to express a word, it makes writing things more time consuming. Say you wanted to write Sunday. In Hiragana this is \u306b\u3061\u3088\u3046\u3073\u3001in Kanji this is \u65e5\u66dc\u65e5. While the Kanji is 3 characters rather than 5, the middle character which replaces \u3088\u3046 is a large number of strokes, it is faster to write the hiragana, and the tiny strokes in that Kanji make it difficult to write or read when you want your text to be small. \n\n\nDisclaimer: My argument isn't predicated on any hard statistics or linguistic background (I have never taken a linguistics class, don't have the room for one in my course plan), just on personal thoughts. However, if you do have input for the argument in the form of relevant statistics, or the perspective of someone studying linguistics, then I'd appreciate hearing it. However, if you don't have \n\n\n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe the term \"cisgender\" doesn't need to be adopted by said \"cisgendered\" people. I liken it to diabetics creating a word for non-diabetics other than \"healthy\" or \"normal.\" + \n + I love transgendered people, and I find this new (to me) topic interesting.\n\nBut I don't think that normally gendered people need to use the term cisgender, or even know what it is. I also don't think it's wrong to refer to a cisgendered person as \"normal,\" (edit: regarding their gender identity and not them as a whole person) rather than cisgendered. \n\nIf the trans community want to have terms like this, which I obviously see the utility of, then great, call me that all you want.\n\nI just don't understand why suddenly I am not a normal male, and why it's offensive to refer to myself as a normal <gender>. I don't see why certain transsexual individuals have attacked me for simply refering to cisgender as normal, instead of this \"designated male at birth\" terminology I had never heard of before venturing over to /r/trans. \n\nI would compare this to anyone with an uncommon trait getting vocally offended by not being refered to by a specific terminology they feel more comfortable with. If autistic children, diabetics, people with parkinson's and paraplegics all wanted to be called something new, it would get incredibly confusing to talk to people without offending anyone.\n\nI completely understand that transsexuals have a hard life, huge suicide rate, etc., but I don't think that babying them by tiptoeing around words like \"normal\" when they simply are not normally gendered humans is the right approach. I don't believe masking or avoiding reality is ever a good thing, and we can easily push for equal rights and respect for all transsexuals, even if people reserve the word normal when it comes to gender for someone who is cisgendered. \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I'm opposed to a higher minimum wage. + \n + People like Bernie Sanders demand a higher minimum wage, and much of Reddit agrees with him. I disagree. I do not believe this will help poor people, in the long term. \n\nI'm European, and I've visited most western European countries. I've also been to the US once. I've been there only for a couple of weeks, but I've encountered a lot of new jobs that I had never seen in Europe! \n\nWhen I went to an American supermarket, there were people greeting me at the entrance. There were always cashiers available, and there were often two cashiers helping me at the same time: one to scan the goods, the other to bag them. And there was often a person in the parking lot to gather all the shopping carts! \n\nI have never seen those jobs in European supermarkets, but they were very common in the US. Those jobs exist because of the lower minimum wage. When workers are expensive, business operate on a skeleton staff. But if they're cheap, you can hire more. \n\nSo raising the minimum wage will destroy jobs. The poorest, least desirable employees will find it a lot harder to get a job. \n\nIf you believe that certain people deserve more money, **give it to them**. Vote for a Universal Basic Income, or start a charity. But don't **force** businesses that **voluntarily** provide jobs to the poor to pay them even more, because you'll punish both the poor and businesses. \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Capital punishment is ethically untenable and should be abolished where it is currently practiced + \n + I am basing this opinion on several points. \n\nTo begin with, my view is a natural consequence of my personal belief that **every human being has a right on living**, a principle that is listed in [Article 3](http://www.claiminghumanrights.org/udhr_article_3.html) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - which has been signed by the United States of America, where Capital Punishment is legalized in some states -, [Article 2](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_2_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights) of the European Convention on Human Rights) and more. \n\nThe death penalty is strictly opposed to this tenet. While some people may agree, that by commiting certain crimes such as child molestion, mass murder, et al. forfeit their basic human rights, this is a highly subjective point of view that cannot be unambiguously established, as opinions regarding this topic vary  between the various religions, cultures and nations.\n\nAnother reason why Capital Punishment should be abolished, is that it is not a punishment in real terms, but merely a \"solution\", to satisfy the immediate need for equal retaliation according to the principle of \"an eye for an eye\". By punishing murderers or similar offenders with murder, the judicial system essentially lowers itself to an ethical level akin to that of said offenders. While this is technically a kind of punishment, it is not the one we should advocate, as it conflicts with the moral principles we have determined for ourselves.\n\nFurthermore, the fact that death is a final event - an irreversible one - means, that juridical mistakes have a much bigger consequences. If an innocent is erroneously put under arrest for years, he can still be released and even compensated once his innocence has been proven, but you cannot revive an innocent who was killed for something he did not commit.\n\nAdditionally, Capital Punishment is even [economically](http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty) more unfavorable than imprisonment, mainly due to higher defense costs for a death row candidate.\n\nResting upon these aspects, I hold the firm belief that Capital Punishment is ethically wrong and unjustified, while also being more of an economical burden than imprisonment.\n\n(Note: Because English is not my native language, parts of my reasoning may be wrong or not make any sense. Thank you for your understanding.)\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Nearly all landlords should allow dogs in apartments + \n + I have lived in Boston for nearly five years and am currently searching for my 3rd apartment in the area (my moves have been because of either price or commute). I have a small dog (12 pounds, 5 years old) and my probable roommate also has a dog (70 pounds, 10 years old). During each move, I have had trouble finding a landlord who will accept dogs, and finding one that accepts two feels nearly impossible. \n\nI have always received full pet deposits back and have reference letters from previous landlords, but this does not seem to factor into their policies. The most common reasons they bring up are noise, yard waste, and possible damage to apartment (mainly floors and walls). Having lived next to families with young children and beneath freshly minted college graduates, I cannot understand the bias against dogs.\n\nYes, my dog barks when the doorbell rings or there is noise in the stairwell, but she calms down after a couple minutes and has been trained so I can get her to sit and quiet almost immediately when I'm home. On the other hand, the baby I lived by would cry loud enough to be heard in my apartment and was often difficult to calm down. The young guys upstairs often play music loud enough to be heard in other apartments (even outside the building) and we had a lengthy struggle with our property manager to get their behavior under control. Why should dogs be singled out as being a noise issue?\n\nAnd yes, my dog's nails have made some scratches on the floor and in the paint. Children often play with toys that can and do cause the exact same damage. The stairwell in my current building is all scratched up from neighbors moving furniture (and the entryway light was broken during one move) and the guys upstairs constantly drop beer cans (by their own admission) and have weights they shift across the floor almost daily. Again: why single dogs out as problematic? And isn't this exactly what the security deposit is intended to cover?\n\nRegarding the yard, which I suppose is dog specific: I have a scoop and clean up after my dog every time. This is exactly the kind of information contained in the references from my previous landlords. If considered on a case by case basis, I see no reason this \"issue\" isn't avoidable.\n\nIn short: why is it okay to single dogs out as potential problems and usable as an excuse to refuse tenancy? I understand that the laws *allow* them to do so whereas they can't deny an application based on age or having children; I disagree with this as well. Either landlords can discriminate for *any* reason that may cause sound or damage, OR they must allow them all (including dogs). I hesitate to use a loaded word like \"discrimination\", but it's hard to resist, especially seeing as people who choose to have children are protected but those who choose to have pets are heavily restricted.\n\nFURTHERMORE, I believe changing their policy would actually benefit the landlords (especially early on). When so many apartments disallow pets, the ones they open their doors would have a wider pool of potential tenants. In many places (definitely in Boston), the rental market has numerous issues that need to be addressed and the landlords currently hold all the cards, so this benefit isn't immediately obvious. Still, I believe it would bear out in an overall more fair market.\n\nPS - I would understand some policies relating to location and breed, such as not allowing dogs over 100 pounds in an apartment with less than 500 square feet or something, but that would be for the dog's safety. Restrictions on breeds for being \"too violent\" seem very problematic and I believe should be examined on a case-by-case basis.\n\nTL;DR: Dogs are, on average, no worse than children or simply irresponsible/inconsiderate adults, so landlords should not be able to deny tenancy to pet owners.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Reddit is better off without /r/FPH + \n + Thought about this for days, and I can't think of one aspect of the FPH community that made Reddit better:\n\n- They are ignorant: Proven by the overwhelming number of their threads that complained about their free speech being violated. Reddit isn't the government, free speech isn't a factor here.\n\n- They are hypocritical: The mods would ban anyone who stated things they disagreed with. And yet they get upset when they are banned themselves.\n\n- They are narrow-minded: Anyone who disagrees with them is assumed to be fat themselves. The idea that non-fat people could find what they say idiotic and lacking any value is completely foreign to them.\n\nI just can't think of any way in which my life, or Reddit was made better by FPH.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Gaston was the good guy in Disney's Beauty and the Beast + \n + Gaston, the loud and boisterous dreamboat is known as the main Antagonist of Disney's Beauty and the Beast, and is arguably one of the most known Disney villains of all time, fighting and womanizing his way through the small French village before ultimately meeting a brutal end by falling to his death off of Beast's Castle and impaling himself on a spiked fence.  While Gaston is written to be the evil character in this film, I believe that it is unfair to put him in this light, and if anything, he's a good guy.  Here is my reasoning\n\n1.  Overwhelmingly, the villagers seem to absolutely adore Gaston, and not because of some shady shit where he's hiding who he truly is.  Everybody knows the true Gaston and yet they loyally follow him anyway, even into battle. I refuse to believe that this is because the village is populated entirely by villains, and instead it must mean that Gaston truly has a way of winning over people.\n\n2.  People often say that the way that he approached Belle in asking her to marry him was rude and misogynistic.  While I don't necessarily believe that any of these traits make a villain, I still think that it is unfair to paint him with any of these labels.  He approached her with great confidence, a trait that just about every woman likes in a man, and his track record of having every woman in the village swoon over him means that it's really not his fault that he expected Belle to be different. The fact that he even asked Belle herself as opposed to demanding her from her father shows that he probably really did care about her, especially since he probably could have done the former given the time period the movie is set in.  \n\n3.  The act that truly cements Gaston as the \"villain\" of the story is when (in what I think is the movie's best song), he rallies the entire town to go kill the beast, now at this point in the story, the beast had attacked and kidnapped Belle's father, and he also held Belle hostage during which he verbally abused her, kept her locked in her room, and even came close to physically assaulting her.  While the beast had gone through some personal growth during this period, Gaston had no way of knowing this, and none of that excuses the fact that he fucking kidnapped Belle.  So, disregarding his own personal safety, and acting out of anger for what has happened to Belle even though she brutally rejected and insulted him (a very selfless act if you ask me),  Gaston charges headlong into a castle to destroy this beast that he logically believes is a violent and dangerous creature, and then the story ends.  \n\nOverwhelmingly, I see nothing that shows Gaston to be  the evil sociopathic villain that Disney wants to portray him as.  In fact, I see him as a lovestruck and rightfully angered man, albeit a little bit egotistical, but hey, plenty of us are.  \n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: A benefit of believing in subjective morality is that it forces you to really think about why something would be \"good\" or \"bad\". + \n +  My position is that if someone believes there are things that are objectively good or bad then they may fall into a mindset of simply accepting things as good or bad without much thought. This can lead them into blindly following their so called objective morals. On the other hand if they don't believe that there are things that are objectively good or bad, then they will more often try to think through why something could be \"good\" or \"bad\". This in turn can make the person more aware of little details and nuances that may cause a big change in their way of seeing a situation. This can allow a more flexible outlook of the world. This will prevent the blind acceptance of ideas of what is good and what is bad.\n\nNote: when I use good and bad in quotations it's because I understand that a component of subjective morality is that it takes the position that nothing is inherently good or bad, but I don't know what would be more appropriate words to use.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Framing computing as engineering is misguided, it should be regarded as applied math instead + \n + I think framing computer programs as engineering projects, same as if we were building a bridge, is why \"all code is bad\" and \"all software has bugs\" (these will sound familiar to any developer out there).\n\nAs I see it, a program is a complicated mathematical function. It receives input and produces output accordingly. Be it a compression algorithm or a google search, the concept is the same. Engineering projects aren't like that.\n\nWe would not admit a function that doesn't produce the correct result sometimes, and the researcher would not tell us to restart and try again. A function can't be mostly right or \"good enough\". It's either correct or incorrect. Maybe if we considered programs correct or incorrect, we would not release incorrect programs.\n\nIf we worked like this, probably we would not be able to release as many programs as we do now. But that just means the engineering approach makes more sense economically, in terms of making money; that's not the purpose of the topic. My view is about what makes more sense from the point of view of computing.\n\nThanks\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The victims of the majority unjustified police shootings could have prevented it by simply complying, therefor I don't believe they deserve any sympathy for their behavior. + \n + I'm not sure at what point people stopped thinking about the ramifications of their actions and became so head strong that they believed they were invincible, that officers judgements were infallible, that their rights would keep the blood inside their body.\n\nI have practiced civil disobedience in my life.  I have been arrested more than once.  But I'll tell you one thing, I have never failed to comply with an officers orders.\n\nI nearly ever incident of a person involved in a police shooting, they have one problem.  They are not being compliant.  The United States offers you rights, but your rights can't keep you alive.  This often turns into a matter of \"you're victim blaming.\"  I'm simply saying that right or wrong, the behavior of these victims can most often be described as \"exercising outrageously poor judgement.\" \n\nFor one simple reason, I value my life. It's not a matter of principle, it's a matter of practicality.  I don't want to die. And I don't feel sorry for anyone whose ego is bigger than their brain, whether or not their shooting was justified.  \n\nCMV", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Being obese IS a disability + \n + This CMV was inspired by this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/3cfy8u/being_fat_is_not_a_disability/\n\nI believe that being obese is a disability.  Now, before you rip me to pieces, hear me out.  It's a disability that a person does to themselves.  It's a disability that is completely avoidable, and I think for these reason people don't like to classify it as a disability.  However, I still think it's a disability because it makes it harder to perform every day tasks.\n\nHere's a comparison that I use.  Imagine you cut off your leg with a hacksaw, for no good reason.  You're now missing a leg, and I would consider you to be disabled.  You did it to yourself, and you could have made different life choices to avoid becoming disabled, but you are disabled all the same.  You might argue that someone who cuts off their own leg obviously has some mental issues, but that could be said for a person who allows themself to become severely obese.  For example, depression leads to overeating for many people.\n\nSo why should obese people be denied some of the \"benefits\" of being disabled, just because they did it to themselves?\n\nAnd I hate that I feel like I have to even say this, but no, I am not overweight, and I do not have any personal agenda.  I am honestly curious why people believe this, and I am willing to reconsider my views.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:I don't think water should be privatized + \n + I feel that water should be controlled by the government as a utility, and not by privet companies with shareholders to keep happy by making profits. There has recently been a push in Cascade locks, OR to sell a portion of groundwater to Nestle. After reading about it, I am not so sure it's a good idea. However, I think I understand the appeal. They have a lot of money to invest into a small town. But I am not so sure it's worth it to have that level of privet ownership of a natural resource. Change my view? \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Simply being old doesn't mine you deserve to be treated better than anyone else + \n + For reference, I live in the US, so the situation may be different elsewhere. But I believe that the simple act of not dying isn't really an accomplishment in a country as advanced as ours. Throughout most of recorded history, being old was considered an accomplishment because there was little to no access to quality health care, they usually had to survive many hardships that couldn't easily be fixed in their day (war, floods, famine, etc.) and they usually had to fight tooth and nail to be alive. However, in the US simply not dying isn't difficult, its easy to get access to healthcare and medicine (insurance issues aside, an ambulance to the ER is widely available), they have been no recent wars on US soil, natural disasters can easily be dealt with thanks to our level of technology, thus increasing our average life expectancy. The ideal of respecting one's elders just because they are old, and having to  go out of your way to respect them or letting them inconvenience your live without saying anything back in a archaic way of thinking.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I don't think I should spend every waking hour of my teenage life trying to get into a good college + \n + I'm a really bad student, like a really bad student. In certain classes I simply do not do the homework and in all classes I rarely ever study. I understand perfectly where this will get me, but I am simply not willing to throw all my time and energy into things I see as unnecessary. \n\nDon't get me wrong I'm not some party high schooler, quite the opposite really. I am an all honors student with many AP classes that I have been scheduled to take next year after taking one AP class this year (sophomore year). I don't waste my time with things I see as trivial and slowly school has turned into something I see as trivial. Instead of doing my school work I spend timing learning how to program or watching a documentary on issues in this world. I write, I read, and I just try to learn everything I can but just not at school. I feel like I need the freedom to choose what I do and when I do it and I am just not allowed this with school.\n\nEvery morning I wake up at 6:45 sit through painstakingly boring classes with rare highlights as there is just one or two classes I can somewhat enjoy. If there's a test it's a 50/50 that I'll turn it in half blank and if it's a lecture or some other activity I'll tune in only once awhile to get the gist of the lesson. I sometimes look around to my peers and see people with 4.0+ gpa's who are completely focused on school. I see them during free periods doing all the work assigned and I see them get mad when they get 2 points taken off. When I see this I can appreciate the effort, but at the end of the day there are literally thousands of other people just like them. Every school in the country has a couple valedictorians who will all be competing to get into the \"best\" colleges and a majority of them will not make it.\n\nI think I understand the importance of college and I feel like I would excel at some of the top university, but as of now I not chasing that 4.0+ gpa required to get there and I don't see myself doing that anytime soon. I love to learn, I really love to learn and I teach myself new things I find interesting and useful everyday. That passion continues grow but it's pushing me away from going to the best colleges which I have been told will allow me to achieve the things I want to do. So please tell me why I should need to get that 4.0+ gpa and go to the best of the best of colleges. I want to help the world, but I'm not sure I'm going about it in the right way.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Fireworks are really boring, have little to do with celebrating independence, and are not worth the risk. + \n + A friend of mine held a Fourth of July event, and spent upwards of $500 on fireworks.  I've seen professional displays, choreographed and set to music, which were pleasant enough, but after a few minutes, what else is there but more of the same?\n\nBut this private display, ergh.  One, two, three tubes, willows, spinners, blah blah blah.  An hour and a half of this?  I got good and buzzed, and gave myself time to sober up, and still it went on and on and on.  No pace, no art, just whistle, bang, pretty lights.  And I drove home, and saw dozens of similar displays, all the same.  \n\nThese people are just enjoying the bang and zoom and pretty lights, they are not commemorating anything.  And I've seen all kinds of stories, people injured, even killed, by these things, which in my opinion offer little or no excitement or entertainment.\n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I (white guy) do not benefit from racism + \n + I was born white in the USA, a country with a history of terrible racism and a justice system which is unfair to minorities. I continuously see articles like [I, racist](https://medium.com/@johnmetta/i-racist-538512462265) in which all white people are complicit in racism because they benefit from it, but that is where the argument stops. I have never seen a good defense of this argument.\n\nSlavery was terrible for black people but it wasn\u2019t great for white people either. Sure, a few plantation owners got away without hiring employees, but is that good for the economy?\n\nIn the Civil War, millions of people died. Segregation was terrible and it ripped  society apart. People complaining about how Obama doesn\u2019t look American miss the opportunity to talk about policy. \n\nThe justice system is in drastic need of reform. Cops, prosecutors, police unions, where to even start at how bad they are? There is an endless war on drugs that my taxes pay for. There is rampant imprisonment of non-violent felons that my taxes pay for. There is an endless ghettoization of minorities that my taxes pay for. \n\nDo I want these things? No way! Do I vote against them every chance I get? Of course! Am I racist? Am I complicit? I don\u2019t believe so. Let me hear it, reddit.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The financial crisis in Greece represents a significant defeat for the Left & Socialist politics + \n + I'm European (England), as a result I've been watching the Greece situation unfold quite ardently.\n\nIt is my view that spending within your means is a moral obligation, regardless if its personal finance or government spending. Therefor I see the tactics employed by Tsipras and his party as cynical at best and downright reckless at worst - it's essentially been an effort to blackmail the Eurozone. As a result of this, I have sympathy for the Greek people as they will bare the brunt of the consequences from all this, but admittedly my sympathy is quite limited as they voted quite overwhelmingly in favour of supporting Tsipras when it was quite clear what could happen.\n\nAt the time of the referendum there were rallies in Scotland to support the 'No' vote, as well as France. These are areas with a very heavy left-leaning population (the SNP in particular in Scotland were also convinced that anti-austerity would work). Coupled with this, on Reddit I've seen a lot of people arguing that it is in fact not Greece's fault and the blame should be placed upon the lenders.\n\nObviously I do not agree with this standpoint as it paints Greece as some kind of foolish child who has no ability to look after itself. All this got me thinking - it is my view that those shifting the blame away from Greece do so to save face in the fact that the traditional left wing idea they may hold close - that of anti-austerity - has clearly not worked and instead has made things much, much worse.\n\nI believe that Greece's situation represents defeat for the anti-austerity platform as a whole and the left wing ideals it represents.\n\nCMV\n\n\nMy view centres around the seeming unwillingness to accept that hardline left ideologies were not the correct answer here - an example of cognitive dissonance (in a way)", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: BOTH homosexuality and heterosexuality are choices. (Hear me out and CMV) + \n + Hi CMV! A recent post on AskReddit about homosexuality and pedophilia being a choice or not led me to this thought that BOTH homosexuality and heterosexuality are choice made by our subconscious minds. I KNOW how this view will bring up other ethical/moral/rights issues, but read the following before lambasting me:\n               \nWhat if the human mind starts as a blank sheet of paper at age zero, but everyone has different genes that give them different tendencies towards different sexualities? So as the human mind engages with the constructed world, as the baby/kid interacts with different types of people, play different toys, watches different cartoons, etc, the mind gets molded accordingly. NOW I know how this opinion will lead to the justification of actions such as churches \"training\" homosexuals back to being a \"normal\" person, but I think that this \"molding of the mind\" only happens to humans before we reach full-consciousness. (Yes, I realize this still doesn't absolve the justification) So, beyond a certain age, the human mind is then more or less \"fixed\u201d and it is then hard to change it.\n\nMy opinion is based on little or no knowledge on topics such as human genetics, neuroplasticity, and human psychology. So please CMV!\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: If people fully understood games in the vein of Dungeons & Dragons, they would be much more mainstream + \n + D&D, while it's managed to achieve pretty good cultural penetration (i.e. lots of people know what it is), tends to get a pretty bad rap. It's associated with basement-dwelling, BO-heavy obese teens and college students, particularly men. I'm actually not going to argue with that impression so much, because frankly I'm not convinced it isn't based in truth (actually, I think it once was, but isn't as much anymore). What I will argue is that this is irrelevant to what a game like D&D actually is, and what it offers a group of people sitting around a table with beer and pizza. I believe that if everyone were actually exposed to it, beyond just the basic idea and the cultural stigma, it would be widely played (it already is *more* widely played than it was twenty years ago, but that's not the same). \n\nFor anyone who's never played it, or anything like it, here's the basic rundown: I tell you that you walk into the living room of a house. There's a table with a book on it, a door that's closed so you can't see what it leads to, and an open doorway through which you can see the next room, which is larger and fancier. You can choose to interact with any of these given things\u2014but more importantly, you can do *anything else*. You can jump out the window. You can search the couch cushions for change. You can set fire to the whole house. And I will be obligated to provide more material for you regardless of what you choose to do. The story proceeds in our collective mind's eye with literally limitless choice and narrative flexibility.\n\nThe only thing governing your actions, keeping this from being a game of straight-up make believe, is that there's a set of skills with accompanying numerical levels to determine whether you actually *can* do the thing you want. Are you perceptive enough to find those coins? Can you strike a match without burning yourself? You can peruse the book, but are you smart enough for it? Your number with that skill, along with a dice roll to add some randomness, tells you if you pull it off. There's an element of chance and risk. Since you can't do *everything* you want, what you do choose suddenly becomes much more meaningful. You have to know what you're good at, what your odds are, and what possible results your actions will have. It's basically a gigantic thought experiment, a hypothetical situation that you get to navigate. Ever become lucid at the end of a dream and wish you could stay? That's sort of what D&D offers. Sort of. \n\nFor any given element of what the game requires, there's already a mainstream activity that revels in it. Do you like crunching statistics in the service of a non-real competition? Play fantasy football. Do you like to pretend to be a character? Play a murder mystery game\u2014or, you know, act in something. Do you like rolling dice? Play a very, very wide variety of the things. Do you like dragons and swords? Watch *Game of Thrones*. What sets D&D apart from more socially acceptable pastimes isn't really in its actual execution, but in the demographic we associate with it, and our desire to *not be of that demographic*. \n\nBut here's the thing: you can play sports without being stupid, perform on stage without being a prima donna. Who you are doesn't depend on how you spend your free time. We all intuitively understand this with most activities, but the view of D&D is so strong it makes us forget. If you take away the medieval dressing, and put yourself in the picture instead of the fat, pimply nerd, you get something not much different from, say, Monopoly or Trivial Pursuit. **D&D is a fairly complex example, and I use it only because it's the most famous, but there are others that share the fundamentals while being much simpler and more casual.** (Edit: I've bolded this due to several responses related to time commitment, although I would again argue that the time you spend on fantasy football or binge-watching *Game of Thrones* is no less than what you'd spend on a game like this one.) Boiled down to its essentials, the game is just a shared storytelling. I ask you to interact with an imaginary landscape, you explore that landscape with total freedom, and we both rely on dice to keep us from knowing how our own story ends.\n\nI'm a writer, so while I enjoy a normal, healthy social life, I am still drawn to D&D because it's the only way for me to engage the same parts of the brain I use in writing, but with my friends. I even loathe reading and writing fantasy, but I still love D&D for what it offers me creatively. There are a lot of reasons you could be interested in it, and they aren't all \"Because I can't get laid on a Saturday night.\" I think if everyone understood this, it would be no less common to see it on people's shelves than any of your standard board games. \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: If you have to defend something as free speech, you're probably wrong + \n + I believe free speech is important, and a generally good thing. However, if you state with an idea, let's say \"Forks are a blight upon society\", and someone disagrees with you, if you immediately jump to free speech as defense of your idea, you are basically admitting that you have no worthwhile arguments. Yes, you are allowed to say that, but if you actually had something to back it up, say \"sporks are far more versatile, cutting the required utensil manufacturing by a third, reducing global warming 93%\", you would say that. Free speech does nothing to back up the validity of your claim, as you are free to be wrong.\n\n\nAnd, to clarify, I am not talking about free speech as a legal concept. Having to prove your speech legal says nothing as to its validity. I mean having to fall back on free speech as an argument does nothing to prove you right.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I support resources and help centers for male rape victims, but I don't see male rape as severe as female rape. + \n + Hey fellow Redditors! I'm a male myself and I just have trouble equating female rape with male rape. I perfectly understand that non-consensual sex is rape regardless of gender, and I encourage all men who have been sexually abused to immediately seek help, but I have trouble feeling as bad for men who are raped and it's hard for me to weigh the impact of that rape on their lives. \n\nThe reason is because whenever I think of women getting raped, I think of a strong (and sometimes old) man who clearly has power of a much weaker woman forcing her to do things that she finds derogatory. The fact that women are the prominent gender in the sex slave trade doesn't help. That only makes me feel like a man raping a woman is essentially treating her like property and belittling her humanity. Also, although I can't prove this scientifically, we all know at least that society views men as horny fucks who are out there just to fuck women. This evokes some feeling in me that women are men's \"prey\" and they are the victims who have to put up with this feeling of worthlessness. \n\nWhenever I think of a man getting raped however, I think of a guy who has had a little too much to drink and is being coerced into sex by a woman who finds him attractive. Yeah, he may not want to have sex with her, and yeah at that point he is way too weak to resist, but because he's a man, there's something inside of me that feels like he can deal with this and it's simply just another night that didn't go so well. Now as for gay men, that's different and I can sympathize with them more, especially if they were the ones who were penetrated. Even though I feel that way with gays, I still don't think of rape of gay men as bad as rape of women.\n\nI guess I may see being penetrated unwillingly as worse than having to penetrate someone against your will. But the fact that toughness and security are associated with males and feebleness and innocence are associated with women also doesn't help. \n\nI really do hate my stance on this because I like to think of myself as a benevolent person who wants the common good for everyone. Please tell my why I should *think* of male rape as bad as female rape. Again, I really want my view to change. \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Black slavery is alive and well in the United States. + \n + Hi, allright so as I see it.\nBlack Americans make up ~10% of our population but ~40% of our incarcerated.  \n\nLarge majorities of our incarcerated population have been sentenced on minor drug and possession charges made possible by the war on drugs.\n\nThe US prison system is structured as a profitable venture, those profits coming overwhelmingly from the tax-pool (insofar as I understand this).\n\nThe only conclusion I can reach from this is that an institution of normalized slavery exists and functions on a wide scale in the united states.  \n\nFollowing emancipation, there was a long period where black slavery in America truly did function, with large work camps and prison gulags sourcing labour from the black community after slapping them with minor charges, loitering, etc.  As far as I can tell, this never stopped and has only grown in scope.\n\n\nRacial minorities in america (overwhelmingly black and hispanic) are obviously mostly incarcerated.  Whether or not our justice system is structurally racist is not the issue here.  It is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA_2009._Percent_of_adult_males_incarcerated_by_race_and_ethnicity.png\n\nI sort of came here from elsewhere on reddit after running into this documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAJLSpUXawE   \n(from where I cited the work camp/gulag comment)\n\nAnyway, this realization has made me quite uncomfortable,  that my tax dollars support.. you know, racial slavery,  because even after a brief review of the numbers involved here... yea I don't know what else to call it.   Is that not what is going on here?  Is there something I don't fully understand about how prisons operate?  ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: It's Moral for Parents to Abort or Euthanize Hopelessly Defective Infants Before They Can Fully Understand Their Living Nightmare + \n + Consider a toddler is found to have Down's Syndrome, or Leukemia, or Harlequin-type Ichytosis, or Severe Autism, or Progeria. Every day of their life will be undue suffering for both them and their parents, who have to completely devote their time and money to their hopeless, terminally ill child. Unlike a healthy child, a terminally ill child has no future, no potential, no return on investment for parents. I believe it's best to quietly euthanize an infant with Leukemia before it can fully understand its situation. No child should have to suffer through a living Hell. It would be better to quickly and unknowingly die, than to lucidly suffer a short, miserable existence that gets worse with every passing day. I invite you to CMV.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The American educational system sucks + \n + I have spent a year in Sweden. As you can probably imagine high school is much different there. High school is three years and it's called gymnasium. \n\nIn Sweden you choose between programs instead of classes. There's a natural science program, a medical program, an art program, technological ect. In my case there were fewer classes than in the US.\n\n I only had around 5 classes and we didn't have them everyday. Maybe Monday I had two hours of math and then a two hour break then lunch then science then that was it for that day. \n\nWhat I liked the most about school in Sweden was the teacher-student relation. First of all they can dress guerre m however they want (and you know trendy swedes) and also students call them by their first name. It's a much more casual and friendly relationship. Teachers never tell you to be quiet or to put your phone away.\n\nAlso you have unlimited bathroom breaks. And you don't have to ask the teacher, you just leave as you need.\n\nNot to mention that swedes get paid around $100 a month to go to school, and during breaks, you can leave the school and come back for your next class.\n\nThe schools have more of a \"you're the one fucking up if you don't do things right\" kind of attitude. For the most part it works pretty well.\n\nThen here in the US teachers treat students like children. They herd us like sheep. They yell, they tell us to shut up, they tell us to put our phones away.\n\nWhy do they do this? I mean psychologically, students will behave the way they are treated. If they are treated like children, they will behave accordingly, but if they are given more freedom and a shit ton more responsibility, they will realize that they are adults and should behave like it, or they will fail completely. \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: You should be able to waive parental rights and responsibilities pre-birth. + \n + I think that bodily autonomy is important, however - I also believe that equal rights are important. The way our society is currently structured, a woman has 100% control over what happens to a baby, regardless of circumstances regarding conception. She can choose to carry it to term or she can choose to abort it. The male has few rights and none of them concrete in most countries - in the past, virtually every lawsuit to initiate or prevent an abortion has failed.\n\nI think this is good. I think a woman should have full rights to control her body, and the pregnancy is *definitely* a matter of bodily autonomy. The child that ensues as a result, however, is not. I think, regardless of circumstances of conception, the biological mother/father should be able to opt out of parental rights and responsibilities. At birth, the baby will be delivered/retained by the person who did not sign the waiver, and raised by them - and them alone. Any visitation rights/contact/influence will be at the discretion of the now sole legal guardian.\n\nThis way, mothers who don't want the child but may be opposed to an abortion (for whatever reason) can surrender the child to the father without worrying about any legal ramifications. Similarly, any male who doesn't want to participate in the raising of the child should be able to sign a form and waive all legal rights and responsibilities including child support.\n\nThis is based on the logic that most pregnancies that are unwanted are either \"accidents\" (I.E. Nobody's fault, condom broke, hormonal B.C. failed, they were stupid and didn't even pull out, etc...) or intentional (Poked holes in the condom, raped, lied about B.C.). I don't believe there are many pregnancies where one party was solely at fault, though I may be wrong on this. As a result, if they choose not to be a part of/don't want that child, I think they should be absolved of pregnancy/birth/child rearing fees.\n\nI don't think either party having to take responsibility for something they didn't want/didn't intend to happen is right. I think that our current system is pretty fucked, honestly, especially because of incidents like [these](http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberthirtysix.htm). While rare, and definitely not the norm, the idea that *anyone* can pay so heavily for something they didn't legally consent to is pretty shocking.\n\nNote: This should only apply to jurisdictions where abortion is legal. Any place where it isn't, both parties are conceivably being forced to bear the pregnancy, and any costs associated with bearing it should be split. That's only if it's going up for adoption, of course.\n\nTL;DR - You shouldn't have to pay for a baby if you didn't want the baby and just got unlucky/were stupid.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Scholarships that Are Available to People of Only a Certain Group (whether gender, religion, origin, race, etc.) are Unfair to People Excluded From It + \n + I've been pursuing a lot of scholarships and one of the things that irritate me is that there are certain scholarships that are not available to me based on my traits assigned by birth. (Male, Caucasian). \n\nI'm not trying to suggest that I am entitled to every single scholarship and this is by no means a vitriolic rant at people who do qualify for said scholarships. But I am specifically against scholarships that rely on people of academic or athletic standing as their criteria but exclude people for not matching into the group they allow applications for. There are people who may deserve a scholarship more, based on achievement, but cannot have the chance to even try.\n\nI'm sure that there must be a reason for this (as that's why I'm here today in the first place) but I can't find any reasoning that I can justify for such exclusion. \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: \"Offense is taken, not given\" is an illegitimate argument since it can just as easily be applied to any emotion we have control over (which according to the stoics is most of them). + \n + I see memes and statements all the time around the idea that \"offense is taken not given\". Usually in the context of someone protesting that something is offensive, and people poking fun at them for the unreasonableness of the offense they took.\n\nBut while I would agree it is possible to behave as if something is far more offensive than most reasonable people would agree it is, this is a qualitatively different issue than \"offense is given not taken\".\n\nStoicism is the ancient philosophy that pain and suffering can be made far more endurable by your reaction to it; specifically, deliberate indifference shields you from suffering. The stoic solution to pain and misfortune is to refuse to let it dominate you and therefore reduce its ultimate harm.\n\nSimilar ideas of detaching yourself from suffering or seeking value in painful experiences can be found in Buddhism and Existentialism. Viktor Frankl, holocaust survivor, wrote *Man's Search for Meaning* about how focusing on the positive and meaningful aspects of life in the midst of a horrible experience helped him and other's survive and rebuild their lives.\n\nSo I agree with the notion that someone can stoically endure offensive behavior, and I'd even agree with the idea that this is, for the individual, the least mentally stressful or distracting way of dealing with these experience. This doesn't necessarily mean complete internalization - passivity is not the same as stoicism.\n\nThe problem I have is with anyone asserting that because offense is 'taken and no given', bad behavior should not be called out, or should be suffered silently. Words and actions *can* betray sordid underlying attitudes. They can make people feel unwelcome. Saying that people should silently tolerate this emotional harm from offensive remarks because they control their own attitudes is like saying people should silently tolerate any harm or injustice, simply because they can (according to stoicism).\n\nLet's step back to the specific case of the 'unreasonably sensitive'.\n\nIf you are drunk and shove someone, we'd probably agree that it's a bit hysterical and even unreasonable for that person to sue you for assault. But you are still in the wrong; you've done something wrong and you could have saved yourself the trouble by not shoving them.\n\nAnd if that person had a bizarre medical condition where his skull was eggshell thing and he fell over and shattered his skull, then you'd *definitely* be liable, and 'he shouldn't have been out in a bar, where people shove people' or 'he should have worn a football helmet' or 'he should have kept his balance' or 'he should endure his serious skull injury without suffering because of the existential meaninglessness of all our lives which forces us to find meaning subjectively' are all horrible excuses that won't and shouldn't help you in court!\n\nIf you bumped into this man by accident with the same result, you'd not be a criminal, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to watch where you're going and not accidentally knock them over.\n\nThe same goes for emotional harm. Some people really are emotionally fragile and some aren't themselves but like to advocate for those who are. And maybe like the thin-skulled man shouldn't become a boxer there are some decisions the emotionally fragile should make carefully, but that doesn't mean you should go around shoving people and insulting those who call you out.\n\n**TL;DR** To change my view, convince me that there is something substantially differentiating offense from other types of harm and suffering that justifies \"offense is taken not given\" as a reaction to those saying a thing is offensive, rather than defense of the thing itself. Or attack from another angle you think of.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Every American enterprise should have mandatory pro-bono. + \n + Pro-bono is a great concept. It literally means \"for the public good.\" Pro-bono work is different from typical volunteer work in that it is service that uses the specific skills of professionals to provide services to those who are unable to afford them.\n\nLawyers in the United States are recommended under American Bar Association ethical rules to contribute at least fifty hours of pro bono service per year(s). So, why can't other professions require this as well? This should be a Government regulated and enforced standard.\n\nAside from establishing a greater sense of community, this can also generate business for companies. Those who cleverly advertise their pro-bono work can catch the attention of many average consumers. Furthermore, this can reduce the necessity for exorbitant government handouts. Pro-bono is a form of guaranteed welfare. \n\nTo be honest, I am not *entirely* familiar with this concept. I only have vague ideas of how it works and why it is beneficial. To me it seems like a no-brainer. However, I'd like someone to challenge my view and educate me in the process!\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think the people wanting to raise the confederate flag in response to the recent church shootings and other tragedies are hypocrites + \n + In short, the reason i think they are being hypocritical is because they so adamantly want to raise the confederate flag but to me it is just an earlier version of something like the Isis flag and yet the people that want to raise the confederate flag are also the same people that are quick to judge Muslims because of the affiliation Isis has with their religion. Back when the confederacy was an actual thing they could easily be seen as a terrorist group in my eyes. They sought to overthrow an already established government through violence and other means that were not stated in the constitution as proper ways of making a political change and they wanted to oppress the blacks and make them their slaves.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Windows 8 isn't nearly as bad as a lot of people say. + \n + A lot of people like to rag on Windows 8 and say that seven was way better. And [sales figures](http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0) seem to reflect that ragging. However I use it as my day to day operating system and I don't really see what's wrong with it. The main complaint seems to be the start screen replacing the start menu. And while the start screen UI could be better, I prefer it to the start menu and if you really hate it you can install something like classic shell to bring back to the start menu.  \nTo change my view here you should tell me if there's something worse than the start screen in Windows 8 that makes it that bad. Or if the start screen really is that bad.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:While I Can't deny that Ellen Pao is a terrible CEO, the way Reddit has been treating her is not okay + \n + I was just at the apology post and pretty much every comment is at best \"apology unaccepted.\" and at worst and more commonly \"die you devil bitch!\". What the hell happened to common decency? It's not like she started World War III, or committed genocide or held hostages at gunpoint. You want to know what she did she ran a website we always waste our time on poorly. Since when is that a crime against humanity? Oh wait it isn't. I'm not saying we have to like her but I'm saying this is not OK to call her devil or C**t, or wish bad things upon her or the worst has her face being posted on pornographic images that's not OK that's bullying and completely inappropriate. Would you want to be treated this way if you screwed up like her? So go change my view why does Ellen Pao Deserve all this?\n\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Being biologically related is no more than that, there's no emotional bond. + \n + It's more complicated than I could put in a title. I mean in specific situations. I saw a post describing a couple that had a baby together and their journey. The woman had met her now-husband after having slept with a different man. She found out she was pregnant from that encounter, the couple married and the husband treats the baby as if it were his biologically. There were so many butthurt comments asking if the couple had ever told the biological father about the baby, asking if he had a say in the matter, etc. The mother actually had told the bio dad that she had gotten pregnant, apparently he wasn't a great person. What I don't understand is why being biologically related entitles a person to a child's life. If the argument is \"You did it, your responsibility\", there shouldn't be a problem because there's already a father willing to take the responsibility. I'm not talking about sperm donors, because it goes with being a donor that your involvement includes sperm and nothing else. I mean, if the man had wanted children, there are a lot of ways he could have them- naturally, adopting, surrogates, etc. He didn't have sex with the woman with the intention of having a baby, so why should he be considered as anything but a genetic relative? If I sneezed on a stranger and found out a year later they had somehow had a baby from my sneeze cells, what right would I have to get angry and demand involvement and power over decisions in its life? The thing that's most confusing is that the people getting angry over biological rights are mostly people without religious or supernatural beliefs, so why are they under the impression that sharing DNA creates an emotional bond? I understand there are holes in my stance, and I have nothing against biological parents or any kind of surrogacy, step parent, foster situation. I just genuinely don't understand what reason people have for believing this way.\n\nAfterthought- Perhaps a clearer title would be \"Being biologically related shouldn't grant any parental or family rights/involvement. As far as I know, I can't edit the title.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: All vehicles, including bicycles, should be subject to license and registration fees that pay for road construction and maintenance AND all vehicles should pay an amount corresponding to the impact they have on those roads. + \n + \nIn this CMV, for the sake of time and simplicity, I'm pulling primarily from this report release on May 5th of this year, though numerous other sources exist and I'm happy to see any reports that may contradict it. http://www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Who%20Pays%20for%20Roads%20vUS.pdf\n\nMy specific view that is subject to change is that\n\n**all road vehicles should be subject to license and registration fees, the amounts of which are determined based on the impact the vehicle has on the road surface**\n\nIn other words, all road users should have to pay an amount corresponding to the amount of damage they cause roads. One general rule of thumb that could be used to calculate this (pulled from the above .pdf) is: \"the damage a vehicle imposes on a road surface increases to the fourth power of axle weight\u2014that is, a vehicle that weighs ten times as much per axle imposes ten thousand times as much roadway damage as a lighter vehicle.\" Building this formula into the cost of vehicle registration fees seems to me to be completely rational and should be implemented. In some cases iterations of it are already in place (toll roads, delivery trucks, etc.) It should be expanded to all road use.\n\nThis formula, however, only takes into account vehicle *weight*, and not vehicle *usage*, which is a more complicated fee structure, but one I believe should be taken into account as well. Additional fee structures should be explored which take into account miles driven, pollutant emissions, congestion fees, etc. \n\nAll this considered, I have no problem with requiring bicycles to be licensed and registered so long as the process is rational and efficient for the owner and the fee structure based on a fair consideration of impact across the board.\n\nFeel free to CMV!\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: It's disrespectful to make comments on someone being \"so hot\" when in a relationship + \n + This goes for both men and women. I've started to feel like I'm unsuitable for a relationship because my ideals are not very normal. This has caused problems with a long term significant other on many occasions and I've been thinking about breaking it off, not because of her but because I feel like my ideals are correct so I don't feel like I should be the one to change. One such ideal is that it isn't okay for men or women to comment on someone in the vein of \"oh my god (s)he is so hot!\" as it's extremely disrespectful to the other person in the relationship. I'm not talking like you can't acknowledge someone's looks at all, obviously there are beautiful and handsome people in the world, but there's a major difference between \"holy shit she's hot as hell\" and \"yeah she's beautiful\" the former of which I see as disgusting.\n\nChange my view.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Property taxes should only depend on the value of the property. + \n + This is fairly straightforward.  I think all real property taxes should be assessed based solely on the fair market value of the property.  It should not matter what the use of the property is, or who lives there.  If you own a plot with a value of $300,000, you should pay the same tax as any other owner of a plot valued at $300,000.\n\nThe most egregious example against this to me is [California prop 13](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_\\(1978\\)) which freezes property taxes when you buy a house, essentially subsidizing long-term residents at the cost of more recent arrivals.\n\nThe basic reasoning for this is twofold.  First, there's a fairness question, since the taxes you pay should be the same no matter who you are.  In the case of property taxes, they're already progressive in as much as they depend on the fair market value of an asset you own. \n\nSecond is an efficiency issue.  Giving people tax abatements encourages them not to move (as in prop 13) or to not sell when they don't have good use for the property, such as [this woman who is being sued for failing to maintain a property she can't afford to renovate, but keeps paying the very low taxes on.](http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20150817/central-harlem/owner-of-dilapidated-landmarked-harlem-home-sued-rare-move-by-city)\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:Marijuana should be legal in all forms, for both recreational and medical use + \n + I believe that Marijuana is a very beneficial plant that has a myriad of medical uses, and i also believe that it is possible to use marijuana for recreation and lead a healthy, productive lifestyle. Not all people who smoke are lazy stoners, some people are very active, healthy people who like to smoke marijuana responsibly just like they would have a glass of wine. I see no problem with relaxing at the end of the day.\n\nObviously minors should not be allowed to use or possess the plant, but is there something i'm overlooking in my philosophy? Are there any real cons to Marijuana legalization? It provides millions of tax revenue, which leads to infrastructure improvement  among other things. It also leads to tax rebates for the citizens, which Colorado did because they had too much tax money. But, most of all it eliminates the possibility to be locked up for relaxing at the end of the day.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Coffee is overrated, the effects received are negligible and often a placebo, and people who say they like the taste are lying to themselves. + \n + I understand the philosophy behind acquiring tastes (learned to love San Pellegrino), but I cannot for the life of me truly find myself appreciating coffee like many of my friends do.\n\nEvery child growing up seems to desire coffee, but only because it's age restricted, similar to alcohol/tobacco. Now I don't have a PhD in psychology or anything, but there is evidence beyond proof that people want what they can't have. It's just human nature, and I feel like it's what's behind the longterm desire for coffee in that something I was once barred from is now freely enjoyed and encouraged. It doesn't help that many people jack their cups with sugars and creams which at a certain point require speculation as to which substance is actually fueling your perceived energy boost.\n\nI consider myself to be very openminded, especially when it comes to substances put into the body for recreational purposes (I'll leave it at that) but I can't seem to see eye-to-eye to my friends that have been religiously trying to convert me all these years.\n\nThe extent of my coffee experience would be instant coffee growing up at home (parents weren't 'connoisseurs' by any iteration of the term but were both pretty addicted to), pretentious (shots fired) coffee shops that my fiends would literally drag me to, and the occasional tinder date Starbucks run in which I would just end up getting the vanilla bean frappe 90% of the time, which is delicious by the way.\n\nIt seems to me like the most elite coffee drinkers in my socials circles tend to hate Starbucks. Maybe because they think it's cool to do so and are attempting to show everyone how much they know about how coffee should taste like.\n\nCould that be the reason? Have I just had bad coffee? Has my past experienced not done justice to an entire culture that is coffee? I mean people spend hundreds of dollars a year on it, and for what?\nChange my view.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I don't think incest or adult-child contact is wrong + \n + Hi.\n\nI'm a 32 year old woman and mother of 3. I've had sex with my father and some other family members.\n\nI don't feel dirtied or damaged or like my life outcomes have been limited, degraded, whatever.\n\nWhen I've told people - which I very, very rarely do - I'm almost always informed that I'm, in effect, damaged goods, a victim who ought to have grievances and do something drastic and legal against my father because he ruined me. I resent this. I'm fine and I'm glad he helped me feather my wings. \n\nSo why are incest and pederasty wrong? I can see how both - especially that last - are almost always wrong in our culture and in the typical environments and instances. Sure. No doubt. Rape is abhorrent. Molestation is abhorrent. Adults using children as sex toys is truly terrible.\n\nBut loving sex with one's family and early introductions? I just don't understand why I'm supposed to consider it to be so wrong and feel so ashamed. \n\n\n---\n\nGoodnight everyone - need to go now. I still have a few good posts to answer ~~tomorrow~~ as soon as I can, so apologies if I've not yet replied.\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Cigarette smoking should be a choice you're allowed to make without getting criticized. + \n + Aside from the aspects of smoking that affect others (smell, second hand smoking, etc.) cigarette smoking is a choice you should be allowed to make without being judged and criticized to all hell. Nowadays it seems like the media portrays smoking cigarettes as the worst thing you can possibly do and a lot of people look down on smoking and smokers. Sure it may take a few of the later years off your life but life is short to begin with and if you enjoy smoking why not? FYI: i don't even smoke cigs.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I (and many others) have no need to use Linux for a desktop computer. + \n + Linux is a hard to learn OS and seems daunting for the average Windows user. Many things on Windows cannot be used on Linux (Distros I have tried were Mint and Ubuntu).\n\n1. Gaming. Games such as ARMA 3 or any other DirectX 11 games cannot be played on Linux at all. In fact, Steam refuses to download them. Even some directx 9 games cannot be played using Wine. (personal issues were splinter cell, battlefield (any of them), and SWBF2 to name a few.) \n\n2. Ease of use. Whenever I try to look up how to do something on Linux it always involves the terminal and confusing commands. With Windows, everything has a easy to use interface. Compared to Windows, Linux is not as polished and requires a lot of setup to easily use. \nMany technologically challenged people have no idea how to use the terminal, especially without Google's help.\n\n3. Drivers. I applaud Linux for its ability to easily recognize system drivers (chipset, USB stuff, etc) but when it comes to things such as joysticks and gaming controllers, even Nvidia drivers and other special drivers (ps3 eye webcam), the terminal has to be used with varying degrees of success. \n\n4. Applications. Almost every program is Windows only and has no alternative in Linux. Some examples are anything GPU/gaming related, (MSI afterburner, geforce experience, etc.) fan control, temp monitors, and any program that has an exe at the end.\n \nIn short, the excessive use of the terminal combined with the lack of common programs/drivers make Linux unusable for both the everyday consumer and the gamer.\n\nI am completely willing to change my view, as I have tried Linux many times with the same common issues appearing. I just see no benefit Linux has over Windows, besides being free.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:We'd be better off if Napoleon had won at Waterloo. + \n + I don't particularly hold this view dearly, I just expect there might be some budding historians on Reddit with more information! It was influenced mostly by [this article](http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/we-better-off-napoleon-never-lost-waterloo-180955298/?no-ist), which is fascinating if you just fancy some historical reading. Basically, if Napoleon has won at Waterloo, and completed his conquest of Europe (bar Russia, of course, and maybe England), the continent would have flourished economically, socially and politically, more so than now. I will highlight the main points below. \n\n\n**1. Revolutionary domestic reforms which all of Europe would have continued to benefit from.**\n\n*\"Yet he said he would be remembered not for his military victories, but for his domestic reforms, especially the Code Napoleon, that brilliant distillation of 42 competing and often contradictory legal codes into a single, easily comprehensible body of French law. In fact, Napoleon\u2019s years as first consul, from 1799 to 1804, were extraordinarily peaceful and productive. He also created the educational system based on lyc\u00e9es and grandes \u00e9coles and the Sorbonne, which put France at the forefront of European educational achievement. He consolidated the administrative system based on departments and prefects. He initiated the Council of State, which still vets the laws of France, and the Court of Audit, which oversees its public accounts. He organized the Banque de France and the L\u00e9gion d\u2019Honneur, which thrive today. He also built or renovated much of the Parisian architecture that we still enjoy, both the useful\u2014the quays along the Seine and four bridges over it, the sewers and reservoirs\u2014and the beautiful, such as the Arc de Triomphe, the Rue de Rivoli and the Vend\u00f4me column.\"*\n\nNapoleon was an extraordinary governor. Many of his reforms are what the rest of Europe based their institutions on, only much later.\n\n\n**2. Napoleon was a lover, not a fighter.**\n\n*In September 1805, Austria invaded Napoleon\u2019s ally Bavaria, and Russia declared war on France as well. Napoleon swiftly won the ensuing War of the Third Coalition with his finest victory, at Austerlitz in 1805. The next year the Prussians also declared war on him, but they were soundly defeated at Jena; Napoleon\u2019s peace treaty of Tilsit with Russia and Prussia followed. The Austrians declared war on France once more in 1809, but were dispatched at the Battle of Wagram and signed yet another peace treaty.\n\nNapoleon started none of those wars, but he won all of them. After 1809 there was an uneasy peace with the three other Continental powers, but in 1812 he responded to France\u2019s being cut out of Russian markets\u2014in violation of the Tilsit terms\u2014by invading Russia. That ended in the catastrophic retreat from Moscow, which cost him more than half a million casualties and left his Grande Arm\u00e9e too vitiated to deter Austria and Prussia from joining his enemies Russia and Britain in 1813.*\n\nBar the Russian Invasion mistake (and I will concede that it was a hell of a mistake), Napoleon did not display the characteristics of a warmonger. Upon his return from exile, his charisma as a leader ensured he reclaimed the throne without shedding a drop of blood, as each army sent to fight him joined him immediately. \n\nWhen he was condemned by the allies in the Vienna Declaration, he wrote to them - \u201cAfter presenting the spectacle of great campaigns to the world, from now on it will be more pleasant to know no other rivalry than that of the benefits of peace, of no other struggle than the holy conflict of the happiness of peoples.\u201d\n\nYou can argue that it was just posturing, but there is no precedent to suggest it was not genuine.\n\n*He told his council that he had renounced any dream of reconstituting the empire and that \u201chenceforth the happiness and the consolidation\u201d of France \u201cshall be the object of all my thoughts.\u201d He refrained from taking measures against anyone who had betrayed him the previous year. \u201cOf all that individuals have done, written or said since the taking of Paris,\u201d he proclaimed, \u201cI shall forever remain ignorant.\u201d He immediately set about instituting a new liberal constitution incorporating trial by jury, freedom of speech and a bicameral legislature that curtailed some of his own powers; it was written by the former opposition politician Benjamin Constant, whom he had once sent into internal exile.*\n\nHe immediately set about refunding the art galleries and public buildings of Paris, in the 12 weeks before the war would begin.\n\n**3. Liberalism in the rest of Europe would have thrived.**\n\n*If Napoleon had remained emperor of France for the six years remaining in his natural life, European civilization would have benefited inestimably. The reactionary Holy Alliance of Russia, Prussia and Austria would not have been able to crush liberal constitutionalist movements in Spain, Greece, Eastern Europe and elsewhere; pressure to join France in abolishing slavery in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean would have grown; the benefits of meritocracy over feudalism would have had time to become more widely appreciated; Jews would not have been forced back into their ghettos in the Papal States and made to wear the yellow star again; encouragement of the arts and sciences would have been better understood and copied; and the plans to rebuild Paris would have been implemented, making it the most gorgeous city in the world.*\n\n\n\n\nTL;DR - Napoleon was an all round great dude, and great leader who accomplished so much in such little time. If he had stayed in power for the 6 more years until his death, France and Europe would have benefitted greatly from it. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I have a say in how you raise your children because I'll have to deal with them in society + \n + People usually get very upset when you suggest how they should handle certain situations with their children and they become defensive and tell you that it's not your child and you don't pay the bills so you have no say whatsoever. While I've never given advice to anyone how to raise their children, I feel like I have a right to scold parents for raising their children in a way that will cause society harm once they've grown up.\n\nThis is more apparent with child abuse but it should not have to reach that point for others to be able to at the very least voice their opinion or criticize you for your parenting style.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I don't think America's gotten any worse, we're just more aware of it now. + \n + It seems that the prevailing opinion on the US is that its going to hell in a hand basket at record speed and is verging on becoming a police state, an oligarchy, etc. And the way people on reddit or in the media talk about it you'd think that the US has really gone downhill lately and that it's at a particular low point. I don't think that's the case. I'm not denying that the US is up to some pretty shady shit with the torture of prisoners, the lack of accountability for police, the mass-spying, etc. But the US has always been up to something shady and I'd say overall we live in the era were the US is probably the least shady it's ever been.\n\n\n\nI mean consider the literal genocide of the Native Americans, or the Tuskegee experiments, the CIA brain washing, the brutal and lethal treatment of workers unions, the Red Scares, internment of Japanese-Americans, goddamn slavery and Jim Crow laws, practice of eugenics, the Banana Republics. This is all just as bad as anything America does today and some of it was even worse. So while some people act like America's reached a new low, I think they're more just maintaining the status quo and we're just more aware of the shadiness with modern media. \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: If women are allowed to wear small earrings in the workplace, I should be allowed to wear small spacers. + \n + I currently have my ears spaced to a size 0, which is 8.25mm or 1/3rd inch. They definitely aren't the smallest size you can stretch to, but they're much smaller than what a lot of people do, and I've never had any complaints at any of my part-time jobs. In fact, people often don't notice that I have them.\n\nPeople often say that they're unacceptable in office or professional settings, but I disagree. Not only have I seen people dressed for professional work wearing spacers before, but I believe the argument against them is weak, especially if you allow women to wear small earrings at work. My spacers take up as much space on my ear lobe as the average earring (maybe a little bigger), and I tend to wear them in mute or neutral tones, making them not distracting.\n\nI also believe that the definition of \"workplace appropriate\" here is subjective. Obviously there are parts of workplace dress that ought to be enforced, such as dressing somewhat conservatively and having clean, well-fitting clothes. But when workplace appropriateness allows earrings but not spacers, I believe allowing one but not the other is arbitrary. My spacers wouldn't be any more distracting than earrings, so I believe I have just as much of a right to wear them. CMV!\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The assumption that alien life exists is wildly optimistic + \n + Its pretty common to encounter people, including a decent number of reputable astrophysicists, who believe that the odds of life existing on other planets are so high as to be a near-certainty. These assumptions, as far as I can tell, tend to be based on the size and age of the universe (i.e. huge and old), particularly the number of \"earth-like\" planets.\n\nBut its my understanding that in fact knowing exactly how \"earth-like\" a planet is is pretty difficult, and that many planets listed as \"earth-like\" may not actually be earth-like in enough of the ways that matter--in other words, just because a planet is roughly earth-sized, roughly the right distance from a sun, and features heavy elements, doesn't actually mean that it in any way is earth-like *enough* to support life. In fact, it is entirely possible that planets which can support life are vanishingly rare, much rarer than most estimates based on \"earth-like\" planets seem to acknowledge.\n\nIn addition, the odds that a planet which does meet earth-like criteria actually will develop life are basically totally unknown--anthropic bias and the fact that we literally only have only one model planet to observe makes actually nailing down the odds of abiogenesis on some other, non-earth planet very difficult to estimate. And while it is true that abiogenesis seems to have occured roughly soon after conditions on earth met the necessary preconditions as we understand them, it is also my understanding that as far as we can tell abiogenesis only happened once on earth, with all life on earth ultimately stemming from a common origin. If abiogenesis were really common once the necessary preconditions were met, why hasn't it kept happening?\n\nTL;DR I think most estimates of the number of planets which actually meet the necessary conditions for abiogenesis (rather than just being broadly earth-like), and for the likelihood of abiogenesis occuring once conditions have been met, are very possibly way too high, and that it is just as likely if not moreso that both planets which can support life and abiogenesis on such planets are infinitesimally rare. While I would never say with 100% certainty that alien life does not exist, I am unconvinced by those who say it almost certainly does.\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe bisexuality is something that is learned and is a choice + \n + I believe people are either born straight or born gay. That isn't a choice.\n\nHowever the idea that someone could be BORN bisexual I don't agree with. Yes, there are bisexual people. But I do believe that is something that is learned over time and is a choice.\n\nA straight man can LEARN to like men sexually. He can learn to enjoy it. Right now, I could watch gay porn and eventually enjoy it even though I'm straight. Doesn't mean I'm actually bisexual and that I was born bisexual. Just means I learned to like men, however I \"prefer\" women.\n\nI do not believe sexuality is fluid and is always changing. You're either born gay or straight. That is it.\n\nHow do you explain all the gay Craigslist ads with men labeling themselves as straight and looking for other men? How do you explain people saying they are evolving and experimenting? \n\nI know straight men who have had sex with other men, yet always go back to wanting a woman in their life. Want to marry a woman yet also have gay sex. They just \"enjoy\" gay sex.\n\nI just don't take it seriously when people describe themselves as bisexual. I know that deep down they have a preference, and that preference usually shows their \"true\" sexuality.\n\nHow do you explain transgender people being thirdly split into straight, gay, and bisexual?\n\nI have a friend who is a bisexual trans man. He says that he doesn't really label himself. However he has tons of gay sex. Yeah, he did have a girlfriend here and there. He told me that when he had sex with a girl, it didn't feel \"special/right\" as if he didn't enjoy it fully to the extent. So basically he is gay and just learned to like women because of what he went through as a trans man. So yes, gay people can also \"learn\" to be bisexual, but they aren't happy is what I'm saying. It isn't their true sexuality.\n\nFor what purpose would man be BORN bisexual? What could that possibly serve to mankind?\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The government should NOT be able to force businesses to serve customers/cater events the business does not want to serve/cater. + \n + So neither side of this debate feels morally right for me to be on, but I think logically, I'd have to support the conservative side of the argument.\nAll modern economic transactions involving physical items (no stocks, capital, etc.) can be simplified down to a trade of money for labor. Yes, you can buy an item off the shelf at someplace like Target, but what you're really buying is the labor involved in making that item, the item being the end result of it. In other words, it is impossible to buy a physical item that is not shaped and made valuable by labor. In this sense, what you do when you walk to a pizzaria and buy a pizza is *directly* contract the labor of the pizza maker in exchange for money (as opposed to indirect contracting through a store, e.g. DiGornios). Because of this, businesses should have the right to refuse to labor for any particular individual, *for any reason*. If this is NOT the case, and some outside authority can force a person to preform labor they don't wish to preform, that could be seen as a type of slavery (I hate to use the term), because an outside authority is forcing a person, under the threat of force, to labor, even when that person doesn't want to.  \nSo prove me wrong everyone, help me come to better formulate and understand my own ideas! That's what this sub is about, after all.\nPlease excuse the weird grammar and sentence structure, I just woke up", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The idea that advances in artificial intelligence are like \"summoning a demon\" (to quote Elon Musk) is utterly stupid. + \n + Some pretty smart people, Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk included, have been propagating the idea that the future of artificial intelligence might be akin to an alien invasion. I find it incredibly hard to believe that these supposedly intelligent people would believe such nonsense, as this reasoning involves a huge logical leap. The desire for domination over others, or even the competitive drive itself, is a completely contingent phenomenon particular to humans and all other species evolved as a result of a  particular model of evolution and has nothing at all to do with level of intelligence. We have no reason to believe that super intelligent machines will  somehow acquire the urge for competition with or domination over others. Furthermore, selfishness, the competitive urge and other such qualities are parasitic on unique psychological phenomena, such as the possession of a sense of self (or the ego), which we have no reason to believe the super intelligent machines of the future will acquire either. In all likelihood the super intelligent machines of the future will have no desires, personal wants, aspirations or even a sense of themselves as individual persons. Therefore the idea that artificial intelligence will be a threat to humanity is completely preposterous, and Elon Musk et al are not all that they are made out to be. \n\n\nhttp://techcrunch.com/2014/10/26/elon-musk-compares-building-artificial-intelligence-to-summoning-the-demon/\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Sentient AI will emerge spontaneously significantly before humans can digitize themselves. + \n + Human sentience (or consciousness, or sapience, or whatever term you like) is an emergent behavior of neurons and their interactions, which can be replicated in non-organic systems, i.e., computers. Thus it is likely that given advanced enough technology, we could make a digital human, or even copy an organic human to the digital world.\n\nSimilarly, other neural networks can be constructed digitally, collectively known as AI. This is fairly well accepted in modern society, although there are debates over 'souls' and things like that.\n\nI think that sentient AI will probably emerge first, long before we get close to digitizing humans, because of the way AI may emerge. Currently, one approach to developing advanced neural networks is to allow them grow 'naturally', which is to say that the network is given some parameters to optimize, and then iterations darwinistically decide what the optimal solution is. Pretty much like carbon-based evolution, but much faster.\n\nHowever, I'm not an expert in the field, so I'm open to different opinions, or even alternatives not the above two options. CMV: AI will achieve sentience way before we can make computer humans.\n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Parents should be allowed to have children with severe mental disability euthanized + \n + This CMV post is partly inspired by this r/relationships [post](https://www.reddit.com/r/relationships/comments/3e4h7z/i_m38_want_to_surrender_our_severely_autistic_son/) I came across earlier today. This is also a topic I feel somewhat strongly about and I have not had a chance to really share my view on because it's sort of a \"taboo\" view to have.\n\nTo sum up the r/relationships post: OP's 4 year old son is severely autistic and OP has been told by doctors that his son will never function above the level of a 1 year old and will require constant care. Son is ruining OP's life and marriage, and is negatively affecting OP's 2 young daughters as well.\n\nI do not believe the OP of that post, and the many other parents who are in a similar scenario, deserve to have their lives ruined just because they were \"dealt a bad hand\" and ended up with a disabled child. I think that euthanasia is a humane, simple solution to a problem like this. After all, we euthanize our loved cats and dogs that are no longer able to have a good, independent life. I don't see a fundamental difference between the two cases.\n\nAs for government-owned care facilities: I don't believe it is a good use of our resources as a society to continue to take care of individuals who have no chance to ever become functional members of society. Euthanasia is a much more economically and environmentally more efficient option.\n\nWhat won't change my view: slippery slope/\"where do we draw the line\" types of arguments. We are only discussing cases in which the child is beyond a shadow of a doubt unable to ever function independently. CMV.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Cancer will never be \"cured.\" + \n + I've been hearing these conspiracy theories that basically state that a cure for cancer would not be made public because it would lead to the downfall of the massive industry behind various forms of treatment for cancer. As much as I don't want to believe this, it seems plausible. CMV", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Most governments are untrustworthy. + \n + I have a feeling that I am not the only one with this view, but I will elaborate more on what I mean by untrustworthy anyway.\n\nOk, so what I mean by untrustworthy is that world governments are constantly lying to us and they are therefore undeserving of our trust. A good example of this are the promises that politicians make and break all the time. I use politicians as an example is because, in my mind at least, they are the representation of the government, so their triumphs and mistakes are the triumphs and mistakes of the government.\n\nI will use the famous example of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, where the British and American people were told that the reason we were going to war was due to the possession of weapons of mass destruction by Sadam Hussein. However, it was later uncovered that there was no intelligence supporting these claims at the time nor were there any WMDs when we arrived. Yet to this day, even though it is universally agreed that it was a lie in order to disguise their true motive, no government figure has apologised to us or, to my knowledge, the Iraqi people. In fact, I do not think I have heard any of them admit it was a lie either.\n\nTherefore, since I do not trust those who unapologetically and unremorsefully lie to me, I do not trust the government. I also have some Brazilian friends who share a similar distrust for their government, in light of the corruption allegations against Dilma Rousseff and other members of the government (I mention them to highlight the point that my distrust extends across most other governments of the world, not just the USA and the UK).\n\nHowever, believe me when I say that I would love to live in a world where I could trust those in power, really I would. It just seems that there is no desire to be forgiven or to make amends for the harm they cause. Imagine how much more productive I could be if I was not constantly doubting every piece of information I get from the government.\n\nPlease convince me that the government deserves my trust and, if that is not possible, at least convince me there are more than just a handful of trustworthy governments out there. I will not be convinced if someone tells me of one government that is trustworthy, I need evidence that such trust could be extended to, for example, the government of the United Kingdom as well.\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I do not, and have no reason to, care about Microsoft using my data from Windows 10 + \n + Many people have expressed their disdain for Microsoft's new [Privacy Statement](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/privacystatement/default.aspx) and [Service Agreement](https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/servicesagreement/default.aspx) in the wake of the release of Windows 10. I, however, see no reason for me to care about this. My reasoning is as follows:\n\n1. **I have nothing to hide.** Quite simple. I don't do anything illegal with my computer, so I don't really have anything to hide.\n2. **It will help catch criminals.** One of the reasons Microsoft gives for needing to access your data is if they suspect you're doing something illegal involving that data. With crimes like scams and underage porn still prevalent on the Internet, is this not the logical next step in the stopping of those and other crimes?\n3. **It only applies to data you give to Microsoft anyway.** From my understanding, Microsoft can only access your data that is stored on Microsoft's own services, like OneCloud and Outlook. It does not include your personal, offline files. I choose not to use OneCloud, excepting professional work, and so I don't have any reason to worry that they will access my private files.\n4. **I am just one of millions of Windows users.** Why should Microsoft care about my data any more than any other individual Windows user?\n\nIf I have misinterpreted any part of the Privacy Statement or Service Agreement, please tell me.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:people will only take climate change seriously once a lot of people die + \n + i believe the only way climate change will be taken seriously will be when thousands of people will die\n\n1)climate change is considered an \"invisible force\", that is there are few physical signs that show that the Earth's climate is changing. the only physical signs will be through natural disasters (hurricanes, floods, droughts). no matter how many times a scientist will go on the news to say climate change is real, people won't change the way they live their lives. \n\n2)relating to the first point the amount of these natural disasters need to happen frequently. for example, hurricane sandy caused 65 million dollars of damages and occurred in late October. yet climate deniers will say it was just a freak accident that occurs every couple decades or so. they will probably mention a powerful natural disaster in the 50s or so and say \"was climate change happening then??\" like a scrap on the knee, people will just put a band-aid over it and give it time to heal, but if these scraps happen in rapid session people will realize they can't take it anymore\n\n3)people only care about things that affect them. if there was a law that made its citizens use environmental friendly trash bags and to recycle, they would flip out. why would people care that polar bears, dolphins, bees ,etc. are dying? \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Trying to turn left in a busy two-way street should be illegal + \n + Where I live, there are quite a few two-lane streets (one lane going either way) that tend to get quite busy during the morning and afternoon rush hours. A trend I've noticed is that, on occasion, cars will stop in the middle of one of the lanes and put on their blinkers, indicating their desire to turn left onto a road that branches off the two-way street.\n\nWhat those cars don't seem to get is that the road is BUSY. These cars often spend many minutes sitting in the road, left blinker on, while watching a flood of cars zoom by in the other direction. In the meantime, they back up traffic behind them for MILES and piss off every single driver behind them. Only after multiple minutes, one car in the flood of traffic going the other direction will take pity on the hundred or so poor saps stuck behind this makeshift roadblock, slow to a halt, and allow the turning driver to pass through. \n\nNever once in my life have I seen the driver trying to turn left actually realize just how badly he's holding traffic up behind him and abandon his attempted left turn. It's always someone in the opposite lane who manages to find the shred of empathy to let him pass and release the flood of cars.\n\nBut enough about the rant - I'm of the opinion that this should be illegal, and deserves ticketing if caught (though, obviously, by forcing the car to drive forward and pull over in an area that won't block traffic further). An action like this disrupts the flow of traffic and ruins everyone's commute.\n\nSo, change my view!\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There needs to be different downvote buttons for \"I disagree\" and \"You're trolling.\" + \n + -The reddiquette says \"don't downvote just because you disagree.\" However, there are tons of posts on almost any subreddit with zero or negative karma, and many of these are insightful and friendly but are minority opinions.\n\n-Even subreddits with heavy-handed anti-downvote policies still see *lots* of downvotes.\n\n-Lots of users (myself included) write posts and intend to use the karma as a \"poll\" of sorts, with upvotes as \"Yes\" and downvotes as \"No.\" However, getting heavily downvoted still hurts feelings and can result in quota issues (often tied to an IP address). I have several verified-email accounts but still get \"you are doing that too much. Try again in 9 minutes\" messages. I feel sorry for anyone who shares an IP address with a firebrand redditor.\n\n-There is a difference between \"I disagree\" and \"you're not contributing.\" Almost every language can differentiate the two. There needs to be a way for redditors to communicate philosophical disagreement *separately and independently* from believing a post is worthless or antisocial.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: American public school teachers have lost the power to control their classrooms due to crippling bureaucracy, terrible parenting, legal repercussions, and gutless/careless administrators, and that is a huge problem in our educational system. + \n + My girlfriend's roommate is a Kindergarten teacher in a very large US City who came home practically sobbing because of one of the kids in her class. The kid's mother insists he doesn't act up at home, but the teacher has called her multiple times about her son's behavior. She can't take away recess from kids. She can only send them to the office for 20 minutes at a time. She's not allowed to take pictures or videos of the kids (but she showed us pictures/videos of the kid that day breaking into drawers, throwing stuff, yelling, rolling up carpets, etc). Attempts to discuss the kid with admins are shrugged off. The teacher is very upset because the other kids have complained that they can't learn and some are beginning to follow suit of the shitty kid. \n\nI know this is one example, but her school isn't even among the worst, and it isn't as if teachers inability to control students, despite their wishes to, is surprising. We've all heard about terrible parents, helicopters, complaining about grades etc.\n\nI've had the fortune of going to private schools my entire life (though perhaps that is more due to growing up in one of the worst public school districts in the country). One of the effects of that is that they could discipline you as they saw fit. If you acted shitty, you missed recess, had to call your parents, had to write on the chalkboard, had to stay in the office, got yelled at, etc. Public schools, of course, are another matter and it seems like teachers, the very people entrusted with educating the future, are powerless to do their jobs properly. \n\nSo tell me, is our educational system that fucked because of shitty parents, shitty kids, and shitty administrators, or is it really not that bad? CMV.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Most men aren't bad at aiming their pisstols when going number one + \n + I just don't get it. It's a hose. You point it in the direction you want your urine to go, and it goes there. Is it really possible that other men can't be bothered to hold it still and keep it aimed into the center of the bowl or urinal? I am of the opinion that what is perceived as bad aim is actually splash back from the bowl or urinal. I recognize that it isn't always a perfect stream, but even then it's completely manageable given the size of toilets. I don't have first hand experience with anyone else's hose, though, so I could be completely wrong.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Iran getting nuclear weapons would not be a huge disaster + \n + The common assumption and statement repeated by politicians (at least in the U.S. and Israel) is that a nuclear Iran is completely unacceptable. I agree that it will be an inconvenience and complication, and a negative for Western interests, but it will not be a disaster. Iran obtaining nukes may actually encourage internal liberalization/reform. A nuke provides ultimate protection from invasion. Hardliners use the threat of invasion to scare people away from reforms, so their position would be weakened by having a bomb.\n\nAnticipated replies:\n\n - If Iran has a nuke, it will (try to) destroy Israel.\n\nIran would not use a nuke because that would be absolute suicide. The country would be invaded and the leadership executed.\n\n - Iranian leadership is not rational, and will do it anyway.\n\nIranian leadership has shown itself to be very rational. Yes, it uses terrible rhetoric and incites hatred in its people as a means of control. However, their strategy seems similar to Nixon's [\"Madman theory\"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory) - act like you're crazy to get more out of negotiations.\n\n - Iran will give nuclear material to terrorists\n\nThis would still be suicide. There is an extremely high likelihood it would be traceable back to them. Besides, while they are happy to sponsor terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, they would have no interest giving away a superweapon to an unpredictable third party.\n\n - A nuclear Iran would cause a nuclear arms race in the Middle East\n\nThis is the phrase generally used, but as far as I can tell the only one \"racing\" would be Saudi Arabia. However, Saudi Arabia is both a U.S. ally (and could work out a defense pact if Iran had a bomb), and has no nuclear infrastructure, which apparently (considering that Iran has been \"a year away from a bomb\" for 20 years) takes a long time to create. Furthermore, I'm skeptical of an arms race since Israel and Pakistan already have nukes and this has not caused one.\n\n- Iran will become more influential in the region, which is bad because it funds terrorists.\n\nHaving a nuke would only increase its influence because it would be able to act without the threat of a U.S. invasion. However, this is hardly different from the status quo, where it is common knowledge that there is little public appetite for an assault on Iran's borders. The U.S. and allies are currently engaged in proxy conflicts with Iran; Iranian nukes would not change these conflicts. For example, the U.S. and U.S.S.R. engaged in such conflicts but kept nukes to themselves.\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Reductions in CO2/Climate Change are never going to happen by reducing energy consumption. + \n + All of the focus on combating climate change is ways to reduce energy consumption, alternate technology, and producing fewer tons of CO2. It think this is unrealistic that with a growing population, many countries in their industrial revolution and increasing standards of living we will never reduce our energy demands. The level of reduction to actually reduce climate change is substantial and even the most optimistic predictions about energy reduction would come close. Reducing energy consumption/increasing energy costs hurts people's standards of living and especially in developing countries where they are already so poor. I think it is realistic to think that a technology can be developed that scrubs the CO2 from the atmosphere and we can control the level of CO2 in the atmosphere to the ideal level. \n\nTell me how we can really reduce out CO2 to a level that actually reverses climate change without a new technology that scrubs CO2 from the atmosphere.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: If you agree with Spoiler Alerts, you should agree with Trigger Warnings + \n + I'm going to clarify that by 'Trigger Warnings', I'm referring to a tag/disclaimer of some sort that warns the audience of content that could reasonably produce an involuntary negative response (eg discussions of suicide, rape, murder, etc.). The (exaggerated) culture surrounding TWs of the blanket avoidance of those topics and the overzealous labeling of 'offensive' content is not only something I do not support, but also not the topic of this CMV.\n\n\nTWs and Spoiler Alerts serve the same purpose of alerting the audience to content that they may not be willing to expose themselves at the time - be it a graphic depiction of a corpse or who died in the most recent episode of Game of Thrones (which could very well be the same image). While many support the latter, the former is reviled in some circles.\n\nI think the argument for supporting the latter applies to the former: Just as you would like to avoid/be alerted to spoilers until you've gotten to that point in the story (you're 'narratively' prepared), it makes sense to alert others of content which may be emotionally distressing so that they can engage with it when they're emotionally prepared.\n\nYou could say that there's a presumption of eventual engagement with Spoiler Alerts, you wouldn't be worried about them if didn't plan on following the story. With TWs, someone could duck out of all triggering content forever. But that doesn't seem to be reason to denounce TWs as a whole: you're still saving that person and many others (who could be working to overcome those triggers) undue emotional distress.\n\nYou also could argue with my definition of emotionally distressing content, stating that it very easily leads to a slippery slope ending with everyone having to tag all of their content, but I'm not terribly persuaded by that argument. For one, regardless of a individual communities definitions of spoilers (we all know Snape killed Dumbledore by now, right?), endings and most recent episodes are universally considered spoilers. Similarly, I'm sure that sexual violence and gore can be considered universal triggers. Discovering how broad a community's definition of spoilers/triggers is done by engaging with that community. As for giving TWs being too much of an inconvenience, I think that's more of a matter of getting used to it: you extend that courtesy when discussing spoilers, why not for when you're discussing triggers? \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The risks of dying in a car accident outweigh the benefits of driving a car. + \n + Cars are terrifying. Car accidents happen all the time. ALL THE TIME. You hear about them on the local news constantly. More often than not, they result in fatalities. I drive all the time, but I'm very scared of it honestly. I'm terrified that I, or someone I love, will be in a terrible car accident at some point in the future. Not only that, I get this slight feeling that it's not only possible, but LIKELY to happen, considering how often car accidents actually happen.\n\nI can think of a number of people right off the bat (people I either knew or people I went to school with or something) who have died suddenly in terrible car accidents. Most of them didn't involve alcohol. Their lives destroyed forever because of one false move by either them or another driver.\n\nAnd that is all it takes. One false move. Driving 60 down a 2-lane highway? The driver coming the other way can barely, BARELY inch into your lane, cause a terrible head-on collision, and kill you in a matter of SECONDS. And that's what makes it so scary. I'm not afraid of my driving, I'm afraid of other people on the road. And the drunken assholes who get behind the wheel and kill people.\n\nSeatbelts? Sure, they help a little, I guess. Okay, you won't get thrown from a car if it's a minor accident. But if it's a head-on collision on the highway, a seatbelt won't save you. You're fucked either way.\n\nOne tiny false move by another driver, and your life will be over in a matter of seconds.\n\nThis stuff scares me. Maybe I have a phobia. I still drive, but I can't get the idea out of my head that driving cars regularly has got to be the most risky, dangerous activity that is so widely accepted.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think many women are frustrated with men not taking charge in everyday life, and I think men are like that because of feminism clawing its way into society at large. + \n + I think many women are frustrated with men not taking charge in everyday life, and I think men are like that because of feminism clawing its way into society at large.\n\nI think it all started with women that took gender equality too far. Sure, equality in law/education/opportunities/etc. is all well and good, but why change the classic male-female relations?\n\nI think men are more competitive and aggressive by nature, because we have more testosterone. I think women are more gentle and nourishing by nature, because they have more estrogen. Doesn't that go hand in hand with male-female relations that went on for thousands of years? I think it worked pretty well so far, so why change it?\n\nBy all means, let's all be equal before the law, let's have equal opportunities and all that. Just don't take my male role away and don't take women's female role away. They can work well together like nothing else can.\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "Taking Mod Applications + \n + Hello CMVers!\n\nWe are seeking a few good men (or women) to help us with moderation duties.  \n\nWe are particularly looking for mods who are around during the hours many of us are asleep, since a lot of us are eastern time in the US/Canada.\n\nIf you're interested, please reply below with answers to the following:\n\n\n\n1. How much time do you spend on reddit, and how much of that is spent on CMV?\n\n2. What times during the day and week do you browse reddit? Please use GMT format. \n\n3. What time zone do you live in?\n\n3. Is there anything wrong with /r/changemyview, and if so, what would you do to improve it?\n\n4. What would you consider a bannable offence?\n\n5. A post/comment has gone up and your gut says that it doesn't fit in the subreddit but you can't work out which rule it breaks. What do you do?\n\n6. How familiar do you feel with the nuance of CMV's rules?\n\n7. Why do you want to be a moderator of CMV?\n\n8. CMV: Bagels are the best breakfast food.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:I don't see anything wrong with sleeping with somebody's girlfriend + \n + As crazy as this title sounds, I really don't see anything wrong with it obviously unless it's your friend, it's not your responsibility to keep other peoples girlfriend's 'faithful' if they are going to sleep with you they are probably going to sleep with somebody else anyway, also I wouldn't want to be with somebody who would have slept with another guy but because he didn't want to in the end she didn't.\n\nI wouldn't blame the other guy at all, she is the only one to blame imo, regardless of wether he talked her into it or not, he shouldn't be able to anyway...", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:democratic party should have joe biden and/or john kerry in the democratic nomination race + \n + I'm not saying either kerry or biden would win. I'm not saying hillary isn't going to be the next president. I'm simply saying we deserve more options and a better debate about the future of the national democratic party and country. \n\nI know Sanders is a very serious candidate. I also think he lacks the profile to compete with Hillary's name recognition and public achievements. kerry and biden do and have many progressive victories. Who knows if they'd catch fire with primary voters but i think they'd have a real shot. \n\nLast weekend until today are instructive for why need more serious contenders. O'Malley and Sanders were interupted by #blacklivesmatter activists. They both stumbled through awkward answers but they took serious stands and responded quickly. Hillary took a few days to make statement. But today, within hours of reports on problems with her email server her campaign is quick action explaining their side. \n\nOn obvious stuff, and when she's attacked, she is immidiately responsive. When it comes to issues that are more nuanced, emotional and topical, she is late and calculated. \n\nThe dems deserve a real challange to the hillary out of mere respect for the people who's vote they depend on. kerry or biden are that challenge.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Bernie Sanders is a bad person for his immigration policy, and anyone who interprets this as racism on his part has a very good reason for doing so. + \n + http://www.ijreview.com/2015/07/379130-bernie-sanders-immigration-open-border-koch-brothers/\n\nSaying that open borders is a \"Koch Brothers Proposal\" as though that in any way justifies treating people differently simply on the geographic location in which they were born is an absolutely abhorrent opinion, and I interpret it to mean that Bernie Sanders supports a bourgeois class of elitists who are only really different based on the fact that they were born in America. \n\nNo one has any choice over where they happen to be born, and people are *humans first*, regardless of where they are born. \n\nDiscrimination based on where someone is born is *exactly equal* to racism.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:It is impossible to be an educated voter + \n + I've often heard people claim they want educated voters.    These people will often be upset at the level of political ignorance.   \n\nBut here's the thing, the scope of the federal, state and local government make this job effectively impossible.  Even in my field in particular, of education ( I teach at a k-8 charter school) it's beyond my ability to tell for certain which candidates best represent my interests.   Is it better if there are more jobs and the average quality is a little lower or less and the average quality is a bit higher?  \n\nI'm not sure.  Is is it better if we have stringent accountability standards and a system sold to Pearson or less stringent accountability systems and greater degrees of economic freedom.  These all hold huge macroeconomic effects that will play out over many, many years.  \n\nAnd this is just in my personal field, let alone fields which I have very little knowledge in such as what's the best place to get a balance of income and growth for the tax code?  What the appropriate amount of debt to allow the government to carry, what the appropriate immigration policy is  and so on on and so forth.  \n\nI suspect I'd actually be better off flipping a coin than I would at really having a nuanced understanding of every part of American life touched by one level of government or another and yet people just like me are supposed to be able to accurately steer the ship.   ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Superman should not have been able to beat Zod in Man of Steel. + \n + Taking the existence of super-powered aliens as a given, I think the most unrealistic part of Man of Steel was Superman standing any chance against Zod.\n\nZod was basically trained from birth to be the ultimate killer.  He was the product of generations of eugenics to create the perfect fighter.  He was his people's greatest military commander.  \n\nSuperman was physically stronger than the average person of his race for having grown up in the \"nutrient-rich environment\" of Earth.  But he grew up on a farm and received no formal training.  He had only barely started to have a mastery of his abilities by the time Zod and his followers arrived.  \n\nZod and his people were initially shocked by their newfound strength on Earth, but they quickly adapted.  He achieved a similar power level to Superman in a matter of days, in addition to his previous training and skills.  The advantage in sheer strength of Superman should not have been enough to overpower Zod.  It is basically like putting a Navy Seal against a body-builder.  The body-builder may be physically stronger, but he's still going to get his ass kicked. \n\n\nOkay, a variety of points have been made which have collectively CMV:\n\n* Zod's talents as a military leader were never explicitly about his personal fighting prowess.  He also loses in single combat to Jor-El.\n* Even if Zod were a better fighter and quickly adapted to his new strength on Earth, he was still out of his element and had not committed to \"muscle-memory\" things that were now second-nature to Superman. \n* Superman's true power is that he is always as strong as the plot needs him to be, rendering the possibility of failure moot.  Plot armor OP.\n* Ultimately any fight between opponents of similar enough power can end in an upset, and Superman beating Zod may be an example of that. \n\nThanks everyone for the discussion!\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The South cannot succeed if it secedes + \n + Disclaimer: this talk of secession may not be present everywhere in the United States, but it is more than prevalent where I live, so I'm going off that.  \n\n\nTo me, secession is crazy talk.  Not only are Southern states often some of the most poor (the poorest being Mississippi), but the United States would have control of the entire military of the United States of America.  That's, well, a lot. \n\nI talked to someone who believed the South should secede and that \"we\" (the South) would win because \"now [the South] has all the guns and more than half of the major military bases\".  To address this, first of all, it's not as if the military suffers from a chronic lack of arms.  The United States, I'm sure, has ways of attaining weapons that it doesn't already have.  Second of all, it doesn't matter if you have half the major military bases.  First of all, define \"major\".  Second of all, the other side would still have half of them, AND a higher population, AND more money, AND probably the support of many foreign nations (because who would want to side with the South, who would seem like backwoods racists).  The South would crumble, just as it did in the 1860's.  CMV.  ", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: America cannot continue the quasi-permanent state of war we are currently in and remain a true Republic. + \n + The Constitution, as well as laws passed by Congress with the understanding they were specifically for war, and would be used to target enemies, grant the President the ability to expand certain powers and limit certain rights during wartime. However, now that America is fighting a literally unwinnable war on Violent Extremism, those powers, which were meant to be temporary and only used when absolutely necessary, become a permanent part of the Executive Office, and they begin to be used in situations they were not intended to be used in. Two obvious examples that come to mind are the US Government attempting to prosecute Edward Snowden under the 1917 Espionage Act, and the way that RICO laws have been used against everyone from Anti-Abortion protesters to divorce cases.\n\nIn the words of James Madison: \"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.\"\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is no such thing as \"always offensive\". Context and intended meaning are everything. + \n + I recently posted [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAVufRsalw0) in a thread. I just meant it as a jokey response to someone's comment, but some people took offence to it. Apparently, because the actor playing the character isn't black, that makes this blackface and therefore unacceptable and offensive.\n\nTo offer some context, this is from a show called facejacker which is a follow-on from fonejacker. Fonejacker was a show about one man making prank calls and playing characters. You never saw his face. Mostly what you got was the audio from the conversation and an animated still picture representing the character [like this] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA3zhzT1wDo). So, the blackface character in the video above was developed for fonejacker. It's just meant to be an amusing accent that plays off people's image of a \"Nigerian scammer\". Because he was such a popular character, he was brought back for facejacker. The concept of facejacker was to take some of those characters and turn the actor into them with make-up so he could go out and prank people face to face. So, the character came first. It's meant to be funny and it's meant to play off certain stereotypes people have, but it isn't racist and shouldn't be taken as such.\n\nThis is one example of many. I just think that only context and intention of the author can determine if something is racist or not. I also believe that we should be moving towards a world where a black actor can play a white character and a white actor can play a black character and no-one cries racism because racism just isn't an issue anymore. The problem is that this kind of knee-jerk reaction (he used the N-word, he's a racist / he's in blackface, so he's a racist) does nothing to help us achieve that, but in fact holds us back by emphasizing racial differences and causing arguments. \n\nTL/DR; You shouldn't call things offensive just because they've fulfilled some basic criterion (like use of blackface or the n-word for example), you should actually examine the intentions of the author and the context to determine whether or not something is truly offensive.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:CMV:Situations where the world will end due to an Artificial intelligence or Super Technology will never happen. + \n + With our constant fast technological advancement people seem to think that we will lead our selves to destruction because we do not use technology with care, but recently all new modern technologies that are being invented are completely beneficial towards society as a whole, such as L'Oreal teaming up with Organovo to 3-D print human skin to use in product tests, and   \nNASA announcing a new rover able to make autonomous decision on its next mission to mars. These technologies have no downside and cannot be used with evil/bad intentions (like in the past with nuclear weapons) to lead to a doomsday scenario.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:Donald Trump is popular because he doesn't give a fuck. And he could actually win. + \n + Hi all, \n\nI haven't thought this through in depth, but my gut reaction to Donald Trump's popularity is that he taps into the hatred for the political class more than anything else. He simply doesn't give a fuck about politicians, and is willing to call them out for being the shit they are. And the rest doesn't matter at all. I don't think it's primarily a racist element that supports him. I don't think it's that people have any clue about his politics even. No one really cares.\n\nBut the likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham are well known for being war mongers who are totally full of shit and useless. Rick Perry is a complete idiot. Hillary Clinton, well, she's a Clinton... Nuff said. And Donald Trump is the only person in the race (other than Bernie Sanders) who opposes the existing political paradigm. Rand Paul had a chance to do this, his father did. But Rand clearly embraced the political class. Ted Cruz recognizes why Trump is popular, and is seeking the same votes, and that is why he refuses to criticize him. But Ted Cruz is boring with a nasal voice, is a politician, and he clearly comes off as a total asshole. So Trump has the protest vote all locked up.\n\nBut what the political class and the American media don't understand is that they are truly hated. The media and political class are currently trying to kill Trump's campaign, but they are doing so at their own peril. Because trump is not just a Ralph Nader or Jessie Ventura or Ron Paul (true believers with limited potential), he is a billionaire who truly hates the political class. His platform (does he have one?) has nothing to do with policy ideas, but is purely a reactionary reflection of the popular hatred of the Washington elite. and this hatred runs very deep. it was deep enough to kill Hillary Clinton's campaign last time around against a candidate with the exact same political views (who even appointed her a key member of his cabinet), and it is powerful enough to truly disrupt the political order.\n\nTrump, more than any other candidate before him, has the potential to overthrow this political order, and that is why people support him. that is my view. change it.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: It's irrational to keep a gun in your home for self-defense + \n + *[This article](https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home) does a pretty good job of pulling the relevant statistics together that I find convincing. In searching for critiques of those statistics I found [this article](http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082.html#.Vdm1n_lVhBc) that lays out some criticisms of the first article's source study, along with a rebuttal from another journalist who's written on the topic.*\n\nI believe that:\n\n1. You, or someone in your family, are more likely to be killed by your gun either purposefully or accidentally than you are to use the gun against an attacker successfully in self-defense.\n\n2. Therefore, if your goal is to make yourself and/or your family safer, then choosing to keep a gun in your home explicitly for that purpose is an irrational decision.\n\n\nI do believe there is one exception to this. If you have a particular reason or belief that you are likely to be attacked, then, since the odds of being attacked have increased dramatically, then it may be rational to have a gun in the house for self-defense. For example, if you have a stalker. If you have received threats on your life. If you have any reasonable belief that someone will try to harm you specifically. If government or police forces have broken down. Basically, if the odds change so that for you the risk of you or your family being attacked is greater than the risk of having a gun in the house, then it would be rational to have a gun.\n\nBut we do know, statistically, on average, that is not the case. So for the average person, the risks are such that the rational decision for maximizing safety is to not keep a gun.\n\nI further believe that if you get other uses out of the gun other than just self-defense, then the other added benefits of having a gun would make it rational to keep one in the house. For example, if somebody was a hunter and or target shooter and they get a lot of joy out of their hobby, that could be worth the risk of gun ownership. Or even if someone cited tradition, or the need of an armed populace as a check on the government, that too could be a perceived benefit to them that makes the safety risk worthwhile. I'm strictly speaking about what's the best decision for maximizing personal and family safety.\n\nChange my view by showing me that the risk of harm to you or your family is lower by having a fire arm in the house.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: People who don't control their barking dogs are entitled and a nuisance to everyone around them + \n + I have a neighbor, an elderly woman with money and an insanely annoying dog. The dog barks at everything that moves, from the front window, for long hours. I have gone to the house and told the woman how irritating it is to have to listen to her dog bark, and her reply was \"Oh, I've had that dog for eight years, I'm just used to it. You can't teach an old dog new tricks!\"\n\nThis is not the only nuisance. There are dogs that bark whenever I come to the door, tied-up dogs that bark as I try to enter the supermarket, dogs that bark incessantly at cats on their morning walk... and these owners do nothing about it. They just tug a bit on the leash or say \"no\", but it doesn't do anything except relieve blame. Maybe I'm wrong, but aren't dogs easy to train? My cat scratched on furniture when I got her from the pound, so I started spraying her with water when she did. Then I bought cat scratchers. Now I don't have a cat that scratches furniture. It can't be that hard.\n\nMy theory is that people just get lazy, give up, and shoulder their dog's annoying habits on the good graces of everyone else. They try disciplining their dogs for a couple days and when it doesn't work, they just think, \"Meh, if I can get used to it, strangers can get used to it too.\" Dogs that cannot be taught how to be quiet should have muzzles, and if you can't afford to control your pet's behavior, you should not be owning a pet.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The truth of an idea should matter more than its politics + \n + What matters most about an idea is whether it is true, not its political ramifications such as subversiveness, sexism, racism, anti-semitism, etc. Those aspects are about whose power and legitimacy the idea undermines, and they have no bearing on truth, which should be the only thing that determines the believability of an idea.\n\nHere is an example of a true racist idea: ice age adaptations make caucasians less athletic than black people. It's mainly noticeable at the extremes: the best black athletes are better than the best white athletes. I should believe this idea because evidence supports it, and not be afraid of the power dynamics it may disrupt. That is *intellectual integrity*.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: If you're ok with how athletes are paid, you should be ok with how CEOs are paid + \n + There's a lot of debate about how some people are \"paid too much\" for what they do. I frequently find that people who think CEOs are paid too much have no issues with how much athletes and movie stars are paid.\n\nCEOs, athletes, and movie star pay are all subject to the same laws of supply and demand. The owners of the movie, owners of the team, and owners of the company, agree to pay the amount.\n\nWhat's similar among them all are that they often don't last very long. These are high profile people. Mistakes, poor performance, and even bad luck means your contract won't be getting renewed and any chance of future employment can be lost.\n\nThese types of talents are what owners try to bring on board in hopes that they will make lots of money for them. To say that an athlete should not be paid so much is the same as saying the owner of the team should not be allowed to spend his money a certain way. I don't see how it is different for shareholders looking to employ a CEO.\n\nAt the end of the day, all of these are dictated by supply and demand. No one pays millions for an athlete if he doesn't believe that athlete would be an asset to the team. If someone is willing to pay the amount, there is at the very least, the belief that the amount is worth it. You pay a popular actor a lot because you're receiving the ticket sales of his fan base. You pay a CEO a lot because he knows how to negotiate better deals with suppliers or can provide the vision for the next product.\n\nTLDR - There's no difference between CEO's, athletes, and actors being paid a lot. If you're ok with one, you should be ok with them all.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: It's justified for innocent detainees accused of terrorism to escape captivity + \n + There are currently people being held in the war on terror who are innocent and do not have any due process rights. If you do not have a way in which to lawfully and peacefully petition your captors, then your only choice to gain freedom is to escape. \n\nThe right to be free and petition a government to justify your incarceration are fundamental human rights. So, since you cannot petition your captors any innocent person who escapes under these circumstances is therefore completely justified. \n\nAny subsequent administration should therefore forgive the crime of prison escape under these circumstances.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: GMOs are a relatively new development, and should be labeled and treated with caution + \n + While I am not at all for the scare mongering and paranoia, I simply think that there isn't enough evidence to show that GMOs are completely safe to completely accept them with no questions asked. It seems very suspicious to me that large companies are lobbying so hard to avoid having to label GMOs, as I don't see why they would put so much time or money into fighting it unless there was something they were trying to hide. I have always tended to be wary of large corporations and their practices, but I feel like my current view is riddled with ignorance and misinformation. Change my view?\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Religion as a whole does not need to be abolished. + \n + **Disclaimer:** I'm an atheist.\n\nWith that out of the way, let me explain my view. [Many people on CMV](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/general#wiki_against_religion) have expressed views that religion is harmful to society and has stopped the advancement of science in society. Common examples are used such as killings and wars that have took place on the premise of religion.\n\nHowever, I do not believe that religion as a whole needs to be abolished. While I feel that certain fundamentalist views need to be abolished, in general most religious people do not engage in such activities, and instead seek to carry out the values of peace, love, etc. that keeps a society together. I think that as long as religion is kept a personal matter, it is alright for religion to exist.\n\nBy \"personal matter\" I mean that people should not engage actively to uphold their own form of morality, and instead follow the rules that keep a community together. For example, while Christians may be against homosexual rights, they should not engage in activity that discriminates against homosexuals or support anti-homosexual policies, but instead advocate against homosexuality on a moral basis. This is under the assumption that homosexuality does not cause any harm to society, which I will not discuss further.\n\nAssuming that people do abide by these conditions, I see no reason why religion would cause harm to society. CMV.\n\n---\n\n**Clarifications (will update as time passes):**\n\n1. By personal matter, I make an exception for the spreading of ideas (such as discussing religion with your children or converting others). The crux is that your actions must not harm others.\n\n2. I'm proposing that by keeping religion as a \"personal matter\", most harm will be curbed.\n\n---\n\n**List of common arguments (will update as time passes):**\n\n**A** stands for argument, **CA** stands for counterargument.\n\n**A:** Publicly endorsing beliefs that are not supported by strong scientific evidence can be seen as causing harm to society and slowing down progress.\n\n**CA:** I do not think that publicly endorsing religion will cause a significant effect. People are already inclined to believe many things that are not supported by strong scientific evidence. For example, superstitions, pseudoscience, stuff on the internet on sites such as *cough* Reddit *cough*, and much more.\n\n**A: ** Particular parts of religion clash with science. You are either forced to continually change and amend all religions to keep in line with the current scientific world view, or you are telling people to choose religion over science, harming scientific advance.\n\n**CA: ** I'd opt for letting people decide, since it is impossible to amend all religions to keep in line with science. This will definitely harm scientific advance. *[to be completed when I sort out my thoughts]*\n\n---\n\nAfter spending an hour, I couldn't think of a counterargument to the above arguments. I've awarded the deltas. Thanks for changing my view, /r/changemyview!\n\nI will try to come up with a modified solution and see if that works out. Hope I've at least inspired some discussion on this matter.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Prostitution should be legalized, I don't feel most arguments against it hold water. + \n + I've been thinking about this one for a while. While a lot of the arguments for it (\"It's the oldest profession\"; \"we should have full rights to our bodies\") don't hold up too well, neither do a lot of the arguments against it. **(As a side note, I'll be referring to women but all these arguments could reliably be applied to male prostitutes for the most part)**\n\nOne of the most oft-touted arguments that I seem to see is that \"Women will be forced into prostitution because they have no other options\".\n\nI fail to see this as a legitimate concern. Not because I don't think some women would choose prostitution to survive (it would happen, undoubtedly) but because I don't see how this is a bad thing. If the woman's only option was prostitution, and you take that away, what is her option now? Starvation? Homelessness? While it might cause mental damage to a woman to be forced into sex, as long as it's legal, enforced, and safe, isn't the damage likely to be far less than the mental *and* physical damage she'd suffer being unemployed/watching her children and herself starve/living out on the streets/whatever else she needed the funds for?\n\nIf I argued that minimum wage jobs should be illegalized because \"Desperate people might feel obligated to work them\", would that make sense? I don't think so. A McJob is a McJob, and a McBlowjob can still be a job without being intrinsically damaging to a person. One could argue that sex is still somewhat taboo, especially with strangers, and that the cultural ramifications cause shame, stress, and mental damage, but that's a part of society's problem with sex, not a problem with prostitution itself. The only argument I could think of is that a woman might be forced to give up her virginity to work, which I concede is awful and should never happen, but often does even with it illegal and if virginity and morality is the only thing standing between eating and starvation, I'm reasonably certain illegality is not going to stop many/any women.\n\nI think a regulated, safe, and well-operated system of brothels (and only brothels, to ensure there are no dangers to streetwalkers/regulations can be easily enforced) would reduce the amount of dangers as well as offer additional opportunities. To clarify, this system would involve:\n\n\n\n\n\n(Actually, that last one would be good with or without legalized, but whatever).\n\n**What I'd like to see to Change My View (in addition to any logical moral/emotional arguments):**\n\n-Studies on legalization that prove it's not safe/causes societal repercussions more severe than the benefits.\n\n-Studies on lack of effects (or worsening) of street prostitutes/pimp culture.\n\n-Anything else relevant to disprove anything I've said here.\n\n**What I would not like to see:**\n\n-Outright moral arguments (\"Selling your body is wrong\", anonymous/casual sex is a sin)\n\n-Any arguments I listed above without additions (\"Women will be forced into sex slavery\")\n\n-Religious arguments\n\nThanks for your time :3\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:(too much) Immigration hurts a country's culture + \n + As a german, especially in the city I live, there's honestly too many turks and muslims here. \n\nMy old school was 80% turks/muslims/guys from eastern europe, which seriously lead to germans being made fun of, *for  being german, in their own damn country*\n\nBut that's not the only example, when I go out, I see as much, if not more, foreigners on the streets. \n\nAnd by 'foreigners', I don't mean anything like scandinavians, or people from developed countries for that matter, I mean all the muslims/turks/romanians, etc.\n\nA little immigration doesn't hurt, that's for certain. But if there's more immigrants than natives in any place, something's not right.\n\n\n^^^^I'm ^^^^not ^^^^racist^^^^", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: .45 and .40 are vastly superior to the 9mm + \n + In the shooting community there is a debate between 9mm and 40 or 45, generally between 9 and 45, though I also own .40 S&W. I personally do not like the 9mm to the point that I refuse to purchase one unless it is in a subcompact. It is weak, anemic, doesn't penetrate well (less mass), imparts less energy and not satisfying to shoot. \n\nWhy should anyone want to carry 9mm as a main defensive weapon (military too) when the .40 has so much more power, as a flat nose FMJ will impart more energy than a rounded 9mm, heavier weight yields better energy transfer, in hollow point form is larger than the 9 mm and for capacity; there is a difference of 1 round. \n\nThe only valid argument I see is that the soft 9mm is easier to shoot so you are more accurate, but who is taking 25yrd shots? An optic like a micro red dot on your weapon would more than make up for any difference. ", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Makeup is bad. + \n + I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and I can't think of anything redeeming about makeup. \n\n1) It takes forever to put on. I feel like this is most of the reason women are given a reputation for taking ages to ready themselves, and given that I think it's unnecessary, it's actually a waste of time no matter how long it takes.\n\n2) It's harmful. Not only physically, where it may causes skin problems, headaches, premature aging, cancer, allergies, other skin diseases, and other things, but it can be harmful to the self-image of the woman wearing makeup, making them dependent upon the makeup, feeling ugly without it, etc.\n\n3) It's disingenuous. I think of it as false advertising. Celebrities are a big indication of this to me, many of them don't look particularly nice without makeup on, and with regular women the drop in attractiveness without makeup is generally even more noticeable.\n\nThis is all that comes to mind at the moment.\n\nCMV.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Animals that attack hikers in national parks should not be put down + \n + Every month or so, we hear about a tragic story of a hiker attacked by an animal (usually a bear) while they are out in the wild. Often times, the animal is unprovoked. But sometimes an animal's instincts will overtake it, and it will perceive a hiker as a potential threat to either it or its offspring. Whenever an attack on a human happens, park officials from wherever the incident occurred place traps to catch and euthanize the animal.\n\nI don't think that animals that attack hikers should be killed. I love the National Park System, and everything they do, but I just don't think that it is appropriate. The NPS was created for the purpose of being preserved. With that preservation comes the opportunity for us as humans to enjoy them in their uttermost beauty, but that doesn't mean we should start altering them for our convenience. \n\nYes, wild bears can be dangerous. They're BEARS for heaven's sake! But their habitat isn't ours to make our own. Part of hiking through these parks, whether it's the Great Smoky Mountains (where the North America's largest density of black bears reside) or Yellowstone National Park (where a grizzly killed a hiker just yesterday), wild animals are going to be wild. \n\nThe national parks are to be preserved, not to be altered for our enjoyment.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The Golden Rule doesn't make sense. + \n + Golden rule: Treat others the same way you want to be treated.\n\nThe problem with this is different people like to be treated differently. It could be that you want to be treated in a way that other people dont want to be treated. Hence, such a philosophy would only end up in conflict. Maybe you prefer to be treated aggressively so you choose to treat people that way, but other people dont want to be treated that way so naturally unnecessary conflict and misunderstanding arises. In addition, it could be that other people would like to be treated that you yourself want to treat other people except you dont want to be treated similarly. It prevents such a possible camrederie and chemistry between people. The Golden rule is in conflict with the importance of focusing on understanding every individual first. It is a lazy man's shortcut moral principle.\n\nEverybody is different therefore its best to treat other people in relation to how much you understand them and how much you understand yourself. \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Children who do not get 1st-3rd place DO NOT deserve a trophy for simply participating + \n + Hello CMV,\n\nI am not a parent but curious as to get your opinions to CMV. I grew playing competitive soccer (worked my way up to the competitive teams from your basic youth teams) and never once received a trophy for simply participating or losing. You either got 1st, 2nd, 3rd or you got nothing it was simple as that. By losing and not being rewarded we understood we had to try harder as an individual and try harder as a team to win. This led me to become much more competitive because I wanted to earn that trophy and be on that competitive team.  I really dont understand the idea of rewarding everyone for not winning, it's almost like saying \"hey, even if you dont try you still win\". I hear stories about teams that go 0-13 in a season and the kids walk away with a trophy, why?  Don't get me wrong, I'm not a cold hearted person and love to see all children happy but I dont understand the concept of rewarding someone for losing or not trying hard enough will result in a prize. To me that just teaches a kid that NOT giving your best will still result in a prize. What lesson does that teach you when you grow up? That your failure or lack of effort will be rewarded regardless of how you performed? Doesn't that give the child a bad mentality growing up? Personally if I had a kid and he/she played a sport I wouldn't allow the coach or a parent to give them a trophy for simply participating, I would make them understand that a reward/trophy is earned by hard work and dedication. I know not all kids are athletic but I still dont understand the concept or idea. \nWe all know reality is a bitch and life is going to hit you with some hard lessons so why not teach your kid that hard work pays off? Again, I am not trying to sound cold but I just dont understand the concept of rewarding \nfailure/losing, CMV......\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Not knowing her age should be a defense against statutory rape in some cases. + \n + Hi guys! \n\nLet me start out by saying that I believe I understand the reasons behind statutory rape. Many different cultures define adulthood differently, but in most childhood is defined as a time where the person has a psuedo-agency. They're a person but they can only make certain decisions. Age of consent laws are based upon this.\n\nI completely agree. I like romeo and juliet clauses but in general I think this way of thinking and justification is spot-on.\n\nI think it's 110% absurd though to apply this in situations where the minor meets their statutory rapist in an adult-restricted zone (in this case a zone designated for anybody above the relevant age of consent). This means 18+ clubs, 21+ bars, even 16+ shows where it takes place in a region where the age of consent is 16+.\n\n*This isn't a moral argument, it's a legal one*. I think it's so bizarre to expect adults in these areas to \"be on guard\". If anybody should be charged, it should be the venue that let them in due to negligence. I don't even know what to think about fraudulent IDs.\n\nI understand this isn't a super common occurrence, that typically it's parents who file charges and that minors aren't usually acting as weird predators. It's not about frequency, just that it exists.\n\nI'm not sure how easy it will be to change my view. I do know that I completely don't understand any arguments for this line of thought. I might just be confused. It just doesn't make sense to me. Maybe something will click.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: If Caitlyn Jenner should be allowed to identify herself as a woman, Rachel Dolezal should be allowed to identify herself as African-American. + \n + ** I have CMV in example but not principle per the edit addition below but cannot change the title of this post, sorry. This change happened before anyone had commented and was not from a user of CMV, thus I have not awarded a delta for this.\n\nIf personal identity is not its naturally-occurring exterior origins, but generated by the self, and a person transforms themselves physically or mentally or in other ways to realise externally what their identity is internally, then we should treat their proclaimed identity as legitimate. Perhaps the only way we could reasonably challenge someone's identity is by knowing what they know about themselves, which - empirically and strictly speaking - is impossible. Given this, and barring obvious dishonest representations by a person, i.e. where it is clear that their motives for the transformation or holding a new identity are ulterior, we should respect the proclaimed identities of Caitlyn Jenner and Rachel Dolezal.\n\nI do not think that this argument extends outside of personal identity, since if someone identifies themselves as a 'writer' and they are in fact a doctor who only writes prescriptions, it is reasonable for me to rejection their proclamation of a professional identity which they are obviously not, since I can externally realise this without or in spite of their internal 'knowledge' which is the basis of their proclamation, i.e. their professional identity arises from their testable actions.\n\n\nI agree this is a huge difference, and perhaps a big enough difference for us to question Rachel Dolezal's motives and whether they were ulterior to her proclaimed internal personal identity. In fact, I would go so far as to say this changes my view in example but not principle, i.e. Rachelo Dolezal is probably not an example of someone who truly had an internal personal identity of being African-American, but instead had ulterior motives. MV in principle remains unaltered, however.\n\n**META discussion re (now reversed) removal** can be discussed [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/ideasforcmv/comments/39np29/rule_e_should_be_extended_from_3_to_24_hours/).\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Free Trade only benefits big business, and is detrimental to developed and developing countries. + \n + There has been a lot of talk lately about how free trade is great for the economy in Canada, but the principles can likely be applied to other developed countries. The general idea is that Canada buys mass produced stuff from developing countries because they can make it cheaper there than we can back home. In return we sell some Blackberries, tar sand oil, maple syrup, and apologies.\n\nBig business wins. They get to make their widgets at the lowest cost possible while maximizing their profit. Other than a few \"we give back\" marketing campaigns that try to suggest that corporations have souls, as long as the dollars keep rolling in, they don't care.\n\nDeveloped countries lose. Our politicians talk about a declining/shrinking middle class, when they are signing free trade agreements that further incentivize off-shoring middle class jobs. They lament the lack of manufacturing jobs while we make it easier for companies to bring in cheaper stuff from other countries. \n\nQuality also suffers. In countries that take pride in home grown manufacturing (looking at you America) typically you pay more for the made at home product, but it is often made to a higher standard. I would pay more for something made in Canada, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to do so. \n\nDeveloped countries \"win\" because they can buy a bunch of cheap junk with planned obsolescence so we keep buying more, which perpetuates the cycle. \n\nDeveloping countries lose. The Rana Plaza collapse, and the suicide nets for jumpers are two big things that come to mind, but plenty more issues exist as well. Working conditions are extremely dangerous, the workers are often exposed to hazardous chemicals without proper protection, and many of those chemicals are not disposed of correctly which has a huge environmental impact. The money generated by manufacturing typically goes into the hands of very few, and the majority of it goes to the corporations that don't pay taxes on it anyway. Instead of producing goods and services that could go back into their own economy, they are exporting everything and just providing cheap and unethical labour. \n\nFree Trade is bad. Instead of providing incentives for off-shoring, we should be providing incentives to keep work at home. Canadian manufacturers (and those in other developed countries) could compete and beat international prices if taxes and tariffs were in place to level the playing field. All of the factory workers who are out of work would have much better prospects than minimum wage service jobs, which would lead to a thriving middle class that would be great for our economy, and we could keep some of that corporate profit (and tax) in Canada, because we wouldn't be buying from all over the world. We already protect dairy and poultry farming to keep those jobs and products in country, why not everything else?\n\nFor those of you that made it this far, I understand that there are a few things that would be particularly difficult to produce or manufacture in Canada. Produce we don't have the climate for, or natural resources we don't have an abundance of come to mind, but the vast majority of what we consume from other countries could be made at home.  \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Lack of motivation is the main reason why people remain fat. Losing weight is not just simple, it's easy and cheap too. + \n + I posted this a while ago but I was told by a mod to try again in a few weeks since it happened during but whole fattening thing. Here is an edited version of what I posted. \n\nSo far I've been careful to say \"simple\" instead of \"easy\" when it comes to losing weight implying that the steps are simple but the execution is hard. I used to do that because I never had to lose weight. I had to gain weight for a while but never had to lose it.\nNow that I'm on a cut I realize that it's not just simple, it's actually easy. Forcing yourself to eat is hard. Just go over to /r/gainit and see for yourself. I've been making myself eat more for almost a year now, while eating more got easier, it was still a struggle and it was expensive (buying lots of food is expensive). There's only so much you can shove in your mouth before you call it quits. Eating less on the other hand? Easy and cheap as hell. See a cookie I want? \"No, I need to eat fewer than X calories and eating this cookie means I have to eat less later which will make me hungry\". That's all it takes. As for expense, it costs less because you have to eat less. One or two meals a day that are each half of what I used to eat. Instead of burger and fries get either burger or fries. Instead of chips as a snack? Pickles. Everything is cheaper. Most days my food costs don't exceed $10, tops. Often it's a lot less.\nIn conclusion, if you want to lose weight you can easily do it and it costs less than it costs to maintain your current weight. The only reason people give in to the temptation is because they lack the motivation to say no.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Comparing women and men in equality discussions is like comparing apples and oranges. + \n + Gender equality discussions in my eyes have reached a point, where all that happens is opression olympics. Every side has this one up mentality where everyone tries to be as much of a victim as possible, to make their statements somewhat count more or have more importance, while the other side tries to play down those statements.\n\nI'd like to mention, that this all goes for middle class western society (most of what is reddits demography).\n\nHere comes my problem: It seems to me, that both genders are trying to compare apples and oranges when it comes down to who has it worse. Its impossible. Both sides are so different from each other, both sides suffer from different problems both sides have different advantages. How could that be compared? Who decideds what problem is really worse then the other one? It can't be done. No human being has the ethical superiority to define which problem is worse. And its far more complex than just comparing two problems together. Its a huge set of things that has to be considered for each gender, and it is impossible to make an overall statement because of the complexity and variance between those two sides.\n\nOne big attribution to this kind of thinking is lack of empathy on both sides. Its simply to explain why this lack of empathy exists. Very few people get the actual living experience of both sides of this story, because normally people do not live as the opposite gender they are born as. So almost all people lack experiences of living as the opposite gender they are born as, and therefore have a very narrow experience on gender related issues. The typical grass is greener on the other side occurs.\n\nWhat most forget, is how really different the living experiences of an average women is compared to an average men. I won't deny many of thoses differences exist because of some stupid cultural gender norms, but many do not. Many can be attributed to other stuff like biological imperatives. I am not saying that those contribute equally as hard to every individual, that is not true. Its a spectrum for everyone. But overall, the experiences differ between the genders, and thats why its a comparission of apples and oranges.\n\nHow can someone compare thoses difference experiences as a whole and say one is better and the other is worse? It can't even be done on an individual level, how is it possible to compare such huge groups as men and women?\n\nI don't like the way the equality discussion is going, but i would be open minded to someone who can explain, why comparing men and women lifes is even possible.\n\nI will try to argue against every statement that goes like: \"But look, gender x has it worse here and there and there, thats why they have it worse in general.\" I will simply counter it with a list of disadvantages of the other gender, and ask you to compare what is worse. You will notice that it simply can't be done. If someone provides me happiness statistics, then i have some arguments against that too, don't even bother.\n\nTl,dr: Mens life and womens life are not comparable. Why can someone say one side has it worse than the other when there is no comparable ground?", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Inheritance tax is ridiculous. + \n + I am not a \"tax is theft\" libertarian or even any kind of libertarian. If anything I learn more towards socialist, but I cannot get behind the idea of inheritance tax. Society and sound government requires taxes and I think it's absolutely fair to have taxes on income, sales, purchases, whatever. But for government to come in when a dying person passes on their belongings or money to someone they care about and snatch away a piece of it is a step too far.\n\nI am currently living in Spain and was chatting to some Spanish people today. They mentioned that if you inherit a house you are required to pay a portion of the value as tax. However since Spain is in recession it is extremely difficult to sell the house, and some people are forced to forfeit the property in order to be aligned with the law. This is not the basis of my belief, but it is what motivated me to post this to CMV.\n\nI want someone to give me a good reason to CMV since I think taxes are overall a positive thing. This is just one instance I think is outrageous.\n\n**TL; DR** I understand the need for and support taxation but I cannot support government interference in a dying person's gift to another person. CMV!\n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Western nations have a moral obligation to help the people of poorer countries + \n + To be honest, I'm not sure I completely believe in the title opinion statement. The issue seems really complex to me, but at the moment that is what I think. Currently, the migrant crisis is one of the biggest items of concern for Europeans. Most Europeans say, with much accuracy, that the migrant stream has to be shut off because a) immigrants are a weight on the economy, and b) most migrants refuse to assimilate, creating a lot of social problems. However, I still feel like they have to own up to that problem. Western societies historically engaged in colonialism and imperialism and profited over it so much, that they achieved wealth that continues to earn their country the status of \"developed/first-world.\" Often times when they did this, they ended up creating conditions in the colonized country that would be unfavorable to their future development. I know most Europeans/Americans would respond to this by saying \"I had nothing to do with this, why should I take responsibility over the past?\" but I find that to be a really weak argument. If my grandfather robbed somebody of something, died, and passed the stolen goods/money down to me, don't I have a moral obligation to return the stolen items, even if I had nothing to do with the crime? I think I would. Maybe the main problem with my view is that it is purely moral, and not legal/practical. But letting poor people work out the problems that are partly as a result of your people's past seems very selfish to me. \n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: the long division algorithm is obsolete, and should no longer be taught to schoolchildren + \n + A few decades ago, many schoolchildren learned [an algorithm for EDSRH](http://i.stack.imgur.com/Zccn0.png) (exact decimal square root by hand). This algorithm gives the exact decimal value (i.e. what a calculator would show you) of a number's square root, without a calculator or slide rule. Around 1970, this algorithm stopped being taught. Of course the square root itself is still in the curriculum, as is enough number sense necessary to _estimate_ a number's square root by hand, but EDSRH is out.\n\nSpecialists (e.g. calculator programmers) can of course still look up and learn EDSRH if they need it, so no knowledge is lost. But is it useful for enough students to be worth covering in classrooms? The consensus is no. Calculators are ubiquitous. If you need a square root, it's very simple to either _approximate_ it by hand, or find a calculator. You get by just fine these days without an exact method by hand.\n\nSure, learning EDSRH incidentally lets you practice other math skills like multiplication, but you could better use the same classroom time to practice those exact same skills while doing _useful_ problem solving.\n\nEDSRH is a remnant from a time before calculators, when humans needed to know how to be calculators themselves. Now that we have calculators that do the same thing (only faster and with fewer mistakes), humans' time is better spent learning to use calculators properly, and to do things calculators can't.\n\nYou probably see where I'm going with this. My view is that we've reached the same point with EDQH (exact decimal quotient by hand). You were probably taught an algorithm for EDQH around age 10: the most popular algorithm is [long division](https://www.mathsisfun.com/images/long-division-explained1.gif) (though there are others I feel the same way about). It's time to remove it from grade school classrooms. That time can be better spent training to use calculators, and getting enough number sense to make smart estimations and interpret calculator output well.\n\nFor context, I have a degree in mathematics, and I probably do more math on a daily basis, both professionally and as a hobby, than 98% of the population. I don't think I've used long division once in 10 years, and if I forgot it today, I wouldn't bother to relearn it.\n\nIn your reply, if you make an argument that could also be applied to EDSRH, please be explicit about why you think EDQH is different. Thank you.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is no media \"agenda\", just average people reporting on what sells. + \n + I see a lot of people talk about the media like it's a living organism. They accuse \"the media\" of purposefully hiding information (often powerful corporations/government secrets, or what have you), and the like.\n\nThese are just every day employees. Average reporters/office workers just trying to churn out another day for a paycheque, just like the rest of us. They're no more intelligent (or dumber) than the rest of us, and they don't have an agenda.\n\nThey're just trying to find stories that their editor will approve; Their editor is just looking for stories that will be read; Advertisers are paying for highly consumed media.\n\nThat's it. Just a bunch of average folk, punching their timecard every day. They don't care about it, they're jaded about their 9-5 just like the rest of us. The [reporter making $36k/year](http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=News_Reporter/Salary) isn't trying to \"mislead\" the Western World.\n\n**tl dr;** I don't think there's a \"media agenda\" trying to hide corporate/government facts, or mislead us. They're just every day workers like us trying to get their job done, and reporting on things that sell.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I have no sympathy towards violent criminals at the point of crime + \n + I can never understand people when they lament about how they feel sorry for someone who just commited a violent crime.\n\nI understand being sympathetic towards a non-violent thief who might be destitute, or a murderer who has done his time and apologized.\n\nBut someone who has just done a horrible act of violence towards another person (and hasn't repented yet) doesn't deserve sympathy from anyone, unless they genuinely believe he/she is innocent, or committed the crime in self-defense.\n\nOne argument people make is that the guilty crime was committed \"in the heat of moment\". I see this often being used to defend road ragers and drunk wife-beaters. I can't agree with this argument because it unfairly takes responsibility away from the criminal. If we left every criminal go easy because the crimes were \"emotional\" or \"spur of the moment\", we'd have a lot of unstable people out on the streets ready go to off at any moment and hurt others.\n\nAnother argument I hear is that the criminal was a \"victim of the circumstances\", i.e. he was poor or grew up in a dysfunctional family. This is a totally reasonable argument if the crime is non-violent, but being poor or traumatized is not an excuse to kill somebody or even go beat someone up. Anyone who makes a conscious choice to hurt someone physically is simply an asshole.\n\nI oppose the death penalty and am in favor of restorative prison reform, so I hear people giving these criminals moral slack (at more than just a legal or health-based level) all the time, and it drives me crazy. But I want to see the POV they are coming from, so please try to CMV.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: In \"Mad Max: Fury Road\" Immortan Joe isn't the bad guy (Spoilers) + \n + In Mad Max: Fury Road, the director sets up Immortan Joe to be the ultimate villain devoid of humanity, despite the fact that his actions shown in the movie prove he is not a terrible person but contains the purest and most positive versions of conservative political values. Under the guise of an action movie George Miller has created a propaganda piece to unconsciously convince its audience of his political leanings. \n\n1. The appearance of the characters tells the audience what to think of them. Joe is covered in tumors and has a Darth Vader mask to look menacing and evil. The actresses who play his wives are all clean, healthy and models in real life.\n\n2. Immortan Joe never hurts any of his wives during the course of the movie, or uses violence to do anything but protect his family and friends. There is also no evidence to suggest he raped them or has physically abused them, as they have no bruises or scars except the grazed bullet wound from Max that they point out.\n\n3. Immortan Joe did not treat his wives as \"objects\" only for the purpose of bearing his children. Max is treated as an object only kept around for his blood and constantly chained up or in a cage. The quick pan of Immortan Joe's palace shows that there was a blackboard, books, a piano, and private quarters for the wives. This shows that he cared enough about them to provide for more than their basic needs to make him sons he wanted them to love him. \n\n4. Immortan Joe created a society in the middle of a nuclear wasteland. That must have been incredibly difficult, but he gets no praise for that only criticism. The vuvulani had a source of fresh and their own farms and they messed it up, but they don't get any blame. Immortan Joe is accused of having \"Killed the world\" despite having saved it and reestablishing a stable human civilization.   \n\n5. The wives write on the walls the reason they left was that they didn't want their sons to be warlords. But after realizing the green place didn't exist they decide its better to murder hundreds of people to take the citadel for themselves rather than to take 160 days to find a new place to live. In the 2 days that they have been driving they have seen 5 places that can evidently support human life. With the 160 days it is very likely they would find another. Once again they are let off the hook for this bloodthirsty rampage because they are depicted as the protagonists. \n\n6. Nux becomes a good guy because he gives up his religion and becomes an atheist. That is his entire character. \n\n7. Immortan Joe and the war boys become very upset about the death of the unborn fetus.\n\n8. Joe gives up significant strategic resources and strains relationships with his allies all in an attempt to get his wives and future child back. In any other movie that would be admirable and make him the hero. \n\n9. Despite water being a valuable resource needed to trade for guzzoline and for his farms, Immortan Joe gives it away charitably to the vagrants on the outskirts of his society and advises them not to become dependent on he generosity. \n\n10. In contrast many of the protagonist are only selfishly motivated. Max doesn't care about helping the wives escape, he is only doing what is best for himself. The group doesn't turn around to get the pregnant one who fell off and survived. The Vuvulani don't care about what is best for the people of the citadel they are only trying to put food in their own mouths.  They let Nux kill himself so they can escape, even before the engine was torn out the plan did not look good for him. \n\n**Things That Will NOT Convince Me**\n\n-statements from the director, cast, or those involved in the production about their intentions\n\n-any evidence from the extended universe, this was a stand alone work with a self contained story and should be analyzed as such.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Dr. Seuss should be required High School literature before \"classics\" such as Steinbeck, Dickens, and even Shakespeare + \n + My reasoning behind this is, for the most part the above authors lack lessons. While they don't all always, the biggest thing teachers enjoy is pointing out the themes behind each book. Why do themes matter? Why should students learn about literature in the past when we learn about the past from History?\n\nDr. Seuss's books contain lessons. Being yourself, being creative, not being an asshole, caring about the planet, etc.\n\nI'm not picking out those authors exclusively, they're just some examples I thought of since I've read some of their works and I was disappointed (I guess you could say I had Great Expectations) because I'm in school to learn, and most of these books are rather dull and don't teach me anything besides themes that parallel from human nature back then to now. It's annoying reading Of Mice and Men and seeing all of these themes about friendship and loyalty in the great depression and not coming out a better person after reading it. You could stretch for several lessons but they're mostly reiterations of the themes. \n\nSo I feel like the school system is failing me by dulling me down with pointless \"theme-based\" literature rather than literature with lessons and morals that could prepare us for the world we're gonna face. Not just themes in the world we can relate to, but how to not be a dick or how to plant a tree or stay creative while aging seem pretty important. \n\nSo in order to not completely hate the school system and rant at my teacher and probably not do any homework based on the theme-based literature, CMV.\n\n*For clarification, USA high schools. Not sure how other countries do their classes but our English classes have mandatory books read throughout the country. It's hard to find someone who hasn't read (or Sparknoted) Of Mice and Men, the Catcher in the Rye, Catch 22, and a bunch of Shakespeare stuff from middle/high school*\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Human existence is futile. + \n + Ah, like it says in \"Dust In The Wind.\" Every line in that song is correct except for \"nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky.\" Probably won't last forever either.\n\n\nI believe that it doesn't matter what you do in life. Well, not in the big scheme of things anyway. Human endeavors such as developing a cure for cancer or ending world hunger are all very noble, but futile nonetheless. Maybe we'll get there someday, but does it matter? For now it seems like it does, but when our species dies out it won't. God probably doesn't exist and nobody gives a shit. \"You create your own meaning in life\" is wishful thinking, because your \"meaning\" ultimately doesn't really matter to anyone or anything but humanity at large, if that. And if it doesn't matter, it's not meaningful.\n\n\nI'd love to be wrong on this one, so go ahead and change my view.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:The Nuremberg defense isn't that bad + \n + When the german leaders were put on trial after WWII, They claimed they were just following orders but it was decided that this was not good enough. Hitler could have had them and their children killed for refusing to obey orders. soldiers who refused orders were killed and their families received no help from the state and suffered penalties.\n\nso why wasn't this a good defence? were they legally supposed to be martyrs? You can't legally force someone to allow themselves and their families to die/suffer badly even if it means saving others lives\n\nobligatory \"obligatory wow gold?\" \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: We are not better than the criminals we lock up in prison as we waste enormous amounts of resources on frivolous things while we could save lives + \n + My idea stems from the following analogy:\n\nScenario 1\nJohn is a rich businessman and Caroline a homeless girl that will die in few days if she is not given some money for food. John does an action (stabbing) that result in Caroline to die. John is therefore responsible of another person's death. \n\nScenario 2\nCarl is a rich businessman and Jacob a homeless guy that will die in few days if he is not given some money for food. Carl does an action (ignoring Jacob's needs, spending his money on the last iPhone instead) that result in Jacob to die. Carl is therefore responsible of another person's death. ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think student should be able to test out of almost every class. + \n + I think students should be able to test out of any class, at the very least, any of those at the high school level or higher. I don't think it makes any sense to have a student sit through a class to learn things that he can already prove he knows.\n\nBasically, I just want reasons why sitting through a class that a student already understands makes sense.\n\n**Some obvious arguments and their counters**\n\n\nI'm assuming these class tests would cover everything covered in the course, or at least be designed to determine the student's knowledge well enough.\n\n\nI'm also assuming these tests would make sure that the student has a mastery of the subjects rather than a simple acquaintance.\n\n\nThis is why I specified  \"*almost* every class.\" Obviously there are some classes that teach things that can't really be tested, and of course the student would still have to take those classes, or we might just remove them from the education system altogether.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Meat is Murder + \n + Before I start, I think it's important to point out that I am certainly biased. I am a vegetarian who will soon be getting a kitchen and going vegan. I'm sure my logic will be questioned by many people in real life, but I feel like if I can survive this thread then I'll be set for a while. I searched for this thread but I couldn't find something this broad.\n\n\n**Background:**\n\nTo start, I'd like to reference another [CMV post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/39ymxu/cmv_if_it_is_reasonable_for_humans_to_own_animals/cs7nx2l), specifically the tiers. It also explains why rights of a lower tier cannot be taken by a higher tier simply because it's a higher tier. If you're going to use logic along those lines in your response, I ask that you skim that link first. \n\n* **Tier 1**: Plants\n* **Tier 2**: Basic Animals (excludes insects)\n* **Tier 3**: Animals with more Advanced Cognitive Function\n* **Tier 4**: Humans\n* **Tier 5**: Anything Above Humans\n\n**Assumptions:**\n\n1. A human killing killing another human is considered unethical.\n2. An alien killing a human is also unethical.\n3. Plants are okay to be eaten because they are not conscious, and cannot feel pain or pleasure.\n4. Basic animals are conscious, and can feel pain or pleasure\n\n**My Logic:**\n\nIf we can agree on my second assumption, then we have to accept that any code of ethics we follow cannot, without purpose, isolate rights to a single tier. So the question now becomes, If meat is not murder, then for what purpose should basic animals not be given the same right to life that a human is given? If we can agree on my third and fourth assumption then I see no reason why a basic animal should not be given the same rights to life as a human.\n\n**What Will Change My View:**\n\nDisproving one of my assumptions in a way that disproves my logic\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Computers should become less user friendly in the future + \n + Hello. I think a vast majority of our security problems on our networks and computational devices stems from technical illiteracy from the everyday user. \n\nAlso, the functionality of a computer nowadays is being restricted heavily by catering computers to the lowest common denominator of computer users, ie \"I just borrowed my grandsons computer to send a virtual e-mail to Susan\".\n\nPoints:\n\n-Computers have become easier to use, but generally do this by removing choice, not by improving usability. Most people these days do not know how to do simple tasks on computers. How do you instruct a computer to copy all files that start with July and end with .jpg from a folder and all it's subfolders to a separate folder titled \"Camping Photos\"? \n\n-The population of Americans who are brand new to computing is shrinking every day, and will continue shrinking due to death. As such, it is illogical to have them be the standard to which software is designed. \n\n-People who have had computers available their entire lives are incapable of troubleshooting the machines that they've grown up with from a small age, as their interactions with the machine have been simplistic and uninteresting. How many times have you seen someone \"link\" to a photo or a document by saying; \"Here, click this: C:\\Users\\JCena\\Files\\pr0n.gif\"\n\n-Modern computers have many abstraction layers that separate a user from the actual actions being taken. People develop metaphors for interactions with machines, and some of these become standards. For instance, I won't sit here and tell you that the \"Files and folders\" metaphor  for organizing information on machines wasn't successful. Microsoft is especially guilty of this. What is a \"briefcase\"? When I say \"Library\", are you thinking of \"That folder that isn't a folder that contains shortcuts to all my shit\", or are you thinking \"A file full of programming functions that allows a programmer to utilize features without having to write it all themselves\"?\n\n-By hiding machine functionality, the quality of that functionality degrades (or at least, doesn't improve). \n\n-The \"user friendliness\" leads to a paradigm where users are not expected nor required to in any way expend any effort in learning how to use a machine that they will be using a lot. This means users are dumber, and more likely to break things. \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think both religion and science suffer from dogmatic worldviews. + \n + Background: In a nutshell, I had a Christian upbringing. Went through a few years basically as an Atheist until I had an existential crisis and turned to Buddhism.\n\nThis is gonna be a tough one as it is a very sweeping statement, so I will do my best to elaborate what I mean.\n\n**Religion**: This has been talked about endlessly, but I feel like many of the issues at least with the Abrahamic religions (the Crusades, terrorism, gay rights, etc.) comes down to a belief in an objective right vs wrong. Even though I've met plenty of Christians who actively question their faith and interpretation of the Bible, the Abrahamic faiths still come down to external rules that are at odds with human nature, particularly sexuality. Just look at how intrusive Sharia Law can be.\n\n**Science**: While my teenage Atheist-leaning side of me would like to think that there is a huge gap between religion and science, science did arise out of Christianity after all, and its dogmatic leanings still show today. [Here's a banned TED talk by Rupert Sheldrake](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg) on a so-called \"science delusion\" (a play on the \"God Delusion\"). While I do not agree with him entirely, I think he poses a very important point. The materialist worldview it has come to is very limiting compared to the original intent of the scientific method.\n\nMy view is that while we can be taught, it is up to us to learn through our own experiences and choose whether or not to accept the said teachings, as opposed to blind faith. However, I feel this is a dangerous view to have as it is not only is a rebellious one, but also heavily degrades my respect for the Abrahamic religions and a good chunk of the scientific community. I'd really like to see the other side of this.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I'm a liberal progressive young person with a college degree in a low paying job. I think Bernie Sanders seems like the perfect candidate for someone in my position. + \n + I'm not asking about bias. I'm not asking about the politics of why he won't win (I.E. too extreme, won't impress the moderates). I'm a liberal progressive young person with a low paying job and a college degree. What I'm asking is why voting for Bernie Sanders would go against my interests. How has he contradicted what he's currently campaigning on? What has he done in the past that would not live up to my standards?\n\nNo candidate is perfect. I know that. They all make mistakes, voting for the wrong legislation for whatever reason. What has he done?\n\nBasically, I want to know how fake he is. I'm of firm belief that no candidate can be all real all the time.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think viewing child pornography should be legal, because it results in fewer children being victims of sexual abuse. + \n + Before I continue, I would like to start by saying that I am not a pedophile and that I am strongly against the sexual abuse of children. \n\nMy view is based on scientific evidence which strongly suggests that allowing pedophiles to view child porn will result in fewer instances of sexual abuse.\n\nNow I understand and accept that some people will say that children who feature in child porn are re-victimised when they learn that people are viewing images of their abuse, but by legalising viewing, this would mean that the victims will never learn that images of their abuse are being viewed and so they will not suffer re-victimisation. \n\nThere is no evidence to suggest that pedophiles who view child porn are more likely than not to go onto abuse children. In fact, the research suggests the exact opposite. It suggests that pedophiles who have access to child porn are more likely than not to stick with child porn to relieve their desires rather than abuse a child. \n\nMy view is based on a study titled [\"Legalizing child pornography is linked to lower rates of child sex abuse\"](https://www.springer.com/about+springer/media/springer+select?SGWID=0-11001-6-1042321-0).\n\nChild abuse is abhorrant, but I think to ignore this research is irresponsible. \n\nI will not be convinced by anecdotal evidence on this by the way. Please make sure you provide reliable sources for your opinions, like I have. \n\nCMV.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The case of Dylann Roof is not an adequate starter for a dialogue on race relations. It is an isolated case of a disturbed young man, with a completely misguided view on race. In fact, it may be arguable that making it about race gives dignity to the acts that it doesn't deserve + \n +      On the 18th of June, Dylann Roof walked into a church consisting of mostly black members alone and shot nine members alone. His motivations were to ignite an war that he likely believes is already starting. Before he walked into that church he posted a juvenile series of rants and pictures that gave glimpses into his obviously sick head to tell the world of his idiotic, racist views and manifest what he intended. He did all of this as to my knowledge, alone.\n     After he committed his crime he was arrested, and everyone hated him. Although, no one of note is praising of him, obviously, there are people who claim that this is a symptom of a larger issue about race and oppression. The person I find most notable in this discussion is Jon Stewart: http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/kb2h42/charleston-church-shooting\n    The argument that he is making has merit, Jon Stewart is a highly intelligent and empathetic human being who knows what he is talking about. But the demographic that Dylann Roof crawled away from to represent is an old and dying minority, that I truly believe. Yes, there are race problems and there are people of extreme disturbances that are willing to go to murderous lengths to make a statement about race, but no one with a sensible head on their shoulders believes such things. We should keep the discussion of race alive, and there are lengths that we as a society need to cover to reach the mountain top of racial equality, but why must we blame Charleston and the media as a whole for this one poor young man who had a clear mental health issue, and easy access to firearms? Is it hard for us to turn our minds to the more obvious debate that needs to be made about gun control and mental health treatment? \n     It is an argument that has been made and beaten to death before, and feels a little more ignored this time around. If Dylann Roof had more red tape and more red flags put in his way, maybe this tragedy could have been deterred or at least mitigated. At least, that's one thing in this situation we could have controlled. We could not make race relations better in a few months, nor could we prevent Dylann Roof from changing his mind as easily as one Saturday morning cartoon, but we could have made his actions much harder to go about.\n     There are race relations to address in this country, and that will be healed with more time, but we aren't helping ourselves by making this act more than a symptom of the case. Race relations didn't make Dylann Roof a murderer, his own rage and fractured mental health did, and the glock was far too easy for him to reach. \nI am not trying to disparage the obvious issues between white people, black people, and any other race, but I am not understanding why it is paramount we make this about race, rather than the argument that we have based most other mass-shootings on. So please, CMV.\n     ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:Belief in Christianity Does Not Necessitate the Belief that Homosexuality is a Sin + \n + It is well known that the old testament refers to homosexuality as \"an abomination.\" However, most christians do not believe in the applicability of Old Testament rules to the modern day due to the new covenant of Jesus Christ. Under this interpretation, homosexuality should be judged to be just as immoral as wearing mixed fabrics or eating pig, which to almost all Christians is \"not at all\". In fact, the notion that \"homosexuality is a sin\" is inconsistent with the theme of the New Testament, which Christians put much more emphasis on. In the New Testament, Jesus encourages believers not to judge the immorality of a person by what is socially acceptable, which is essentially what those who would say that homosexuality is a sin are doing.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Qui-Gon Jinn should have freed both Anakin and Shmi Skywalker after the podrace, by force if necessary. + \n + When Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan land on Tatooine, they encounter Watto, a junk dealer who owns two slaves, Anakin Skywalker and his mother Shmi. When Qui-Gon learns he cannot buy them from Watto, he gambles for Anakin's freedom. \n\nI believe that Qui-Gon should have removed both Anakin and Shmi from Watto's control, using force (or the Force^haha ) if necessary. \n\nSince the Jedi are \"guardians of peace and justice\", they are presumably called to right moral wrongs. While slavery is apparently not illegal on Tatooine, it is nevertheless immoral, and Qui-Gon seems to recognize this. \n\nI realize that gambling on the podrace was necessary, since it would be wrong to take Watto's (non-living) property by force, even if he was dead. But I believe that once the race was over, and Qui-Gon had obtained the parts for the ship under the arrangement he and Watto made, Qui-Gon should have freed Shmi Skywalker using any means necessary. \n\nChange my view.\n\n\nWatto was a good master - Yes, but she's still a slave. Being a slave sucks bantha balls. \n\nAnakin was the only one who needed to be freed - Yes, but Shmi shouldn't have to be a slave forever because she's not important enough to the story. \n\nQui-Gon couldn't free all the slaves - Yes, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't free the ones he can. \n\nAnakin needed to sever his emotional connections - Yes, but it seems like he would be more attached to his mother if she was still a slave billions of miles away than if she was living somewhere safe and comfortable. \n\nThe Force wouldn't work on Watto - Toydarians are immune to mind tricks, not being hurled around the room with the Force like a ragdoll. \n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The authority of the police must always be challenged + \n + I'm not a cop hater. I like to think I'm a relatively reasonable person but I'm honestly not even 100% sure how I really feel with the constant barrage of news stories about police breaking the law and victimizing regular citizens.\n\nI replied to another redditor saying to basically always do what a cop says [here]\n(http://www.reddit.com/r/AmIFreeToGo/comments/39xujz/are_any_of_you_lawyers_or_have_credible_sources_i/cs7s7x6)\n\nSection of his comment\n\nand my reply\n\n\n\n\n\n\nI do believe this but reading it back to myself and trying to see it from someone else point of view I feel like I sound like some kind of deluded government conspiracy theorist.\n\n\nCops have authority. I fully support that. I believe it's necessary for a society to function for there to be people to enforce the law by means greater than what the average citizen should be allowed.\n\nI also believe those enforcers should be held to a higher moral standard. That they should not violate the reach of the powers we give them. And that if they do, we, the very people that gave them the power in the first place, have our own duty to not allow it despite such disobedience being an often unsafe and likely consequential undertaking.\n\nMight doesn't make right. I definitely don't want to get my ass beat and/or thrown in jail for pissing off the wrong cop by not letting him violate my rights and despite my position I don't know if I would have the courage in the moment to stand up to a weaponized bully but I do know it would be the right thing to do. Maybe not the smart thing, but the right thing.\n\nI'm not saying to go around saying the fuck the police and disobeying them for no reason. I'm saying only show deference when they are acting appropriately.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Adult-adolescent sexual relations is illegal because we think it's icky, not because it's child abuse + \n + Ok, I first posted [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/1qc9pw/the_real_reason_why_child_porn_is_illegal/) last year. My mistake was going to /r/philosophy hoping that no topic is off limits for so called lovers of wisdom. To my surprise even they can get quite boorish when they suspect that the person who posted has a pedo agenda behind him. For the record, I don't have one. I don't like appearing as if I am being defensive but I feel I have to say that because I have posted this opinion in the past and in my experience it is too provocative for most people to remain civil and rely only on the rational parts of their brains. BTW I have spoken about this with real life friends and professors - none of them have had any second thoughts about whether I am mentally ill or a child abuser or have been provoked to anger in any way - quite a contrast to the online forums. Anyway I am genuinely subordinate to the truth of the issue and my promise is that if I find any convincing arguments to the contrary I will change my mind. Hopefully this subreddit is full of people who are interested in discussion and not name-calling, witch-hunting, and all other sorts of abuse. If not, then I've lost all hope for the internet. \n\nFirst I'd like to make clear where I'm standing. I believe that amorous emotions that teenagers experience are very real and should be taken seriously. In other words, they are capable of genuine feelings of love and for the most part know what is in their best interest when they take part in a relationship. It's pretty clear also that we have almost no problem with them having sex with other teenagers their own age. Or if we do, then we aren't doing anything about it and have very relaxed attitude. Therefore, we believe that teenagers are capable of consenting to sexual activity to other teenagers. \n\nNow here is my main argument: If we do believe that teenagers can consent to have sex with each other, I believe that this means that they are able to give consent in general. It seems to me that it is inconsistent to believe that teenagers can consent to have sex with each other and not with adults because consent is something that is determined from within and is in no way dependent on the age of the other person. Therefore teenagers are actually capable of consenting to have sex with adults. \n\nThis is not a strawman at all. From the first comment of that post I linked by user slickwombat:  \n\n\n\nAnother one from dogGirl666 found [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/3bmka6/why_is_it_ok_to_let_my_daughter_fuck_some_14yo/csoi92k?context=3):\n\nIf what slickwombat and dogGirl666 are saying is true, why let them have sex at all? Wouldn't that be potentially letting them fall into abuse out of their own doing? To me it is highly suspect to have a situation where we are extremely lax, or even encouraging, toward two 15 year olds having sex but as soon as that 15 year old has sex with a 20 year old, it is called child abuse. I'm not sure how this attitude came to be - it is possible that it arose out the moral panic from the 70s where children were being ritually abused in a day care center - before that there weren't even laws on child pornography. It was not even considered weird or perverse a hundred years ago for very older men to be engaged to girls who were still going through or just past puberty. So just as the new atheists come and try to flip the table on theists to prove their claim on the existence of god, who are we to say that before the 20th century, all societies were pathological where child abuse was rampant? I'm not saying that it is actually a good thing if it were the norm, for example, that girls were married at age 13, just that why the swing of the pendulum is justified at all. So in other words, I'm laying the burden of proof on you to to prove that all or a sufficiently high number of cases of adult-adolescent sexual interaction results in the adolescent being harmed. Or barring that, why the thesis - that allowing teenagers to consent to other teenagers but not to adults is inconsistent - is wrong. \n\nI know what the first reaction will be and although I admit to not having a good rebuttal to it, my answer is equally forceful as yours will be. First, let's be aware that teenagers naturally don't want to have sex with someone disproportionately out of their age group. They find it creepy, just like any normal human being would, and our laws of consent prohibit any unwanted interaction or even advances. Second, I believe that teenagers are for the most part and perhaps with the help of a little awareness and education, able to determine what is in their best interest when it comes to seeking a relationship. That doesn't mean that they are perfectly able to avoid negative experiences from it. That's the name of the game. Next, I would like to know from you that just allowing adult-adolescent sexual relations to happen, that there WILL be abuse. How do you know that teenage boys aren't already abusing other teenage girls if they are so impressionable at their age as most people would like to believe? How can you even adjudicate this when you define adult-adolescent sex ITSELF as abuse? \n\nThe last point I'd like to cover is supportive of my thesis. I mentioned this in my other post and I think it is a fairly strong point - and that is that our opinion toward young people is idealized and our attitude toward them is overly protective. Case in point: [groping a female is abuse only if she's underage](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-725352.html). My question is, why is age even being mentioned? Clearly the guy has an idea in his head that underage persons are naive, innocent, chaste or simply don't know what's going on and letting them have in on the fun would be doing them a disservice. Let's consider another case, not quite the same but related. Whenever something tragic happens to children, the news always capitalizes on them. Oklahoma bombing in 1995, more than 100 people died but news MUST mention that 19 of them were children. News of the Boston Marathon bombing, you can bet that the eight year old who died is always given a mention. [After Sandy Hook Piers Morgan got more riled up than usual and this is not the first time he's had a debate on guns](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC4JJWUtzkc). My point is that we give in to our emotions more when it comes to children for some reason. I believe this may be connected to our attitudes on adults-adolescent relations. \n\nThat pretty much concludes it. If you will answer, I would like to challenge you to make it clear on where you stand on the following questions: \n\n1) If you had an underage daughter, would you let her date an older man if you knew 100% that they would not have sex; \n2) On the topic of consent, would you agree that any girl who voluntarily takes a topless photo of herself and sends it over snapchat is abusing herself? \n3) continuing the above question, if no, then would you consider it abuse if she took that photo and handed it over to her boyfriend, who then would be guilty of possessing child pornography?\n4) Do you think it is possible for older men to genuinely fall in love with teenage girls? \n5) An older man has sex with an 18-year old. Turns out she lied about her age and she's really 16. Was the girl sexually abused? \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Done correctly, I don't see anything wrong with Socialism. Quite the contrary, it seems more fair and sustainable than free market purism. + \n + Obviously the Soviet Union did horrible things and killed millions of people over the decades (but so did America, countries in western Europe, Japan, Germany and other capitalist countries) and Red China did and continues to do horrible things, but this was more as a result of being overly punitive and stubbornly autarkic than any fault of socialism itself. While I do think the farms were collectivized way too fast, for the most part the crimes the communist states committed had more to do with their authoritarian and ideological rigidity than with people starving because they \"ran out of other people's money\" as conservatives like to quip.\n\nThere's nothing inherent about socialism that means you have to kill off your opponents or commit genocide, or censor the media and throw dissidents in prison. This is a result of the largest communist states being one-party ruled, and an overly vengeful culture and government. Capitalist dictatorships of the 20th century like Pinochet's Chile and Suharto's Indonesia were the exact same way in this regard. \n\nOne can have both communism and democracy - Mongolia, Nepal and Albania all democratically elected communist parties in the 90s. I just don't see anything wrong with distributing the wealth, especially when you consider the positive track record of such attempts in mixed economics like the Nordic countries, Australia and Canada. \n\nI'd even argue that for all of the bad things Soviet Russia and Red China did, they were still much better than the monarchies that came beforehand. They also did see a lot of economic growth and development. Before the Communists Russia and China were backwaters, practically medieval societies. By the 80s they were very well developed and the majority of the population lived relatively modern lifestyles with radios, electricity, healthcare (not necessarily the best, but given non-discriminately and vastly better than what was available in the 19th century), television sets (even if they were mostly B&W), universal education and running water. It's hard to deny that communism was a success in the sense of material prosperity growing.\n\nSo I fail to see why communism is inferior to capitalism, aside from the fact that nationalist movements ultimately destroyed the Soviet Union. You could also argue that Japan and America's unending economic stagnation represents a failure of capitalism, and it would make just as much sense.\n\nI think the best system is one that mixes capitalism and communism together - that allows innovation and makes it easy for people to start enterprises, but also has a strong publicly owned \"backbone\" and distributes wealth so that the poor do not starve or end up homeless, and the rich and middle class live in a more stable and safe society, which is the case when you have fewer people who are desperate and irrational due to poverty.\n\n\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The majority of minute silences are insincere and are just empty gestures. + \n + Today marks the 10th anniversary of the 7/7 bombings in London. To commemorate this there has been a supposedly nation wide minute silence. While I wouldn't interrupt a minute silence I do think that they are arbitrary and not a good way of \"showing respect\".\n\nUsually they are touted as a way of remembering victims of tragedies, however as someone who lives across the country, I do not know the victims or any of their family and as a result other than the circumstances in which it happened, their deaths have little to no effect on my life. Because of this, I think it is disingenuous and borderline offensive to those close to the victims for me to pretend that I am actively upset by their deaths.\n\nIn addition to this I said that minute silences are arbitrary; millions of people have died in  the ten years since, some of them in similar circumstances even yet 99.9% of those will go \" unremembered \". Surely by not holding a minute silence for at least the people who died in terror attacks we are tacitly implying disrespect? One could argue that it should be something carried out only in the home country of the victims which would not explain why the whole world continues to hold minute silences to commemorate 9/11.\n\nI am not saying that there should be a blanket ban on minute silences however. For example it recently made the news that there was a minute silence in the stadium before a football game to acknowledge the death of a fan. I wholeheartedly support that as it shows a community (either his literal, local community or the community of football fans) coming together to show solidarity for someone who's death may well have personally affected many of them. \n\nI apologise for the wall of text and any spelling mistakes due to mobile typing. Please change my view as it makes me feel like a cold and disrespectful person.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Statistics should be a mandatory part of the high school curriculum, but NOT as a replacement for any standard mathematics courses. + \n + Increasingly, many argue that elementary statistics should be a mandatory subject in the high school curriculum.  I agree with this wholeheartedly, as the discipline has become central to civic and economic literacy in the 21st century.  But to argue, as some have, that this should *replace* the traditional \"algebra to calculus\" high school math sequence makes about as much sense to me as arguing that history should replace English.  While the two undoubtedly share some skills and mechanics, they are fundamentally different disciplines with fundamentally different roles in the curriculum, and both are necessary for a complete education.\n\n\nAlthough the underlying mechanics of statistics are undoubtedly mathematical, increasingly it is becoming recognized as a discipline in its own right, with its own methodology and best practices distinct from those of pure mathematics, and the structure of high school should reflect this divergence.  At the high school level, the focus of statistics pedagogy should be on core concepts, the appropriate use of technology, and interpretation-- you are teaching a student to turn data into an accurate, precise probablistic statement, and to have an intuitive understanding of the probability concepts underlying the meaning of that statement.  These are important skills, but they aren't really *mathematical* skills in the traditional sense; you are reasoning in a different mode.  \n\n\nIn a well-taught algebra, geometry, or calculus class, by contrast, students learn to reason deductively rather than inductively, learn the theory underlying core mathematical notions such as function and equivalence, solve non-routine problems, and use mathematics of all types to analyze real-world phenomena.  None of these skills except arguably the last play any role in an elementary statistics curriculum.  \n\n\nYou can argue that a deep facility with \"abstract\" math has little importance in the \"real world,\" but increasingly the 21st century economy *does* reward individuals who have a high capacity for abstraction and problem-solving, even if you are never directly using specific skills (the classic \"when will I ever need the quadratic formula in real life\" bugbear).  Finally, learning these mathematical concepts is a necessary prerequisite for any further study in STEM fields, which statistics training will not replace.  Thus, BOTH statistics and math, as separate disciplines, should have a role in the high school curriculum.\n\n\nAs a final note, I should mention that I am here presupposing that both statistics and pure math can are taught *well.*  Obviously, a well-taught statistics class is much more useful than a poorly-taught math class, and vice-versa.  I'm well aware that bad mathematics teaching (and bad statistics teaching, for that matter) is rampant in the U.S., so I'd prefer to keep the horror stories along those lines out of this particular discussion and stay focused on the best-case possibilities of both subjects.\n\n\n\n\n**To those of you more interested in debating the logistical nuts and bolts (concerns about burdensome mandates on schools, etc.):** thank you also for your participation in the conversation.  Some have made arguments that all state mandates on school curriculum are unnecessarily burdensome or will cost too much; I believe this premise has empirically denied, so these arguments are not convincing to me.  Others have made the point that, in the event that states are unwilling to add new credit hours to their diploma requirements, we risk adding statistics at the expense of electives or core courses.  This is a more compelling argument, but ultimately a risk I am willing to take, since I believe that in most if not all states there is room in the existing credit structure to responsibly add statistics in place of at least one course.  As a separate issue, I think increasing credit hour minimums and extended school days are serious proposals that should be given consideration as possibilities, though it is not my intent to make a full argument in favor of them here.  Unless you have something substantially different to offer than the above two arguments, I doubt I will be convinced by further discussion along these lines.\n\n\nThank you again to all who responded.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:Religion overall is a negative force in the world and has been for the entirety of it's existance + \n + Sorry in advance, this sub must get a lot of posts like these. I've been studying religion for a while, and am going to university next year to carry on my studies, and the more I study religion, the more it seems to suck. Studying Sikhism, the rampant censorship, hate and murder from Emperor Jahangir and Aurangzeb of the muslim Mughal Empire against the Sikh people, the church's resistance to adopt condoms, and therefore aiding the spread of AIDS, especially in Africa. Bear in mind I've been brought up in a secular area of Britain and that may distort my view in the same way people who are brought up in ultra religious societies. I probably sound awfully pretentious and I apologise for that.  Please either refine or change my view.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think FIFA should keep the 2022 World Cup in Qatar + \n + I don't see that much wrong with it. It is promoting tourism to the middle east and raises awareness for the developing country of Qatar, much like South Africa did. As well, it gives the Qatar National Team a chance to compete in the World Cup. I feel economically it is beneficial for both Fifa and Qatar. 2022 is a long way from now, and Qatar has promised that it would be able to fix the problem with heat using a stadium wide cooling system. \n\nI'm also excited to see all the modern technology that will be implemented into this World Cup. Also, I feel it would be a waste of money and time if the World Cup was moved somewhere else. Construction has already started and countries have already moved on to preparing bids for another World Cup. A sudden change of location could be disastrous for certain countries. \n\nFinally, in the end, we go to and watch the World Cup because football is football. There should be more time spent focusing on the emergence of stars in the World Cup, how teams can adapt to weather, how today's young stars will play in their prime. \n\nWith all this said, change my view!", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Politicians that are involved in sexual scandals (such as sexting) whether it be someone single or married, should not reflect their political and leadership abilities, their policies and work ethic should. + \n + \n\nOk, I am not advocating for everyone to go pull Lewinskies or anything, but what I'm saying is that they shouldn't be impeached or forced to resign, or face criticism on their ability to lead or shape policy. If they are a good policy maker fine. If they are making the world a better place and fighting for things that other politicians are afraid to then fine. As long as they don't be hypocrites on their policies, so what. Really the Clinton and Lewinsky scandal should have been handled between Bill and his wife, not the media and Congress. A city councilman just stepped down in my city for sexting someone 14 years his junior, however she was 34 and he's 48 neither one married, he's divorced a few years ago... how the hell does that call for a career to be ended? And now the speaker of the Missouri house of reps just resigned because he was sexting the capitol intern. If it was abuse or assault then ok, investigate, charge and punish them appropriately, but if its a matter of consensual legal sexual exchange, who are we to tell them no? I really wanna know why we shame politicians and ruin their careers because of things like sexting? \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There isn't a compelling reason to bid on an eBay Auction before the closing hours/minutes. + \n + So, I am not a particularly active user of eBay, but I don't see the reason to bid on a traditional ebay auction well before the closing time.\n\nFor example, if there is something I want to buy on eBay, rather than place a bid, I usually make a note of the closing time of the auction, and check back much closer to then to see if I am still interested in bidding.   As I see it, there is no advantage to me placing my bid early.  An early bid gives any other buyers more time to evaluate my bid and possibly outbid me.\n\nMy plan for auctions is usually to figure out the maximum amount I am willing to bid for an auction, and then submit that offer as close to the closing time of that auction as possible.  I don't rebid.  I might bid a few hours early if I know I will unavailable at the exact close of the auction, but I never bid several days in advance.\n\nIs there something I'm missing?  I often see a large number of bidders on items throughout the week, and I'm not really sure of the point.\n\nNOTE: I understand there are other types of auctions (Buy it Now, Dutch Auction, etc) where this strategy might not apply.  I'm talking specifically about traditional auctions.\n\nFor reference, here is a link that explains how the standard eBay auction works.  It is not the same as you might be familiar with in an auction house.\nhttp://www.ebay.com/gds/How-Bidding-Works-on-eBay-and-How-to-WIN-/10000000175182135/g.html\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Kurt Cobain was the last real Rock Star + \n + With all the talk about Kanye West being the \"living rock star\" and what not, ive been thinking; kanye isn't a rock star, and if he is not, where are all the rock stars? What makes a rockstar is pretty subjective to me, a rockstar needs to wild, a rockstar needs to be cool, a rockstar should have his songs blast on the radio, a rockstar should have the girls want him and the guys want to be him, im thinking about guys like Mick Jagger or Robert Plant, and Cobain of  course, the fact that he can go on stage and piss in a shoe and destroy his guitar, and have his songs play on mainstream radio, while all the highschoolers wear 'nirvana' t-shirts, thats a Rock Star to me. Convince me theres rockstars still out there. \n\nSorry for poor punctuation and grammar \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Edward Snowden failed to gain support from the left because he attacked a democratic president and his administration. + \n + If Edward Snowden had revealed NSA secrets during a republican administration, he would have received more support from left-leaning politicians and from liberals and democrats.  Because he presented as a libertarian, and was perceived to have attacked the Obama administration, democrats and liberals were not receptive to his disclosures.   \n\nRepublicans generally tend to be supportive of a strong military defense, and so the NSA's actions naturally align with republican leanings.   \n\nSo, he received no support from the republicans or democrats, and this has played a part in how his message has been framed in the media, and what our political representatives say about him.\n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The goal of life should be to reduce your material wants. + \n + Under the assumption that you can consciously alter your wants, it seems to me that the obvious solution to a more peaceful life is to reduce your material wants towards zero.  This would include departing from things as basic to the developed world as air conditioning.  I don't see any benefit to wanting more material goods in life, even though I, unfortunately, still want more than I have.\n\nThis is less a moral argument than a practical argument.  If you can reduce your wants to non-material desires, then the material provisions you should require to satisfy those desires should be meager; a pair of shoes, a shirt and pants to walk through park; books to read; etc.; and your life should, therefor, be easier and more free.  \n\nAgain, this is under the assumption that you can alter your wants.  Specifically, the capacity to want to want something -- wanting to want to exercise, wanting to want to read more, wanting to want less, etc. -- is the basis of this view point, and I'm curious if anyone has a compelling argument towards actually wanting to want more material goods.\n\n**CLARIFICATION:  My claim is NOT that \"The goal of life should be to reduce your material wants to zero.\"**", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The drive to be sympathetic and kind towards people is entirely dependent on an expectation of reciprocity. So I see no reason why pariahs should be sympathetic or nice towards people beyond their best interest + \n + I don't see any reason why people would be sympathetic towards others, or nice or caring towards others unless there's a certain expectation that they will be treated the same by them. Perhaps not directly, vis-a-vis. That is, that just because you do something nice for someone that someone owes you someway. But unless you have a certain guarantee that you will be treated like a peer by those people, I don't see why you'd treat them better than they'd treat you.\n\nFor that reason, people who are pariahs have no reason to be sympathetic or nice towards other people. Sure, there's the common courtesies that are unavoidable unless you want to raise a stink wherever you go; but other than that, going that extra mile to be \"the nice guy\" or being sympathetic to the troubles of other people who look down on you? It's irrational. Why should you treat them better than they treat you, if there's no guarantee that you will be treated the same? Moreover, there's a chance they'll mistreat you, due to your pariah status.\n\nI see this comment about being \"genuinely nice and sympathetic\" and \"treating people nicely\" about those socially-inept men whom people call Nice Guys, or otherwise loners and social rejects that always strikes me as completely absurd. Why would they treat other people with more respect, sympathy and niceness than that with which they are treated by their peers? That's a very serf-like.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I should never drink Pepsi, especially the one in my fridge. + \n + I *really* like Coke (hell look at my username), like really. I made the trek to Atlanta about a year ago for the sole reason of visiting the Coca-Cola Museum. So when yesterday came by and one of my friend put a Pepsi in my fridge, my choice was to throw it away. But I didn't for... some reason.... And now I have a Pepsi in my fridge. I don't like Pepsi, and I never will. I haven't drunk Pepsi for 2 years about this point, and now I ask reddit to try and find a way to get me to drink the sweat of Gary, Indiana.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: If your religious beliefs are the sole reason for thinking something is wrong, then it does not make sense to ban/make that thing illegal. + \n + Personally, I'm not religious, so I guess I'm trying to get some insight here. Here's the deal, say you live in a world where it is impossible to do anything morally wrong. Then in that world there would be no reason to praise or reward someone for doing the moral thing because there is no other option. Likewise, there is no one who could possibly be punished (like sending them to hell for instance). Clearly we do not live in such a world, but religious individuals/groups who insist that something should be illegal or made nearly impossible due to religious views are trying to make our world more like the one in the scenario I suggested above where it is impossible to do anything morally wrong. Thus, forcing people to comply with the rules of your religion actually seem to make the rules less meaningful which seems like something that religious individuals would want to avoid.\n\nNote, I'm only talking about things where the main reason for believing them is religion - like beliefs about gay marriage, premarital sex, drinking alcohol, etc. Therefore, things like the belief that you should not murder people would not count as having a primarily religious nature because most people also find murder horrific in a separate sense from religion.\n\nTo phrase it differently, if all alcohol disappeared from earth tomorrow and humans somehow could no longer make it, would abstaining from drinking alcohol mean anything? I don't think so.\n\nWithout having the choice to do the 'wrong' thing, then doing the 'right' thing is meaningless.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Shakespeare had a greater impact on the world than Genghis Khan. + \n + I have a debate coming up, and this is the stance I took, but I want to try and see how my opponent can make an argument. Shakespeare made nearly 3,000 words, and most of them have allowed society to become a more expressive and open world, as most dealt with emotions and finding a better way of expressing them. Genghis Khan's impact started and ended with military success. His vast empire fragmented after his death and three of those four fragments had been toppled or reclaimed within a hundred years. Shakespeare introduced so many new concepts to the English language, and his play *Julius Caesar* inspired the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. I can see that both had an immense impact, but I want to see how Genghis Khan's impact spread farther than that of military.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: God could reveal Himself to an individual through small, personal gestures, seemingly endless and impossibly unlikely coincidences. If it were possible to keep a perfect record of them all, the odds could be calculated and it could be supportive evidence for the existence of a relevant God. + \n + I don't mean it's literally possible to record the experiences and calculate the chance of them occurring randomly, but I mean that *if* God could and would reveal Himself to someone this way, it would be considered *reasonable* reason to believe in such a being. (I think this allows so many scientists to be religious.) \n\nChange my view that 1. God could reveal Himself that way, and/or 2. that such evidence could be trusted (assuming a reasonable, intelligent, otherwise perfectly healthy, open-minded individual). \n\nI'd also be interested to hear argument against whether a God *would* do this, although I suspect I've heard it all already, and it just comes down to what kind of God He'd be. \n\nI'd prefer to debate this somewhat objectively, because it is a dearly-held belief. I saved a girl drowning when I was 8, brought my sister back to life when I was 12, and I watched that same sister undergo literally dozens of surgeries to keep her both alive and healthy, despite doctors misdiagnosing and ignoring problems. The coincidences I encounter almost monthly seem too extraordinary for chance. I'll get hung up on a particular phrase, or re-experience a vivid memory, only to have it be key to my work or some great aspect of my life... Individually, they're nothing signifiant, but put all together... I am a scientist and a statistician, and I just can't see how odds like this couldn't count as *some* degree of evidence. \n\n\n(I may be tired or obtuse, but this is tricky to think about and put into words. Please bear with me and I muddle through.)\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Handmade things are inferior to machine made ones. + \n + I've argued about this with friends before but none of them have managed to convince me otherwise so here I am.\n\nSimply put, a human cannot match the perfection of a machine. If you want straight stitches a machine is your best bet. You want engraved anything? Machine. Drawn? Machine. If the prices were equal I would be open to buying hand-made things but the thing is that hand-made things cost more and have lower quality.\n\nI can see why it's impressive that someone spent the time to carve a wooden bowl. I also see why it's impressive simply to create something intricate by hand. Would I pay extra for it because they spent a lot more time on it than a machine would have? Hell no. It's their hobby and they enjoy it, good for them but it's not my job to encourage them to continue their hobby.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:Due to global commerce and countries making tons of money off of each other's imports and exports, we will not see another World War (unless there is a global market collapse). + \n + Barring a global market collapse where countries can no longer exchange goods between each other, our global economy is a strong insulator from another World War. For example, trade ties are too strong with China for them to throw away all the money they make off of the US and European countries to join sides with a country like North Korea. \n\nToday's world is often cited as one of the most peaceful times in human history. A lot of that is due to global trade, easy travel and shipping between countries, and the ease of communication via the internet.\n\nAre there other avenues in which a true World War would be possible? CMV.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I can't wrap my head around why individuals who earn more money should be forced to pay tens of thousands more in taxes, when they utilize the services as often as anyone else. + \n + I believe that people have a **moral obligation** to donate money they do not need. Full stop.\n\nBut the government (specifically that of America) is not in the business of moralizing. The government is established to protect inalienable rights and to allow for fair competition. There are many cases where the government is not doing its job in allowing for fair competition, but I am not speaking about these cases. I'm going to give a few scenarios, and I'd love if someone who disagrees could criticize the conclusions I make.\n\n- There are two pizza delivery companies. One of the company owners, Pablo, spent every night for the past 6 months figuring out how to optimize his business. He found better ways to incubate pizzas, better ways to stack pizzas in his pizza-mobile, and also found better ways to pizza his pizza. Because of this, more people are buying his pizzas. In the next year, Pablo earned three times as much as his competitor. Pablo sends his kids to public school, and has the same amount of kids as his competitor; he goes to the doctor when he is ill, and goes the same amount of times as his competitor; he's an American just like his competitor, and benefits from military defense in the same way; *why on Earth would Pablo have to spend multiple times as much money on these things than his competitor?* I really don't get it, I'm sorry. They utilize the same services in the same exact way, why is Pablo in essence *subsidizing* his competitor's payments just because Pablo is a smarter, more efficient businessman?\n\n- There's a marathon going on in Vermont. Two hundred participants compete for the $1,000 given to first, second, and third place. Each participant puts down $20, which goes toward prize money and ensuring the event is run well. Each winner splits the prize money. At the end of the race, the three winners of first, second, and third place are shocked to find out that they are only taking home $120. The event organizers apparently decided that the winners, despite working harder and simply being better at their craft, and despite equally paying for the organization of the event, should have to pay the other participants for simply existing.\n\nI just don't get it. If I drive to work and pass a bridge, I need to pay the toll because bridges cost money. Great. And perhaps I should pay in proportion to how much I drive, that seems like a good idea as well. But if I make a successful website that utilizes none of the services, and in fact very few services at all, is it not plainly *theft* that a bureaucrat decides where my EARNED money goes? I'd rather donate the money I don't need to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, to environmental causes, to the cure for cancer, but the government seems to be stealing it from me so they can play live-action Battlefield 5: Real Life Edition. \n\nSomeone please explain what I am missing.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Property rental, especially for living spaces (apartments, houses), should also transfer 0.4% ownership of the property each month as well. After 20 years of rent, renter would own almost 100% of the property. + \n + Had a thought about the disparity between mortgages and rent.\n\nTwo cases: Person A buys a property to live and every month for 20 years pays $1000. Person B rents a property to live and every month for 20 years pays $1000. While both persons paid the same amount, after 20 years person A could sell his property and have $240,000 returned.\n\nI understand the importance of rent. Not every person has the financial backing to obtain a long term mortgage. However, there's something that seems wrong with the above. People of means can buy property and essentially have others (renters) pay the mortgage for them. \n\nWhile not a perfect solution, there's something that seems interesting that paying rent includes the requirement that .4% of the property ownership also transfers per month. Of course, the rent would be based in large part on the perceived value of the property and then also include costs that cover services. \n\nIf a person had a 2 year lease, they'd own almost 10% of the property. During lease renewal, maybe the owner will want to buy that 10% back or the person moves and sells it to a higher bidder. It might not stop slum lords from forcing tenants to sell back their .4% ever month or other under the table dealings, though laws can be set up to protect against such practices.\n\nOf course, property owners are not required to rent their property. However, there's something I like about the idea that if you let others use your property, you agree to give up a portion of that property as well as part of that exchange. Basically, rent morphs into a mortgage.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Companies should be legally liable for not promptly responding to security patches + \n + Specifically with the Android mobile OS and recent hacks like [this](http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/07/27/426613020/major-flaw-in-android-phones-would-let-hackers-in-with-just-a-text) one, once a vulnerability has been found and reported, companies should be required to publish security patches in a prompt manner.  Google is very fond of wringing their hands and saying how they patched their upstream OS, but it's up to Device Manufacturers and Carriers to roll their own releases.  However, all too often, patched releases don't make it to older phone/tablet models for months if ever after it has been fixed.  Since most carriers lock their phone OS, it is literally not possible to LEGALLY patch your phone due to the restrictions of the  DMCA,  leaving a customer with only one legal option - buy a new phone. (yes, I know about rooting a phone, but if you have to violate a law to receive security patches, there's a problem)\n\nMore and more of our personal data and digital lives lives on our phones.  People use their phone for banking, to receive text verification of accounts, to pay for transactions, and any number of other sensitive communication.  The frequent mantra from industry apologists is \"companies don't get paid for work done on phones they've already sold, they've already moved on to newer things\", except that every industry is responsible for issuing recall notices if it is later found that the product has safety issues.  Somehow, software has remained free of recall requirements, but maybe it's time to open up liability for unpatched security flaws. \n\nThings that might change my view:\n\n* Facts that most manufacturers and carriers DO support security updates within a reasonable timeframe\n\n* Existence of legal liability or recall requirements for device / software manufacturers\n\n* Demonstration that this would be infeasable\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:The Electoral College Should be Abolished + \n + I believe the electoral college was established at a time when much fewer people voted, fewer people had basic educations, and voting only took place in 13 states, leaving the possibility of a single large state (Virginia) dominating the election very possible. We live in a very different time now, and a popular election would be the best way to elect a president, as many people's votes simply don't count in our current system.\n\nOur current system does not encourage voter turnout when you are in a clear minority. Conservatives in California and liberals in Alabama both have no real reason to go vote on election day. A popular vote would ensure every vote counts, and would even give independent and third party candidates a real chance fair shot at the presidency, where they don't now.\n\nSo what say you? Show me the errors of my ways, and convince me that the electoral college really is the best and most fair way to choose the president.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think it's reasonable to continue living at your mom's place at 30 years old when you live in a city with an extreme high cost of living and high housing/renting costs. + \n + My friend told me it's uncool living with my mom still and I completely agree, but I think it's more impractical to throw away over 1000 for rent every month just to not be under the same roof. I have a close loving relationship with my mom and she's 62 that's starting to need some care. She lives alone in a ghetto area so I worry about her sometimes. That being said, having my own pad would be awesome but I live in Austin where everyone's moving here and causing price to skyrocket everywhere. I'm frugal and it hurts to not save with my money just for sake of freedom. I don't quite have enough to buy a place yet, and the living cost here is barely affordable where I would almost live by paycheck.  The biggest drawback to me is not being able to take a girl home, which I feel could be resolved once I start dating and having relationship with someone, then I feel would be appropriate to move out because we can split rent cost together and give me some breathing room financially. Bottom line, I feel the thousands of dollars saved a month outweighs the cost of living as a single bachelor even if it hurts my pride, although my friends disagrees. Thoughts?", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: .gif is pronounced like the peanut butter + \n + I was only able to find one other thread about this topic, and it was kind of a train wreck.\n\nCommon arguments:\n\n* \"It's not Jraphics Interchange Format\" by that logic, NASA would be pronounced Nay-sa and SCUBA would be pronounced Scuh-buh. Acronyms that are not initialisms are pronounced like they are words of their own, which brings me to point 2:\n\n* \"It's pronounced like 'gift' because that's the only other word with 'gif'!\" by that logic, due to the existence of the word 'girth', 'giraffe' would be pronounced with a hard g. 'Gift' is the exception not the rule. See; [here](http://www.theschoolhouse.us/lessons/lesson53.html). To base the pronunciation of a word on an exception is highly illogical.\n\n* \"The dictionary says both pronunciations are fine!\" The dictionary also says that 'literally' means both literally and not literally. See; [here](http://theweek.com/articles/466957/how-wrong-definition-literally-sneaked-into-dictionary). This is because the dictionary typically reflects how words are used, not what is correct. So if people started pronouncing epitome like its spelled, the dictionary would also likely say that the incorrect pronunciation is fine there, too. This does not, however, make the pronunciation correct.\n\nSo without further ado, Change My View!\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:English should not be the international language + \n + I think English should not be the international language for these reasons:\n\nIt's proven that is really hard to understand how to pronounce some words here /u/BrotherChe makes a really good point in another thread I saw. http://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/3aj3vc/udefstones123_realizes_what_grower_not_a_shower/csdbnl5. Other languages such as Spanish the pronunciation of a word is pretty straight forward.  I understand that the conjugation is the only tough part and the whole gender thing might be confusing at first (not that crazy if it ends on an a it's female, except agua which can be both, the only tough part is if it end on an e). Also English is not even the most spoken language in the world where Mandarin is first followed by Spanish. English is rising only because it's commonly being taught as a second language, if you change the language it will also rise.\n\nAlso the whole small scale system that English has does not even make sense like why a billion is a thousand of a million where in long scale it's a million of a million.\n\nI know this seems biased like I am arguing that Spanish should be the international language and it's my native language, but it makes more sense if it were. I didn't defend Mandarin because I've always had the impression of it being one of the hardest language to master. If it's otherwise I apologize and anyone who speaks other languages are welcome to support why your language should be the international language.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The TSA was never meant to keep us safe + \n + After September 11th, the TSA was created because people were afraid and because the union needed jobs. The government used fear from its citizens to support the creation of a pointless government agency after pressure from the unions who wanted more jobs. \n\nI'm not saying that we don't need airport security, but we obviously do not need 47,000 TSA \"officers\". Also, some important information to keep in mind is that the TSA has never once stopped a terrorist attack. This is the same reason that states build useless parking garages, for the unions who want work. \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Recycling paper is pants-on-head retarded expect for the people profiting from it. + \n + \nI have only one simple argument you'll find hard to beat. Why is recycled paper more expensive than virgin paper? Let's say I own a paper recycling plant and, since it's so much more energy efficient, I can blow the doors out traditional paper producers on cost. Why isn't everyone doing this?! I understand diminishing returns but why isn't the market glutted with recycled paper products? A quick trip to Walmart shows this isn't the case. See what you can get paid for waste paper and you'll get my drift.\n\n\n\"But, but, but... It takes more trees!\" IDGAF. Apparently it takes more energy, in some form, to make recycled paper products than to grow new trees. Otherwise recycled paper products would sweep the market, blow it out. It's simple math. It's cheaper to grow trees and chop them down for paper than to recycle it.\n\n\nLook, we're not using ancient hardwoods from Alaska to make toilet paper. I've taken forestry and horticulture classes. I've visited lumber sites and paper mills. These people aren't dumb fucks. They're using the land very carefully, with an eye to the future. They're rotating land and growth with 20-year cycles. We're not raping the land for wood like we used to.\n\n\nPlease keep in mind I'm only arguing for paper goods. Not sure where we're at regarding hardwoods, lumber and such.\n\nLooking forward to your responses!  Not sure you can CMV but I've learned amazing things here.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Equality in America is unattainable, and social movements victimize more than empower. + \n + This topic is very broad. Lately it seems most of social movements in America focus on gender, sexual orientation, race, or health. Personally I think the conversations are healthy, but the pushes for equality are futile. Take feminism, for example. The whole point is to empower women, but citing general statistics, like women are paid a fraction of every dollar a man makes, or encouraging women in STEM fields with scholarships don't *feel* very empowering. I think we can all agree that misogyny is bad and that scholarships are good, but knowing that you only ended up somewhere because you met the right quota isn't rewarding.\n\nI'm not saying welfare or charities are bad by any means, but the way we go about supporting underprivileged people is wrong. Everything has its token minority in some way. Shouldn't we let people's work stand on its own?\n\nIf someone does something outstanding, does it make it better that he was a minority? Everyone fights so hard for equality, but everyone also goes \"Aww, look he did this cool thing, even though he's [transexual/African/obese/Asian/schizophrenic/a mother/a father/etc].\"\n\nAt the core, everyone has an advantage over another in some way. All these movements seem to do is step on somebody's toes (not inherently a bad thing!) in a condescending way. I mean the Declaration of Independence guarantees the \"Life, Liberty, and *pursuit* of happiness\" to every person. Every single person deserves those rights, but not every single person deserves to have things given to them. CMV.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The middle class is shrinking because our definition of \"middle class\" keeps inflating. + \n + To start, I'm not here to discuss wealth distribution, or income inequality. They are real issues that need to be addressed, and as much as governments like to talk about the middle class, they aren't doing much that actually helps them.\n\nThe inflation: Middle class families used to live in 2-4 bedroom 1-2 bath bungalows in the suburbs or small towns. Quite often siblings would share a bedroom, there would be fights over who got to shower first because there was only one shower and a finite amount of hot water. You packed a sandwich for lunch, dad drove the one car the family owned and would own for the next 10 years to work and mom walked or took transit if available. Clothing was handed down to younger siblings or cousins, there was one modestly sized TV in the house, and when families got a computer it was for the entire family to share. Vacations where often to go camping somewhere which would involve tents and no electricity, not 50' trailers with full kitchens, bathrooms and wifi, and if you were to go on a trip to another country or something, it was something the family saved up for and didn't happen every year. If something was broken, you fixed it instead of throwing it out and buying three more. \n\nWhile all of that might sound like it came out of Leave it to Beaver or The Brady Bunch, I grew up in the 90's. \n\nNow, \"middle class\" people are shopping for luxury/designer brand clothing, cars, and other goods. It's practically considered child abuse to suggest that kids share a bedroom or don't have their own computer, tablet, and phone, and there is no way they would wear clothing handed down or two years old. Suburban/small town homes are multi level McMansions with granite counter tops, stainless steel appliances, multiple big screen tvs, and master bathrooms with Jacuzzi tubs and rain showers. The family car is two or three cars, potentially more if there kids old enough to drive at home, and instead of the kids going for a weekend at grandma's while the parents drive three hours away for a vacation where they stay in a motel and go out for a nice dinner, the whole family flies to an all inclusive resort in another country. \n\nYes, many of those things are cheaper than they once were, but many of them would have been considered luxuries or unattainable a generation ago and that would have been perfectly acceptable. Instead we lament the decline of the \"middle class\" while we continue to inflate what a middle class lifestyle is supposed to look like. \n\n**tl;dr the \"middle class\" is shrinking because what used to be defined as middle class would currently be considered below it, and what is currently \"middle\" class would have been upper-middle to \"rich\" in the past. Instead of lamenting the decline of the middle class we should reevaluate how we define it. CMV** \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Police should be held to the same standards for self defense as any other citizen. + \n + Let me be clear, I am not against the use of self defense by police officers, or anyone, just the idea that the laws do not apply equally. \n\nThis is in direct response to the recent clearing of Michael Brelo of the Cleveland Police Department. In 2012 Brelo was part of a chase that ended with over 130 rounds shot into two unarmed suspects. Brelo fired continued to reload his weapon, climb on the care, and fire another 15 rounds in the car, after other officers had already stopped firing. The judge ruling over the case cleared him of charges using a baseball analogy and saying it was impossible to prove his bullets were the fatal shots. Although this is true, the use of force was excessive and he was still, nonetheless, a party to this grotesque undertaking of \"justice\". \n\nThis case highlights that police can operate according to a separate set of laws. If I was with a person who fired one shot into a person and killed them, despite clear evidence I did not shoot the fatal shot, I would likely still be charged with murder, at the very least accessory (or an equivalent charge) to the murder. Even in a case of clear self defense, one is almost certain to face criminal charges, especially when they continue to use force after the threat has been eliminated and they are in no clear danger. For example, If me and three friends fired 140 rounds into a home invader you can be certain we would all be in jail. Though it would be close to impossible to prove who's shots were fatal, we were all participants, and we would still face severe legal consequences.\n\nIf we as a society accept the idea that people are justified in using lethal force in self defense, it should not be also accepted that certain people, because of their job, are able to follow a different set of guidelines. \n\nSo Reddit, in order to help me deal with my anger at the moment, I hope you can convince me that in a nation where \"no man is above the law\" which prides itself on the idea of \"liberty and justice for all\" that some people, because of their job, should be allowed to be \"more equal than others.\"\n\n(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/23/michael-brelo-not-guilty_n_7427710.html)\n\n(http://www.businessinsider.com/judge-john-p-odonnell-explains-why-michael-brelo-was-found-not-guilty-2015-5)\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think it's a selfish motive to purposely try to have children. + \n + I want children one day. Part of me wants to have my own children but I can't justify birthing my own kids when it's such an extremely selfish motive. Sure, once you've had the kids it's selfless because of how much you have to give up for them. But the initial desire to birth them in the first place is selfish. I want my own children because I want to carry on my own genes. I want to have a little human that resembles me.  As a woman, I want to experience the feeling of a baby inside of me. These reasons are the main reasons why people choose to birth their own kids. \nHere's a few reasons why I find it selfish.\n\n1. There are plenty of children out there without parents. Over 150 million orphans, not to mention foster children. Then here are people who are trying to birth their own when there are so many helpless children without a loving home.\n\n2. There are over 800 million people starving in the world. People are dying from hunger and you're trying to bring another mouth that needs feeding into the world.\n\n3. This reason may be a little unexpected but it's something I'm personally afraid of and so I feel it's a valid reason. I'm agnostic. You can believe whatever you want about the afterlife but that doesn't mean you actually know what will happen to us after we die. Whether we go to a heaven, a hell, are reincarnated, cease to exist or whatever else people can come up with. You just can't  know for sure and anyone who says differently is lying to themselves. Now that being said, say hell is a reality. I hope it isn't but you never know. What if you birthed these children out of your selfish desire and they did just whatever it took to have themselves sent to hell forever. Even if you did pick the \"right\" religion doesn't mean that your child is going to believe it. \n\n\nHonestly, I would love for someone to change my mind. My ex and I broke up over this because I want to adopt children and he wants biological children. I just can't morally justify purposely bringing children in the world.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe the Internet should not be anonymous. I think our basic info should be made available when we comment. Or sites should offer an Anon Section, like a virtual smoking section. + \n + I believe we should all be held accountable for our actions, both verbal and non-verbal. I believe folks say hurtful and mean things online that they wouldn't say we're they face to face with their victim. In the rules of this very sub it requests us to be respectful of one another. Shouldn't that go without saying via the golden rule? Why is the Internet the exception?\n\nFor the record, what I mean by \"basic info\" is enough info that our mother could identify us (first name, last initial, city, state/province, country, age group, sex).  I do NOT mean enough info that we be could be found by extremist bigots who disagree.\n\nAs an alternative, why shouldn't sites offer two comment sections: Open and Anonymous.  This way if you want to be an asshole, you still can, but the would-be victim and rest of us can take comfort that you wouldn't have the brass to say it  without mask.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Humanity's resources are unlimited because we can mine space. We should expand, not conserve + \n + Using resources efficiently is nice but it's no substitute for pushing frontiers out to the other planets and eventually the stars.\n\nThe idea that we will \u201cuse up all the Earth\u2019s resources\u201d is short-sighted. The cost to space is falling as technology advances, and space is full of energy and materials. It will eventually be economical to go get it.\n\nAlso, old waste becomes new resources as technology changes. Dung became fertilizer. Dirt  became bricks. Sand became glass. Guano became gunpowder. Asphalt became roads. \n\nInstead of reaching a moment when we say \"our resources are gone!\" we will continue to find new uses for what's all around us. ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Life is meaningless and we should all commit suicide + \n + I'm no professional when it comes to logic or argumentation but I have been pondering this thought lately.  I am not a believer of any after life or supernatural.  If after death we experience what we experienced before birth which is nothingness, then isnt life meaningless?  Why should we continue to suffer when life is literally a constant suffering?  I personally believe life is meaningless.  When you are under the assumption that you experience nothingness when you are dead, what is the point of living?  \nThe only reason I can personally see for living is to not inflict additional emotional suffering on those that you know and care about you.  But if you do experience nothingness after life then why should it matter when you wont be able to conceive of this suffering.\nIts been something I've been thinking a lot about lately... Change my view, please.\nAlso, this is not a cry for help and I will not be jumping off the golden gate bridge any time soon.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Breastfeeding in public is tantamount to indecent exposure. + \n + First I'm not a prude and I'm completely fine with nudity. I honestly wouldn't care if they abolished all public decency laws and everyone walked around naked. However, that doesn't change the fact that the laws exist, and are the basis of my argument. For the people who do get uncomfortable around nude breasts, a single father with his adolescent daughter, or a mother with a teenage son, or even some old stick in the mud curmudgeon, I don't think it's too much to ask to handle such things in private. Whether pumping milk, or nursing at home, there are ways of handling these things. No one else is obligated to accommodate \npublic nudity. If it's not \"convenient\" for them, that's all part of the sacrifice of parenthood.\n__\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I am a circumcised male. I see no issues with the procedure and would circumcise my child if he were born in the U.S. today. + \n + First off, as a male who was circumcised at birth, I am glad that I was circumcised.  Any associated pain does not exist to me because I cannot remember it, in the exact same way that pain associated with other surgical procedures I have had under general anesthesia as an adult does not exist because I cannot remember it.\n\nThe WHO currently recommends male circumcision for HIV prevention and \"as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention package\".  It is primarily recommended in areas with high incidences of HIV, but given its demonstrated effect at reducing the spread of the virus I prefer to have any added protection possibly available.  I would plan to infer the same protection to any hypothetical children born at this time, especially considering that the complication rates here are significantly lower than in the areas where it is most strongly recommended by the WHO.\n\nLiving in the midwest U.S. it is culturally nearly expected, with 70-80% prevalence.  Because of this, many to most potential sexual partners in my area (including myself, as a gay male) prefer the aesthetic of a circumcised penis.  With the research consensus demonstrating no adverse effects on sexual performance, I see no reason to not stick with the cultural norm. \n\nWhat may help change my view:\n\n* *Scientific studies* demonstrating prolonged psychological damage due to infant male circumcision.\n\n* *Scientific studies* demonstrating that complication rates and severity in the U.S. outweigh potential benefits due to HIV resistance.\n\n* *Scientific* evidence that circumcised males in the U.S. are demonstrably less satisfied with their sex lives than uncircumcised males.\n\nWhat will *not* help change my view:\n\n* \"People should be allowed to chose\".  Parents are wholly responsible for their children's health and well-being until they are capable of making those decisions on their own.  Circumcision complication rates increase dramatically with age.\n\n* \"If everyone stopped doing it, it wouldn't be culturally expected anymore.\" Yeah, not going to happen any time soon.  I am talking the choice for parents to circumcise in areas of the U.S. where it is highly prevalent today.\n\n**TL;DR:  Not traumatized by own circumcision, culturally expected, +1 to HIV prevention. CMV.**", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Healthcare and Education should be essentially free in an ideal society + \n + First, let me clarify that by education I mean K-undergraduate.  \n\nMedicine and education are two major components of a social system. In the U.S. both are highly privatized. However I believe they should be free for several reasons:\n\n- One's health is essentially a genetic lottery. You shouldn't be punished because you were unlucky enough to develop cancer or be born with a blood disease\n\n- Health can be a direct result of economic conditions and people should not be punished because of the quality and quantity of food their parent(s) provide.\n\n- Education is essentially an economic lottery. If you don't have enough money to pay for college, good luck. Many people are only able to take out student loans because of a cosigner (or their parents outright pay it). Parent's don't have the credit? Your shit out of luck.\n\n- Education is the foundation for the future of society. Forget job opportunities for now, higher education provides valuable skills that cannot be learned anywhere else. By not providing equal opportunities, we are decreasing the intelligence of the population.\n\n- By educating the population, especially the poor, we will decrease crime as well. As of now, many poor kids know they'll never go to college even before they reach high school. By giving equal opportunity, kids will have incentive to stay in school and stay out of trouble. At least they *can* go to college.\n\n- By not providing free education and health care, we are putting our population into a deeper hole of debt, crime and stupidity. A smart and healthy population can contribute to society much more than the status quo (in America). \n\nEssentially, education and health are lotteries. Some get lucky while most don't. People should not be punished because of this. Investing money into an infrastructure that provides free education and health care is the basis for an advanced society.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Open carry of guns in the United States is foolish and it causes more trouble than good. + \n + \nThere have been a lot of videos recently of civilians walking around in public with rifles/assault style weapons in an attempt to cause an interaction with police where they video the police response as a means to demonstrate that they have the right to carry weapons openly in public.  I believe that this causes more trouble and does not serve to advance a positive agenda due to the following points:\n  \n* **Makes people fear for their safety.**  The United States has a long history of incidents where someone commits or attempts to shoot and kill lots of people in a public place.  There are multiple incidents of mass shootings a year, some more deadly than others.    If you see someone walking down the road with a rifle strapped to their back it is disconcerting, and makes you wonder if you are about to be murdered in a shooting.\n\n* **Diverts police from doing their primary jobs**  If police are tasked with the job of protecting and serving the public, there time is wasted by having to engage an armed person walking down the street with a gun.  They have to investigate if the person is wanted, has a right to have the gun, and generally babysit the person so that the public feels safe.  If the police come, and have an interaction with the person, judge them to be safe and leave, then it only takes a few minutes without a police officer there for another concerned citizen to call 911 to report an armed person.  The police in effect become babysitters for a one person protest instead of conducting traffic patrols, responding to crimes, etc.\n\n* **Makes gun owners look bad** Owning something that has the ability to severely injure or kill another requires a certain level of responsibility.  By making the general public feel unsafe, a person demonstrating open carry is demonstrating an understanding that their actions are making people uncomfortable yet doing it anyway because their views are more important that the comfort and feelings of safety held by the surrounding community.  This violation of an unspoken social code seems selfish: as in \"getting my view out there is more important than your feelings of security\".  This reflects poorly on gun owners who own guns but don't engage in open carry activities.  \n\n* **It's a vague way to protest** There are no signs being carried by these gun owners about their rights and what they believe in.  Their presence is a question mark.  When you see an open carry protest, it's not immediately apparent what is going on and if someone was neutral or unaware of the issue of rights associated with gun ownership wouldn't be persuaded.  The first questions that run through a person mind when they witness this form of protest is \"Am I in danger?\" not \"I wonder what this person is protesting and why it's important\".\n\nChange my mind.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The end of Moore's Law will drastically reduce the pace of technological change + \n + A few years ago, the CEO of Intel said that if cars had developed as quickly as computers, they would go at 470,000 mph, get 100,000 miles to the gallon, and cost 3 cents. This got me wondering, what would the world be like if computers developed as slowly as cars?\n\nWith the delay of Cannonlake to 2017, we have the first objective signs that Moore's law is slowing down, and most experts seem to be predicting it will come to an end within the next ten years or so. This is significant since shrinking components is really the \"low-hanging fruit\" of the computer industry, with each shrinkage allowing 60% more transistors (which allows the processor to do more things) and having 60% lower power consumption (fairly important for mobile applications). Outside of just processors, shrinking transistors are also a key enabler of increasing SD card sizes and SSD drive storage.  \n\nThe increasing speed/power ratio of processors, and the increasing ability to store large files on solid state memory, have enabled practically every computer-related technology. PCs, digital cameras smartphones, tablets, smart watches and the like all began their lives, and continue to improve rapidly, thanks to Moore's law. \n\nOnce Moore's law stops, all of these devices will stop improving at such a rapid pace. There will be no more iPads which double in speed from one generation to the other, no more laughing at the phones from 5 years ago.\n\nI am well aware of the developments relating to graphene, optical computing and the like, but I believe that they will end up improving much slower than the old improvements of Moore's law, i.e. they are \"high-hanging fruit\" which will be slow to market and slow to improve. In other words, I am aware that computers will keep developing, but I feel they will develop at the same speed as cars, where a model from ten years ago is outdated but not really all that different. \n\nHaving computers/mobile devices/other electronics which grow at a much slower rate will sap much of the dynamism from the entire technology sector, as fundamentally new software and applications often grows from the enabling factors of new hardware. The entire world of technology will grow at a similiar pace to the car world, where improvements in engine efficiency and the like are constant and gradually, and kind of boring. \n\nAs a technology lover, I really hope I'm wrong about all this, so I hope someone can Change My View! \n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Esports shouldn't be called sports + \n + I want to start by quoting the oxford dictionary's definition of sport.\n\n\"An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment\"\n\nsee what esports lack? Physical exertion.\n\nAn argument I see being used commonly is \"But poker and chess are also considered sports\"\nI'd like to refer again to the Oxford dictionary, poker and chess lack physical exertion. So like some have already argued, chess and poker aren't real sports, I'd like to prefer to them as professional hobbies or thinking sports.\n\nAnd if you try to argue that esports are real sports because they have tournaments and are regulated, then I want to argue that monopoly is a sport, there is an [official monopoly championship](http://monopoly-championship-history.wikia.com/wiki/2015_World_Championship) too.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Roundabouts are superior to traffic lights. + \n + Please leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post. Thank you!\n\n\n\nI hate how America has so many intersections with traffic lights while Europe seems to have done well with using mainly roundabouts. While I'll conceed that some of the big roundabouts like some of the ones in Paris would be a lot safer if they were intersections. I still firmly believe that roundabouts in general are better.\n\n\nRoundabouts are more fuel efficient since you aren't waiting around for the lights to change. \n\nRoundabouts are safer for pedestrians. I don't know how many times I've almost been hit when I'm crossing the street at a traffic light intersection and a car is still allowed to go because they are still allowed to cross the street I am walking. Roundabouts have cars coming from one way and then you usually have a place in the middle where they're coming from the other way making it easier for people to cross the street safely. \n\nThey are also more cost effective since you don't have to pay to keep the lights running. (At least with the smaller roundabouts. Some of the ones I've seen in the UK also incorporate lights in their roundabouts but this is for highly congested areas)\n\nAlright I fell asleep and I'm just reading all the comments now. \nRoundabouts are safer for pedestrians maybe not for the reasons I listed but /u/scottevil110 has given a resource proving that they saw a 75% drop in pedestrian accidents. \nhttp://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/roundabouts/qanda\n\nAlso my argument is assuming that both ways are used correctly so everyone can stop pointing out that North Americans don't know how to use them.\n\nI will agree that traffic lights do have merit and have their places like in places I hadn't considered like densely populated areas and I also did not account for how much land the roundabouts would take up when compared to an intersection. However I still think in the long run the electricity cost would eventually over take the extra cost of the land. ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I find it hard to take MRA seriously + \n + So I am a gay guy and I occasionally identify as a feminist since I believe that women are equal to men in every way and IMO that is feminism.\n\nI know my viewpoint is going to be the antithesis to most MRA's but I just find it hard to take their viewpoints seriously. A lot of the MRA stuff I have seen is complaining on about militant feminists and not Men's Issues. The amount of times I have seen that Toronto incident mentioned, it was 1 crazy group of people, its hardly a world wide phenomena. \n\nI do admit that there are issues facing on men, stuff like circumcision being seen as the norm in some places (more in the US, they aren't common over in England, unless you are uber religious) and as a guy who has had a male on male sexual assault I know that it won't be taken as seriously as a male on female assault. \n\nBut you don't really see that much of that type of things on MRA, most of it seems to be complaining about Feminism, then you look at what feminism has done compared to MRA. Feminists fought tooth and nail to get the right to vote, chained themselves to buildings, went on hunger strike, went to prison for what they believe in; I haven't seen that from MRA at all. \n\nI also suppose being gay makes me somewhat sympathetic to Feminism, the queer rights movement has some parallels, I see those first people to resist at Stonewall as our suffragettes \n\n\nAnyway CMV... I know I am going to get some heated replies but meh its the internet \n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: My actress girlfriend shouldn't kiss anybody else on screen + \n + \nI feel that it's a special thing that should only occur between partners. I know and fully understand it's \"just a job\" but it still physically happens, that's the problem. I believe that kissing another human being really sends some emotional signals in the brain that can trigger attraction / connection and I know of several cases where a relationship on screen has led to a relationship off screen. I'm in a band and if we did a video where there was a situation where the director asked me to kiss another girl, I'd refuse. If I was an actor I'd refuse to kiss another girl. I know I should trust my girlfriend, but she has lied to me (only little ones I guess) on a few occasions recently. But I don't know who can be trusted, especially when I know that scientifically, kissing another human being makes changes in the brain and builds these connections. I still count it as cheating. But I don't want to stop her from doing anything. If we get married and spend the rest of our lives together then I'd want her to be my \"last first kiss\" and I'd epxect the same the other way round.\n\nI told her that there's loads of jobs available that don't require kissing (she seems to think she's never going to be offered those kinds of scenes anyway due to her being short). There's quite a few actors / actresses that refuse to do kissing scenes because they have a partner (e.g. Kirk Cameron). But I also said that I don't want to stop her from doing anything - if she wants / feels like she needs to do those scenes, then she should but we'd have to end the relationship. If she needs to do that then I'd prefer her to be happy, but I wouldn't want it to sacrifice my personal beliefs.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Most humans are generally equal in terms of their potential + \n + I've had this argument a few times, on a few different subreddits, and I figured now might as well be as good a time as any to address it in a more systematic way. \n\nMost people would agree that [this](http://imgur.com/UbEelBP) is a pretty fair representation of human achievement in most areas, albeit done in MS paint.There are a few people at the absolute horrendous bottom,  a lot  people doing poorly-to-mediocre, and very few people at the absolute top.\n\nMany people I've encountered seem to believe that this is also roughly a distribution of human potential. I disagree, and that's the subject of this CMV. I believe that [this](http://imgur.com/NlEAdXH) is much closer to the distribution of human potential. I believe that upbringing and environment are far more important when it comes to determining somebody's achievement, especially in the context of intelligence which is where this debate often comes up. \n\nPut more simply, I'm a reasonably smart person. Take me, and another person who is currently not particularly smart. Swap how we were raised (give the other person parents who read to them, encouraged them to learn, question, and discover, etc, and who could afford to provide them with learning opportunities, and take away all those things from me), and you'd pretty much swap how smart we are. Maybe not exactly, but pretty close.\n\nThis is not solely about wealth, though wealth does play a role: a lower-middle-class parent who takes the time to take their kid to the library every week will obviously end up with a smarter kid than a wealthy parent who doesn't invest time and effort in their child\n\nNote: There are very few ways to either empirically support or disprove this view, basically twin studies are what you've got, unless I'm missing something.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The term \"white trash\" is racist to every race but whites + \n + Warning you now, I use some hefty racial slurs in my explanation. I'm not racist and don't support the use of any of these terms, but I'm going to use them here as examples. \n\nNow I'm not one for overly \"SJW\"-like thinking, and I'm not personally outraged by the term, but I'm floored by how rarely I see anyone realize or even acknowledge that the term is racist. The phrasing \"white trash\" assumes that white people are inherently not trash and that this is a special exemption to the rule and needs to be labeled as such. One doesn't say \"black nigger\" or \"mexican spic\", the hate is built into the word itself. The word *is* the hate label. Having to specify \"white\" before your insult just makes it seem like it's shocking to you that a white person is behaving abnormally. Like they're a weird example of a white person instead of just another white person in a sea of different examples.\n\nNow, I've heard the arguments before that \"there's no good word to throw at white people\" and \"I use the term and I'm not racist\". Neither of these are valid points. A lack of a \"good\" insult doesn't make a bad one \"good\" and your feelings on the matter have no bearing on the reality of how the term is constructed.\n\nI'm not saying people who use the term are racists, I just think they don't realize the implication. Every time I bring this up though I'm downvoted without explanation. The score will drop but I'll hear no hint of rebuttal, which has convinced me I'm right but I'm just saying something they don't like. But hey idk, maybe I'm totally wrong. I'm willing to hear it. CMV?\n\n.\n\n\n\nI have probably done a poor job of accurately representing my stance on the issue. In an effort to drive home my logic, I was a little extreme with my phrasing. I will concede that the use of the term isn't insulting to other races, but I think it does hint at the \"white people are normally higher class\" sentiment that fuels the entire phrase. If you find that *INSULTING/TRIGGERING* or not probably has more to due with you than the phrase but as /u/ratherenjoysbass said in the comments: \n\n\"I think white trash is fucked up in that it inherently assumes that most white people are successful, well-mannered people so we must delineate the people that did not make it as well, for some reason couldn't afford enough class, or are the genetic unwanted when compared to the rest of the white race. Most other racial slurs inherently include the entire race so even a white person saying white trash is still acknowledging racial superiority against the others.\"\n\n\nAlso thanks to /u/tit_wrangler for the the only comment so far that I've delta'd, in [this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dxn2g/cmv_the_term_white_trash_is_racist_to_every_race/ct9p2ip)\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: If you swear off the \"pursuer\" role in romantic encounters, you have nobody but yourself to blame for being single. + \n + I've heard it said by plenty female friends of mine that they'll *never* chase a man, some of them even going as far as to say that a man has to do all the work to make something happen.  While I might not agree with their stance, I can at least respect it.  However, some go even farther, as to claim that the onus of forming a relationship is entirely on the men they're interested in, and if nothing happens, it's the man's fault that they're still single.  \n\nThat just rubs me the wrong way, and it sounds like they're just making excuses.  As someone who's been pursued their fair share, I can see the appeal, but I don't see the reason to blame the people you're interested in for being single, *especially when you make no effort to pursue them*.  That is why, I conclude, people who refuse to pursue have only themselves to blame when they're single.\n\nAm I being too harsh, Reddit?  Because if I am, please CMV.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Tom Brady is guilty. + \n + I've read the [20 page report released from Goodell.](https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/07282015-final-decision-tom-brady-appeal.pdf) I've read [Kraft's speech.](http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/29/robert-kraft-tees-off-on/) I've read [Brady's Facebook post.](https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/3f0m1w/tom_bradys_statement_via_facebook/) The entire thing seems like a sloppy attempt at a coverup.\n\nThe texts/phone conversations between the two equipment managers:\n\n1. One giving the other a \"heads up\" that his name came up in an interview with NFL Security.\n\n2. Multiple references to Brady's preferences of the PSI of game balls and of providing a needle for use.\n\n3. In the context of an exchange about the pressure of game balls, one said to the other that Brady \"actually brought you up and said you must have a lot of stress trying to get them done.\" Mcnally's only assigned responsibility regarding game balls was to deliver them. What is there to \"get done?\"\n\n4. One expressing anger with Brady states that \"the only thing deflating sun[day] is his passing rating.\"\n\n5. One refers to himself as \"the deflator\" and jokes about \"not going to ESPN ... yet.\"\n\n6. Multiple requests for autographed gear from Tom Brady.\n\n7. One says to the other \"I have a big needle for you this week.\" The response is \"Better be surrounded by cash and new kicks... or its a rugby sunday\". When asked about this message by investigators, Mcnally confirmed that the reference to \"rugby\" meant an over-inflated football.\n\n8. About a week before the AFCCG, one told the other it would be a \"big autograph day for you.\" Several days later, Brady signed 2 footballs and a game-worn jersey and handed them to Mcnally in the equipment room.\n\nBrady ordered his phone that had been used the past 4 months to be destroyed. Even though the phone was talked about in the investigation, he failed to tell them this until several weeks later. Brady says it is what he does with old phones when he gets a new one, but he gave NFL investigators an older phone before that. He was told his own lawyer could select the communications off his personal cellphone that were of interest to the league and send them those specific records, so the excuse of his personal privacy is irrelevant. He says in his recent Facebook post that his old phone was broken, but in the appeal he offered no explanation as to why his phone was replaced the exact day the investigators visited.\n\nBrady claims he does not focus on inflation levels, but he always requested his balls be inflated to the lowest legal level. He complained about over-inflated footballs in a previous 2014 game, and in an interview had said 12.5 PSI was \"the perfect grip for him\". His claim is a blatant lie.\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Making fun of a person who eats gluten free is just as bad as making fun of a religious person + \n + So I'll start off by saying that in no way am I promoting the \"gluten free diet\" or any other so called \"fad\" diets such as paleo, keto etc...\nEssentially my viewpoint is that making fun of, or telling an individual who chooses to follow these diets that they are na\u00efve and trying to convince them not to follow them is just as bad as making fun of, or saying the same things to a religious individual, such as a Muslim or Jew who cannot eat pork or must eat halal, or kosher food.\nIn both instances there is no general scientific consensus that agrees with the choices the individuals make; however, in both cases the individuals feel good about their choices whether it be because they feel like they are following the will of their God, or because they believe they are eating healthier. I do make an exception for diets which are unsustainable and will eventually cause either malnutrition or an eating disorder etc\u2026 but some diets, such as gluten free or dairy free, do not cause this issue, and the individuals feel great when they do it, whether or not it is a placebo or a result of other factors is irrelevant. I see a lot of hate on people who follow these diets on the internet and in person and I don\u2019t really understand why. If the individuals is an adult and chooses to practice this lifestyle we should respect it as much as we respect individuals who practice their religions. In both cases I agree that if they shove it in people\u2019s faces and try to convert people they know, it is annoying, but if they keep to themselves and understand that it is not for everyone, I don't see a reason for all the hate on people who follow these lifestyles.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Whenever younger folks utter the phrase \"respect is earned, not given\" I can't help but understand it as a childish and short sighted attempt to undermine their elders. + \n + While I understand the general principle that you're not necessarily owed respect because of your age, I find the idea of continuously \"earning\" the respect of less experienced and established people completely ludicrous. It should be the other way around, if only for practical reasons (the respect of older people tend to be far more valuable). Now, I'm in no way denying that younger folks have valid and interesting contribution to make. I think a fresh perspective coupled with energy and enthusiasm can be an exceptional driving force. Nor am I denying that older folks can be complete assholes because their certainly can. \n\nHowever, I could never bring myself to expect older, more experience and better established people to prove themselves to me. Neither can I see a reason to prove myself to younger people today. I expect respect the same way my father or professors did. Not veneration, mind you, but simple deference you'd ought to show to someone that lived twice the time you did. As such, they are not your peers. \n\nSimply put, I find this phrase (\"respect is earned, not given\") is most often used pompously by younger people to undermine established individuals or to deny respect to their elders in spite of a good reason. To my eye, this attitude is the product of four big misconceptions: \n\n1) **Older people demand respect because of their age and age by itself isn't worthy of respect.** I do agree that age by itself isn't a quality worthy of respect, but I don't think older folks demand respect in virtue of their age alone either. Experience, I believe, is what you ought to respect in even the humblest of persons. It's not a stretch to assume they've seen a lot more go by and might have a different perspective on life.\n\n2) **Showing respect and deference to others cost me something.** Respect is free. This stems from a lack of humility. It completely free to respect someone. The only thing holding people back is their ego. Of course you feel invincible at sixteen, but most people passed their teenage years tend to cringe a bit thinking back on their younger self. I know I did.\n\n3) **I know these people are whether or not they're deserving of my respect.** Assuming anything worthy of respect about someone is readily available is a common mistake. Relating to the second point, what's the price of respecting someone by default ? Worst case scenario, you change your mind later on. Best case scenario, you've done the right thing. \n\n4) **You need to prove yourself.** False. Plenty of people \"proved themselves\" already and they shouldn't need to do it again. For instance, people get to positions of power and prestige for a reason. Getting a PhD isn't a walk in the park. Chances are they've been judged by better people than you already. I do understand their reluctance to jump through hoops again to \"earn respect\". \n\nAs such, I think one would be better served by the idea that \"respect can be lost\" rather than \"respect should be earned\". CMV.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Acceptance of cigarettes defeats the purpose of the War on Drugs + \n + Cigarettes are the leading cause of preventable death, responsible for roughly 480,000 deaths per year in the US. 41,000 of those deaths aren't even those of users -- they are the deaths of those exposed to secondhand smoke. If you use the drug (nicotine), it can directly affect the health of those close to you. \n\nSmoking harms nearly every organ in the body, causing cancer and disease. Cigarettes are extremely addictive and many people can't quit even if they try.\n\nYet other drugs pose less threats and have a much lower or even a nonexistent fatality rate. They certainly aren't killing 1,300 people per day. \n\nCan you imagine if an illegal drug killed over 1,000 people everyday, users and nonusers? There would be political crusades.\n\nFor all illicit drugs combined, the number of resulting deaths were about 17,000 in 2013. For all drugs combined -- legal and illegal -- that number jumped to about 46,500 for that same year. That's an extra 29,500 deaths from legal drugs.\n\nCigarettes cause 10x more deaths per year than all the drugs in the US.\n\nWhy are we pouring so much time, resources and money into the Drug War to keep these *super dangerous* illegal drugs out of the hands of the American public such as marijuana (easy argument, 0 deaths) or even heroin (much more difficult argument, ~6,000 deaths in 2013) when cigarettes are so acceptable? \n\nCigarettes kill nearly half a million people per year and are the direct cause for serious health issues and reduced lifespan. They are highly addictive. If the objective of the War on Drugs is to keep people safe and not addicted to drugs, how can we rationalize this continuing support of cigarettes while stigmatizing the use of other, less harmful drugs? \n\n- - -\n\n**Reasons I think we overlook this high fatality rate...**\n\n* culture and ingrained public perception of acceptance. \n\nCigarettes used to be advertised as good for you and everybody knows somebody who smokes. Smoking is not something you necessarily have to hide. Jobs don't (generally) screen for cigarette smokers.\n\n* in the eyes of the public, cigarettes aren't really \"drugs\" (i.e. they don't alter your state of consciousness; they don't get you high)\n\nAn 18 year old can legally buy as many packs of cigarettes as they want.  In the US, they can't even do that with alcohol (which gets you drunk). In states with legal marijuana, you also have to be 21 to buy/consume. \n\n* cigarettes don't cause immediate death. (shortsightedness)\n\nYou don't overdose on nicotine. Instead, cigarettes slowly kill you so there is no instant connection between cigarettes and death. For example, a heroin OD would be an instant \"drugs kill you.\" If you smoke a cigarette, you know you aren't risking your life right that second.\n\n- - -\n\n**What are some other reasons we overlook this fatality rate and continue to socially and legislatively accept cigarettes?** \n\n*Sources*\n\n[X](http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/) [X](http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Causes_of_Death#sthash.2ALBksdH.dpbs)      ", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Student loan interest rates should correlate with the major and type of school someone attends + \n + From what I understand, student loan interest rates are very high because everyone has to pay for those that default (in addition to the gvt making money off of it). If someone is taking a riskier educational path, such as going to art school, which has less of a chance to pay back those loans, then they should pay a higher interest rate than those professions that are almost guaranteed to pay the loans back, such as someone going to medical school. The gist of my argument is that it would cause people to reconsider what they are majoring in and make sure they learn a skill that can be used in the real world; ie makes money", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: (NSFW) One needs proper consent to masturbate about someone. + \n + Consent, I think we can agree, is a basic requirement for sex to be a positive act. Consent allows for there to be communication and reassurance between whoever is involved that what they're doing, and how they're doing it, is okay with their partner(s). Consent also allows for things that would otherwise be creepy or weird to come into a positive light and expressed in a healthy way. I would consider the act of objectifying to fall under this category. For example, a woman may be creeped out if a dude right in front of her at a party is just staring at her boobs without any concern for her at all. The same act of staring at the boobs is 100% fine if it's with her boyfriend while they're having consensual sexual relations.\n\nIf we take this same line of logic of consent that happens with sex and put it with masturbation, that's where I'm going with this. If you're thinking about another person in a sexual manner without them knowing about it, and then acting out that thought process by masturbating, it just seems a bit creepy to me. If I'm not allowed to objectify or do other sexual acts in person without having consent from the other person, I don't see how that wouldn't also translate over to masturbation. It's the same sexual thoughts, feelings, and intentions with the only difference being that the partner is not physically with you. Because they're not there with you, you can't ask for proper consent unless you physically ask them some other time if you can masturbate about them.\n\nThis line of thought has logic to it, but it's a conclusion that I don't like to face. This line of thought potentially makes masturbation an awful act if done without consent. It also makes it an act that wouldn't be allowed if no one gave any consent to you. You might be able to say that pornography that was paid for might be consensual masturbation because the model is being paid, and is therefore willing to consent to you masturbating. Even so, this doesn't allow you to explore your sexual desires outside of straight up porn unless someone says it's okay. If you asked me whether I'm for or against masturbation, I would say that I'm very pro-masturbation. The act has health benefits, relieves stress, is pleasurable, and all sorts of other fun goodies. It makes it so I don't want to come to the conclusion that I've come to that it needs strict consent about the person(s) that's involved in one's fantasies.\n\nSo please, CMV!\n\n\nThanks guys. I felt like I must've been wrong with my logic somewhere, and you helped point to where. I needed that. :)\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:I no longer believe in supporting digital media publishers because even when I do the right thing, I get fucked. + \n + I bought a lot of games, and I do mean a lot. I bought them  even though other people are using bootleg copies because it was the right thing to do and because I didn't want to risk getting in trouble. However, the people who get the bootleg copy do not need to put a disk in the drive to play the game, because the bootleg copies come pre-cracked. This is important today, where a lot of modern computers do not ship with optical drives. \n\nToting around a bunch of DVDs to play in a laptop because I was stupid enough to actually buy the game feels like the developers and publishers are just knifing me in the nuts for supporting them. My other option is to use cracks, which is legally questionable and comes with the risk of malware. I'm not even talking about new games, either. Many of them are PC games from the PS2 generation. If they insist on shoving malware on me for buying the games, why can't they at least take it out when the product is past its prime so I can enjoy what I paid for on fair terms without opening myself to risks? If they expect IP rights to last so long, why are they not forced to support a product for that same length of time?\n\nThe solution is to never support any of these publishers again, because clearly the objective is to fuck me over and run.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Toilet paper is better than bidets. + \n + I am American and have used toilet paper my whole life. I've had to use a bidet the past week for medical reasons, and I think that toilet paper is the far superior option.\n\n**Cleanliness**\n\nIn this area, I prefer toilet paper for a few reasons. First of all, there is actual visual confirmation that you've got it all. With bidets you just have to keep spraying until you think you're good. And as the amount of wiping/bidet-ing can vary greatly, the visual aspect is a great help. (I used a towel to dab afterwards, as toilet paper doesn't hold up against all the water.)\n\nSecondly, a bidet shouldn't be necessary as people (should) shower daily. Many people like to point out that bidets are better because they rinse away bacteria and other nastiness. But, a shower with actual soap and water and scrubbing should do that job much better than just water alone.\n\n**\"But you wouldn't just wipe it away if you got some on your hands!\"**\n\nNo, and I don't think you'd just rinse it away either. You'd use soap and water and scrubbing. Another point, your hands are usually the first thing you use to touch something. Until you grab things with your bare ass, wiping is just as good.\n\n**Comfort**\n\nGood quality toilet paper is amazing. It's soft, thick, almost like Kleenex. Hell, you could wipe with Kleenex if you wanted. Point is that high quality stuff is glorious. On the other hand, you're getting a cold spray of water in a very sensitive area. Even if you have a super luxury bidet that uses heated water, it's still basically shooting water up your ass. Even low quality toilet paper is better than that. In a shower the water flows down, which is much less uncomfortable. With a bidet there's also the added trouble of being all drippy with water while you move to towel off. And unless you want to reach into the bowl with a towel while you're still sitting on it, you're going to have to at least move up to a squat to towel off. (Those with an air dryer feature may alleviate this somewhat, but toweling will probably still be necessary if the air hand dryers are anything to go by.)\n\n**Price**\n\nI understand bidets cost less. But for me and where I am in life, I can and will pay extra for quality. There must be many others who feel the same, or else only single ply sand paper toilet paper would exist. In this area bidets are better, but I think that if this is the reason someone buys a bidet it would be because they have to save money.\n\n**Eco friendliness**\n\nI think we're past the whole 'save the trees' business. Reforestation is greater than reforestation in most of the world. Bidets may actually do more harm in low water and drought areas, if everyone dropped toilet paper and got bidets the gallons would add up.\n\nTo clarify; I'm talking about a bidet for home use, that's built into the toilet. The bidets that are completely separate just seem impractical.\n\n\nSo, CMV.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Making fun of fat people is equally as bad as making fun of people with depression or self-harm scars. + \n + Don't get me wrong, I'm no prude. I tell as many offensive jokes as the next guy, I'm not arguing that we can't make fun of them (I'm fat too), I'm arguing that the way that movies and popular culture says that making fun of fat people is hilarious and ok. It's not \"Ok\" to make fun of anybody but we all still do it, but why is it now ok to make fun of fat people? \n\nSure, if you meet one of those Healthy At Every Size morons you're not actually making fun of their weight, you're laughing at their willful ignorance, which is fine. But just some random overweight person who probably knows that they're unhealthy and fat and can't muster the will to do anything about it is likely to be in a bad place about it, like the depressed. And the very idea of making fun of someone who's depressed is sickening! \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: If you are unable to make above 40k/year you are not very intelligent. + \n + My reasoning is that having under 40k sucks, it's managable, but it is a struggle.  I understand 'intelligence' is a very murky word and everyone thinks they are intelligent, but in the general 'competency of life' sense of the word, if you are unable to hold down a good enough job that money is an ever present problem in your life, I question your intelligence.\n\nNow would be a good time to exclude a few groups:\n\n- Those who have a low income now, but are pretty confident in their ability to hit that threshold in a few years (think grad student).\n\n- Very handy(?might not be the right word?) people, (I have a friend whose dad built an extension on his house, that's as good as money.)\n\n- Those who could easily make a decent salary, but conciously decided that their life would be better if they made a lot less money (I have a friend that chose to work for a non-profit after receiving an engineering offer)\n\n\nObviously adjust the arbitrary 40k number regionally.\n\nI don't mean to kick you while you're down, I'm hoping someone changes my views because this is my natural inclination and I'm sure I've made a fault somewhere (or two).  This is literally the only sub on reddit that I could share something like this.  \n\nSo there you have it, feel free to change my view.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think the Olympic Games should be held in Greece every four years, with all the other IOC members contributing to the costs. + \n + The host country thing has run its course. Organizing the Olympic games is financially ruinous, blatantly wasteful and the procedure favors corrupt regimes willing to put themselves on the map.\n\nSimilar to the financial organization of the UN, all International Olympic Committee members should pay according to their ability. The Committee could invest in large stadiums that have an actual purpose after being used for the Olympic Games, namely, the next Olympic Games.\n\nFurthermore, and this is just speculation, this would allow Greece to reap the benefits of the economic surplus generated by the Games.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: People who went to Ivy League (or equivalent) schools are worth more to society than people who didn't. + \n + People who went to Ivies are smarter or harder-working than their peers. The rest of us, contrarily, didn't work hard enough or just weren't bright enough to gain admission to such prestigious institutions. As such, it's no surprise that they're employers' first-choice candidates for jobs.\n\nThat being said, it's clear that they have more to offer to society than the rest of us. We exist to do jobs that are below what Ivy grads are capable of. In essence, we're here because there just aren't enough Ivy alums to fill each job that exists. Heck, we shouldn't even be taken seriously when we speak, because there is certainly someone smarter out there who can rebut anything that comes out of our mouths.\n\nObviously, some Ivy grads do crooked things, so there are some exceptions. But, by and large, the idea holds true.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The West should fight Islamism by supporting the academic study of Islam and the religious education of Sheiks worldwide. + \n + **Some Definitions**\n\n**Islamism** - Political Movements that use Islam to justify either their end goals (ie. a religious state, or \"caliphate\") or the means they use (ie. violence, terrorism).\n\n**Islam** - Religion with 1 billion followers worldwide. Draws doctrine from the Qu'ran (a holy book) and the Hadith (the biography of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)). \n\n**Sheik** - An educated religious leader that are theological scholars, and have power to issue religious opinions/rulings, known as *fatwas.*\n\n\n\nMy case is this.\n\n* **Fighting Islamic Terrorism through military force DOES NOT WORK.**\nThe emergence of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh is strong evidence that foreign invasions cannot create stability in a country.\n\n* **A key feature of Islamic Terrorism is theological ignorance.**\nIslam only permits violence in certain circumstances, which are fairly well established. This mirrors a general ignorance among Muslims of what Islam is. This is compounded by the fact that Sheiks pass on their knowledge to students via a mentoring process. Lines of Sheiks are dying out due to a lack of willing students, and knowledge is being lost with them. The pull of Islamism on young men may be contributing to this.\n\n* **A greater understanding of Islam is incompatible with Islamism** - The Qu'ran is a suprisingly thought-provoking text, even for the secular reader. It constantly promotes critical thinking, and warns against interpreting its verses in a dogmatic way. A study of the life of the Prophet (pbuh), where he only fought as a last resort and was firmly against the killing of non-combatants, is totally at odds with Islamists. The fact that modern Islamist organisations (eg. Al-Quaeda, ISIL) are theologically innovative (rather than trying to get back to 7th Century Islam) is something that Al-Quaeda openly admits and is one of their most obvious flaws to Muslim observers.\n\nMy solution is that the West, with its traditions of academic study and economic power at the greatest they have ever been, should help educate Muslim countries about their own religion. Education should be at the grass roots level, the theological, and academic levels. I think there is a rather poetic justification in that the Islamic Empire safeguarded many of the texts of Europe and the Greeks at the time Europe was going through its Dark Ages. A similar thing could be argued to be taking place in the Muslim World today. \n\n**TL;DR** - I think it would be more effective, more sustainable, and it would diffuse the antipathy towards Islam in the Western World. It answers a lot of the current political problems in Muslim countries and would help establish Islam as the progressive force I believe it has always been, rather than the regressive and conservative force people fear it to be. \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Hot dogs are not sandwiches + \n + [NY tax law classifies hot dogs as sandwiches](http://www.tax.ny.gov/pubs_and_bulls/tg_bulletins/st/sandwiches.htm), but I'm not convinced.\n\nWhile it is certainly meat with bread on either side (like a hoagie, which is definitely a sandwich), the connected bun and tubular shape of the hot dog make it impossible to lay on the plate in a sandwich fashion:\n\n      bread  \n     filling  \n      bread  \n\nInstead, the hot dog lays vertically, and then condiments are piled on the top of the tube, in what would be the \"side\" of a sandwich. This is a fundamental change in the mechanic of the food, and it alone would warrant the hot dog's exclusion from the \"sandwich\" family. \n\nThe differences aren't limited to the physical configuration, though. There is also strong social argument that the hot dog is not a sandwich. If you were invited over to a friend's for sandwiches, you would probably be surprised to find that they only had a selection of hotdogs and sausages, along with buns and condiments. A word can be said to mean what people think it means, and most people do not think \"sandwich\" means \"hot dog\".\n\nIf you are more of a prescriptive linguist (and so many on reddit are), Oxford Dictionary defines a sandwich as \n\n\nHot dogs do not fit this description, because the bun is only one piece of bread. The bun is more of a carrying sheath for the hot dog tube, rather than the hot dog being a filling for the bun.\n\nI simply cannot buy that a hot dog is correctly classified as a sandwich. Please, change my view!", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The journalist who trolled Trump, a Presidential candidate, during a press conference should be fired by Univision and shunned by the rest of us + \n + A journalist's job is to report the news, not to create them. Ramos made himself a news item when he trolled presidential candidate Donald Trump during a press conference. Political statements, being unruly, and making accusations does not constitute journalism and not why Univision sent him there. The press conference was not there to allow journalists to express their feelings about issues.  After such unprofessional behavior became public and a national news item, Ramos should've been fired immediately.\n\nI'm not a fan of Trump, I would not vote for him, and I don't think he'll get the nomination.  However, whether you hate him or not, trolling a presidential candidate during a press conference is an embarrassment to the nation, makes a mockery of out our democratic process, and coming from a journalist, should lead to a dismissal.\n\nIf we instead agree that trolling presidential candidates is OK if they had it coming, then it opens the floodgates to anyone who dislikes a candidate to disrupt our democratic process. Who decides when a candidate can be disrupted or not?\n\nPeople mostly agree that the activists who disrupted Sanders were out of line, but when it's Trump, it's ok?\n\nThe presidential race is an extremely important one for this nation and should be treated seriously and with respect.\n\nThere are several Latinos in my family so please CMV.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The simplest, cheapest, most effective way to improve society would be encouraging and participating in more public interaction between strangers + \n + I am not here to make an exhaustive (and certainly biased) list of what I believe is wrong with society/culture (specifically in America, where I live), but to suggest that all the issues could be moderated (if not necessarily solved) by establishing new attitudes and behaviors in public spaces and around strangers. It seems that my generation (recently dubbed, by some, the Oregon Trail Generation, existing between Gen-X and Millennials) was the first to be raised with explicit \"stranger danger\" warnings and programs like DARE, latchkey centers, etc. Since then, the stigma against strangers has only increased and our default attitude turned closer to fear and suspicion.\n\nIt would take a long time to dissect the various causes for this notable shift but at least some are clear: Modern media more constantly and sensationally depicts the negative potentials (often real, but sometimes illusory). The rapid growth of the internet and technology has given negative individuals access to our private lives and information (think 419 and phishing scams). A more connected and globalized society has shown us a greater number of negative outcomes (even when those numbers do not reflect a higher percentage or likelihood).\n\nI'm certainly not blaming technology for this, as the way we use it exists in a complex cycle of innate habits/desires, the capability of the technology, and a reinforcing feedback loop. Many of the issues are, however, exacerbated by technology because it gives us the ease to disseminate fear-based messages (which are naturally stronger than positive messages) and provides us with a secluded alternative to the public sphere. We can easily find people who agree with us, information that fulfills our search, and interactions that provide some positive stimulus without ever having to interact with strangers.\n\nThat said, the insular world we have created puts incredible distance between individuals even as it purports to bring us closer together. While it is wonderful that a person can find a community that shares and validates their unique interests, we are relieved of the burden of having to consider and integrate difference. Further, these habits have not only stratified society economically but subdivided it in all directions. For all the openness of the modern world, we are actually strengthening in-groups by creating social networks and dating sites that cater to race, religion, profession, etc. (I've been looking for research to support this statement, but precious little has been done.)\n\nAs I see it, nearly all of these issues would be alleviated by reinstating the public sphere as a place for interaction between strangers. I'm not saying you should talk to every person you see out and about and we definitely need to educate vulnerable groups/individuals on keeping safe (and have a police force capable of adequately and appropriately handling the situation). We could begin simply by discussing the arts when encountered in a public setting (ask a stranger what they thought of a movie instead of just your friends) and discussing news in public forums (why can't people in Boston Common have a conversation about the recent trial?). We should be more open to finding all kinds of relationships randomly, whether on the subway or in the grocery store. \n\nObviously, there will be lots of discomfort and inconvenience. You shouldn't talk to everyone, all the time, and it will take each individual an amount of trial and error to gauge what is and isn't appropriate. Still, the general outcome seems to be only positive. For most of the us, the worst outcome is encountering more annoying people, but I actually think \"wait til you hear about this guy I talked to at the gas station\" is more interesting than \"I went to the gas station and listened to this podcast that confirmed what I was already thinking.\" We would also be afforded new (that is, old) ways of dealing with issues that arise from online dating and MRA/SJW/etc. communities.\n\nMany people will chalk my attitude up to a rural midwest upbringing as a white male. No, I did not grow up in an area where gangs, drugs, etc. were likely encountered on any sort of regular basis; no, I was not at risk of racial or sexual harassment and related violence. I am, though, familiar with those experiences second-hand (my university had students from 35 states and 42 countries, so I was exposed to an extensive array of different cultures/attitudes/experiences) and actually believe my solution may alleviate them to some extent. A portion of perpetrators (admittedly the ones likely to do the least damage) may change their attitude and behavior because of their increased interactions with others. The worst offenders are likely to attempt/commit their actions regardless. Potential victims may actually gain allies and confidence from increased interaction (one specific ex: women who become comfortable approaching and speaking with men in public are more likely to find men who don't just want sex/dating and the women will demonstrate that they interesting, complex, equal people rather than just joining online groups intent on telling us they are interesting, complex, equal people).\n\nAm I really miscalculating the ratio of benefit/danger? Is there some insurmountable barrier to public interaction I'm not considering? Is this happening more often than I realize but just not in my area? \n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The best thing for the US would be an election with *either* Trump or Sanders as the GOP/Democrat representatives. + \n + First of, I don't think that either Trump or Sanders should or necessarily could become the POTUS.\n\nBut I feel that the two most likely and realistic candidates are Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton, who are essentially the same people in terms of policy and representation of the status quo in US politics.\n\nIf Trump went up against Hillary he'd get beaten soundly, and if Sanders went up against Bush, he'd get beaten soundly as well. \n\nWhichever one (Bush/Clinton) wins is pretty much irrelevant to me, but what I think would be best would be if one of the parties was able to actually field an anti-establishment candidate.\n\nEven if the election were lost, having one of those \"fringe\" candidates represent their party would *force* the political aristocracy to recognize the fact that we are still in a democracy, and with the incredible pervasive nature of information in the modern age it's much easier to connect and organize large groups of people.\n\nAnd large groups of people can have a lot of political power, which means that the focus of politicians may just start moving back towards the people they represent instead of their business interests, which both parties are guilty of.\n\nWhy wouldn't it be best if one of the two parties got a serious black eye because the people they represent were able to motivate outside of the party line they're being fed?\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Manual gearboxes are archaic and unnecessary + \n + Not too much I can add to this as I think it's fairly self explanatory. I would like to mention that I'm from the UK, where there is very strong pressure from society NOT to drive automatic cars due to various sexist, ageist and ableist views. (automatics are for women(implied women can't drive), old people (more implications) and the disabled (implied things implified)).\n\nIn my opinion, automatic gearboxes (or even semi-automatic) have come along so much in the last decade that the previous benefits of reliable uphill performance and fuel economy that manual cars used to have has fallen into the realms of diminishing returns.\n\nOther arguments I've seen include;\n\nEngine braking is useful - so is a brake pedal\n\nIt gives more control - for what? none of us are racing here\n\nit's no more difficult - Yes it is, there's 50% extra pedals, 3 pedals shared among 2 feet, a stick that has 5+ positions that are non consecutively placed that you need to manoeuvre both your feet and hands at the same time as either accelerating or decelerating in order to operate.\n\nIt's fun/it's faster/it feels good - irrelevant, all subjective and for the purpose of this argument I see the utility of a car as little more than the ability to go from A to B.\n\nFWIW; I can drive both automatic and manual vehicles, I just feel so much less inclined by the latter and recently around reddit I've seen people downvoted for admitting to only wanting to learn automatic and others upvoted for churlish bullying of those not fussed by a manual gearbox.\n\nSo reddit CMV; cos' currently I feel like I'm missing out on a big secret.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Abortion is largely unjustifiable + \n + To clarify my title I believe that having an abortion is unjustifiable unless the pregnancy endangers the health of the woman or child, or the child is the product of rape. I understand that this is a touchy topic so I'm sorry if what I'm saying comes off as offensive. That is not my intention. My main reasoning is basically this.\nHuman life is incredibly valuable. It is a guarantor of all other forms of rights, or it at least allows for the possibility of other rights. As such the maximization of life should take precedence to other considerations, such as the right to choose whether or not you want to terminate a pregnancy. 80% or more of all pregnancies in the united states will be successful, and pursuing an abortion just decreases the amount of possible lives.\n\nTo clarify my point here is a thought experiment. Say you have a 2 year old child and a woman who is pregnant. no one would argue that killing the 2 year old is wrong. No matter how humanely it happens, you are robbing the child of the years of life it could have had. having an abortion in my opinion is just as wrong because the 2 year old and the unborn child have almost the same likelihood to live out a full life and taking that away from either of them would be morally unjustifiable.\n\nAlso, the woman giving birth wouldn't have to take care of the child. contrary to popular belief, in recent years the number of children being put up for adoption has [steadily been decreasing,](http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/15/us-adoption-domestic-waits-idUSBRE90E15Y20130115) while the time it takes for those who want to adopt a child has steadily been increasing, with some couples waiting up to seven years.\n\nAs a note my stance here has nothing to do with any sort of spiritual beliefs. Also I'm left leaning on most issues so it has nothing to do with party alliances. please CMV!\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Space Debris is not a problem for the foreseeable future + \n + Hey,\n\nSo I always read about space debris as this big crisis or this problem that is something people are really worried about.... this just doesn't make any sense to me. \n\nIt seems to me that if we could view all orbiting matter on a single plane the size of even the earth's crust it would be very clear that space debris is not an immediate issue. The amount of debris relative to the size of the area is not that much... not even taking into account that it isn't happening on a plane but in 3-D space.\n\nWhy is this wrong with this? I guess this doesn't take into account gravity (the gravitational pull of a satellite may be substantial at orbit - making collision highly likely). Or perhaps the scale of damage even a bolt could have.. but these to me seem so remote....\n\nOver the next, 20 years we will launch a lot more satellites - but only/maybe then they may become an issue - but at the present time it's like talking about not getting in your car because you are worried about drunk drivers - it may be acceptable but it is not rational\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I don't see anything wrong with Rachael Dolezal claiming that she is black. + \n + I found that there was some hypocrisy in the media and among my social group when I would hear people running to the defense of Caitlin Jenner, and then immediately attacking Rachael Dolezal afterwords. I felt both stories where instances of fluidity. One was on Gender Fluidity, the other being Ethnic Fluidity. Assuming Rachael actually feels much more comfortable as a black woman, I don't see why she should not be one. \n\nI understand that it might be seen as an unfair comparison to say a sex change has the same weight as an ethnic change, but I can't help but think this decision on who we can and cannot be should not rest on society, but rather on ourselves. If we allow this, then perhaps we would see questions of \"yes you have decided to be a girl, but are you the right kind of girl?\" or \"you believe to be a christian, but are you the right kind of christian? Oh, you are transferring from being a Buddhist? No, you can't do that, religion and spirituality isn't for you to decide.\"\n\nNow I know that these particular examples the best in this circumstance, but I guess I'm trying to get at what happens when we have society decide what is the \"right kind\" of race for you to be.  \n\nTL;DR-\nCaitlin Jenner didn't get flack for a similar transformation, and what this should come down to is an individuals right to be who they feel comfortable being, not who society wants them to be.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There should be a national holiday commemorating the ass-kicking of the racist traitors of the South. + \n + Quite inflammatory, huh? It could also be phrased The End of Slavery Day and be held on May 9th, the day the Civil War was declared over.\n\nThe reasoning is that there are too many misconceptions regarding the purpose of the Civil War and less regard for the sacrifice and moral standing of the federal government's army as compared to the Confederate army's justification.\n\nMartin Luther King Day recognises the more recent civil rights movement. The Civil War should be recognized as the greatest civil rights movement in the history of the US.  \n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The United States lost World War II + \n + I believe that, at the end of the day, America (and to a lesser extent, the UK and USSR) ultimately lost the second World War in every way that matters.\n\nI am not disputing the fact that the United States achieved its principal military/political goals (defeat of the Third Reich and the Japanese Empire), and I of course recognize the fact that the US managed to do so with virtually no civilian casualties/ destruction of the homeland, which is especially impressive given the sheer scale of civilian destruction seen in World War II.\n\nWhat I am arguing is that, having 'won' (as much as it is possible to win) the war, the United States promptly lost its soul, and has ended up in a worse position than Germany or Japan. The reason (I claim) that this is true is because, even before the last Germans had surrendered and the war in Europe ended, the Cold War had already begun. The United States quickly exchanged one enemy (Nazi Germany) for another enemy (The Soviet Union). From 1945 to 1990-ish, combating the Soviet Union and the spread of communism was perhaps the centerpiece of American foreign policy, and led the United States into a variety of fights where we otherwise had no business (such as Vietnam), and ultimately begat a lot of hatred for the United States, leading to many of the foreign policy difficulties America now faces (particularly anti-US terrorism). The Truman Doctrine and containment strategy eventually gave way to a neoconservative 'Pax Americana' ideal, that the United States is some kind of global police force tasked with maintaining order.\n\nI think it is clear from Iraq that US military presence generally does not breed goodwill, and therefore the United States (in trying to maintain global power) has led itself into something of a downward spiral. In trying to eliminate one enemy (for example, Iran), we adopt what may seem like a reasonable strategy (arming their enemies, the Iraqis), which eventually backfires and requires later invention (the Gulf War and Iraq war), which itself leads to further issues (like the emergence of ISIS), and on and on and on. It's a cycle that only leads to cartoonishly large military budgets and American blood spilled in conflicts where we don't belong. In short, hegemony has not been kind to the United States, and we would be better off if we weren't a world power.\n\nContrast this with the Japanese and Germans, who are (arguably) doing rather well for themselves. Sure, each country was broken and defeated at the end of the war, and it took a very long time for them to recover, but they came out better. I say they came out better because neither the Japanese nor Germany have the 'obligation' to police the world. In fact, both countries forbid themselves from taking offensive military action. While these countries can be (and often are) considered 'western', and are sometimes the target of anti-western hate, they are not widely hated like the United States, and are not tasked with maintaining ridiculous global military presence. Rather (and forgive me for oversimplifying), Germany can focus on Germany and Japan can focus on Japan. One need not look long to find a wealth of statistics to indicate that these two nations have far superior social safety nets, education, healthcare, etc. than the United States. While this superiority can, of course, be attributed to a wide variety of factors, I believe that one cannot ignore the important fact that these nations have their priorities straight, having suffered the shame of defeat, having gone through the experience of rebuilding and being free of any expectation of global military prowess.\n\nWhat really solidifies this belief for me is the existence of universal health care in most of western Europe. I apologize that I don't have the source, but if I remember correctly, I remember watching an interview with a worker in the UK's NHS, who attributed the success of socialized medicine in Europe (versus the US) to the fact that Europe had to rebuild after World War II. Effectively, when you have to start from scratch and pick your life up from the rubble, there's a greater sense of common bond with the rest of your nation. The US, having not been hurt in the war in the same way, never had to rebuild and instead developed a more violently individualistic character, where the idea of potentially paying for someone else's health care is utterly repulsive. Americans, by virtue of having won World War II without civilian casualty, has ended up with a far worse society than those who 'lost'. If that's the case, aren't we the real losers?\n\nSorry if this post got long. Please, CMV!\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I don't see ANY reason why a system should exist where people automatically consent to organ donations and are forced to opt out. + \n + If you want to sacrifice your organs and give them to others that's great and very noble of you and you have my props for doing what you believe is right, but this is a different discussion:   \na) One of the most common arguments I see used is saying \"most people don't care either way\" and honestly, using statistics to say \"omg People don't care\" is silly. It's ridiculously to spin statistics anyway and what makes anyone think people polled are informed enough to know their heads from their posteriors. I mean 80% of Americans approved of the Iraq war when it started. Not to mention some people are pretty ignorant and probably never considered their own perspective or thought about it (look at how LSD and marijuana are banned when neither one are even remotely close to as harmful as alcohol or cigs). People also aren't number they're individuals with different view points, so using statistics to evaluate people  on an individual basis is a huge joke.    \n   \nb) Look at how badly the government screwed up obamacare's rollout. Being forced to try and withdraw yourself from the system could easily been insanely complicated regardless of what people may claim it's easy. If it may work somewhere else, doesn't mean it'll work in America. I personally wouldn't be surprised if it was as hard to do as cancelling AOL. Mindless bureaucracy screws people over, and so does the American government most of the time.   \n      \nC) A lot of people will  most likely end up not knowing the rules and end up just having their organs donated without even saying yes or no because they're in the system and don't know about it. How is that any different than rape? You don't consent and are just in the system, and you have to know to opt out. Look at how many people don't know the basic rules of the US government. At the very minimum people should have to sign a form at age 18 to consent either way similar to something like the selective service, so they actually know what the hell is going to happen to their own body.\n\nD) What about pluripotent stem cells or bionic organs or even nanotechnology to repair issues in organs? Why resort to mandatory consent without exhausting every other option first? Resorting to forced consent before at least trying other options fully is bad mojo, imagine if that is applied to any other legislation because \"it worked for organ donations\". I get the religious right have a kneejerk reaction to \"omg stem cells\", but honestly that's way better than having \"organ rape\".  \n\n \nE) I don't want my organs in someone else's body and will exercise everything in my power to make sure that doesn't happen. Also adult life is all about artificial hardships and being totally unnecessarily complicated due to bs social constructions and limitations in the way people see themselves and others. Why would I want to make the average persons life easier by sacrificing a part of me considering medicine's primitive understanding of the complexities of the human body there may be a lot of issues or factors a person's organs predispose us to that we don't even know? Epigenetics is poorly understood, look at the bioinformatics information overload (basically there's huge databases  computing massive amounts of  that we don't understood). It probably won't even take 10 years for medicine's understanding to be turned upside down.  Even if I did donate organs why would I want them in an unknown person's body considering I know nothing about the other person, and the world is so fundamentally messed up that no amount of donating organs will solve the systematic oppression, inherently divisive nature of society, ignorance, mindless complications, exploitation of others, and constant pissing contests of who's inferior and who's superior that perfectly sum up a good portion of the world's interactions, especially in America? People are going to still be miserable, depressed, and suffering and no amount of automatically consented organs will ever change that until we address the fundamental inequalities within society. Why extend lives if the world is going to be just as messed up? A life lived to 100 in misery and suffering is no life lived at all. \n     \nF) Doctors who support this should should really consider distancing themselves from this perspective by realizing the history of medicine. It's not that different from how medicine had huge gains from literal grave robbing 100+ years ago. Taking organs from people who automatically consented is ridiculous.   ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Anti-GMOers are the same breed of moron as Anti-Vaxxers + \n + To my knowledge there are no peer reviewed sources that link GMOs to any negative health effects. There is as much reason to believe genes manipulated in a lab are inherently harmful as there is for genes selected through domestication. I am asking for a CMV because I have not done thorough research other than reading a few articles supporting my view including a recent cover story for Nat. Geo, a magazine I highly respect. However as a scientifically-minded person, I can't ignore the massive movement against GMOs without considering it first.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:Earned Income Tax Credits are a much better idea than raising the minimum wage, and avoid pretty much all of the issues that otherwise come up with a high minimum wage. + \n + The way I currently understand Earned Income Tax Credits (EITC), when you pay your taxes, if you make below a certain amount of money are not supporting yourself, then you basically get tax credits, or money from the government, rather than having to pay taxes.\n\nI think this would be better than minimum wage because: \n\n1. Raising minimum wage directly incentivizes automation. These jobs are already the most vulnerable to automation (I'm thinking about jobs like cashiers). The more expensive it is to pay an employee, the more likely it is that employers will look for ways to automate those jobs. EITC avoids this because it won't the employers who directly front the costs of increasing revenue for those within a certain income bracket.\n\n2. Not everyone deserves a $15 per hour wage. To be clear, I am fully on board with the the idea that somebody who is supporting themselves and working 40 hours per week should be able to make a living wage. For those who are in that situation, I think EITC should compensate whatever wages they make such that their yearly salary is sufficient. However, there are also 15 year olds who just want a summer job, and definitely aren't supporting themselves. By excluding those who aren't supporting themselves (I think the criteria is that you're under 26 and provide less than half of the money needed to support yourself), we avoid paying people excessive salaries when they don't really need to be paid that much.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: White people owe black people an innumerable debt and they should start paying it back now by giving up their privileges to black people + \n + The experience of Black people in what is today the United States, spans hundreds \u2013 hundreds \u2013 of years of being bought and stolen from their homelands, ripped from their cultures, parted from their families and their language, being sold and treated as inanimate objects.  It\u2019s an experience of systematic, frequent, and legal rape, beating, murder, torture, kidnapping, cruel working conditions and constant verbal dehumanization.  For hundreds of years.   Even after slavery ended officially in 1865, much of this continued for another 100 years, well into our lifetimes.  Since slavery ended, the Black experience has included beatings, murder, burning crosses, vandalism, and intimidation and humiliation at lunch counters, drinking fountains, public streets, private homes, work places and the voting booth.   It has included de jure and de facto exclusion from decent neighborhoods, home loans, schools, adequate jobs, political representation, legal justice in courtrooms, and even marriage to White people (until 1967).  While increasingly less legal, much of this continues today, as does the fallout and trauma of coming from 12 or more generations of abuse.\n\nBlack people\u2019s bodies \u2013 literally and figuratively \u2013 tilled the soil, built the foundation, and grew the backbone of this country.  They planted and harvested crops that fed us and grew White wealth.  They built the roads and railroads.  They nursed and cared for White children so wealthy White women could spend time doing other things like studying and developing their artistic talents. And on and on.  And we have yet to truly acknowledge that White people are rich \u2013 that White America is rich \u2013 because Black people did so much to build this nation, and built it for cheap or less than nothing.\n\nThe life you enjoy today is also made easier by the fact that you was born with White skin in a country where having White skin has brought meaningful, unearned advantages for hundreds of years.  And yet so many White people think racism is gone, over, a moot point, or a tiresome topic.  They point to all the progress we\u2019ve made and how much better things are.  Yes, you've made progress and things are better \u2013 but this was just as much (or more) due to Black peoples\u2019 efforts as yours. \n\nNothing in White people\u2019s experience comes close to the suffering of Black people.  Nothing.  And you inflicted this suffering.  White people owe Black people a tremendous debt \u2013 still unpaid. That is why White people have the responsibility to pay back their debt to black people after 200 years. Black people shouldn't be asking for $15 minimum wage or equal pay, affirmative action or stop police brutality, White people should be automatically, happily and voluntarily give black people double the minimum wage, extra pay and give up their slots in college for black people, as well as give black people reduced sentences for their crime. Think that's unfair? NO, that's fair, because you and your race owe black people an immeasurable amount of wealth, opportunity and happiness that you should start paying back. Everything that you have to enjoy today is thanks to black people's effort. You already owe black people since you're born white. It is time to reverse the situation and give black people the justice they deserve.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: (Financial) technical analysis is like a pseudoscience. Finding \"Bulls\", \"Bears\", and other sentiments in a market is no more accurate than reading Tarot cards. + \n + CMV!\n\nI know that there are some instances where the only way to analyze the performance of some asset (e.g. commodities, FX currencies, futures) is by looking for trends and predicting the future prices, since there aren't any financial statements to perform fundamental analysis on. But to my knowledge technical analysis doesn't work. I can't think of any instances of long-term superior performance by people who use charts as a basis for decision making. \n\nI know that George Soros bet against the British Pound in the early 1990s and became fabulously wealthy doing so. But I view that as trading on the news, not an effective application of technical analysis.\n\nI'm not saying that fundamental analysis is necessarily better or worse than technical analysis, I'm just arguing that there is no scientific basis for technical analysis. I'm also arguing that recognizing trends and patterns in the data is guesswork, and that you can see whatever you want to see, whether it's a \"bull\" or \"bear\" or \"reversal\" or \"peak\" or anything else.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Being alive is fundamentally a bad thing. + \n + 1. Boredom is the default mood. Mere existence isn't enough to satisfy us, we constantly have to distract ourselves from boredom.\n\n2. Pleasure requires effort, suffering does not. I literally don't have to do anything to suffer from boredom and starvation.\n\n3. Suffering is more powerful feeling than pleasure. Is there an opposite to a [cluster headache](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCSyikUiXm8)?\n\n4. The universe doesn't care about how we feel. No one is protecting us. If I'm falling onto spikes, universe is not gonna pull me away and protect me, no matter how hard I pray.\n\nTo clarify: Most people seem to think that life is inherently good and some sort of \"precious gift\", which just isn't true. Life is fundamentally shit, but happiness is possible.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: As a straight male I should be allowed to frequent gay bars. + \n + I'll try to keep my thoughts as simple as possible. \n\nWhere I live there are only two bars with in walking distance. One of the bars is by all accounts unpleasant. They have sketchy clientele, high prices, bad food, and terrible service. My girlfriend feels uncomfortable there because of the behavior of the patrons and the employees who do nothing to stop it. \n\nThe other bar is a gay bar. It's cleaner, has better service, better drink deals and is much more women friendly (which my girlfriend appreciates). Now I had regularly gone to this bar in the past by myself, usually to just grab a drink after work, watch a wizards game (I don't have cable so I go to bars for my sports) then leave. This past tuesday I brought my girlfriend there for the first time. After about an hour the waiter asked us to leave. He told us it was 'gay safe' and a 'gay space', that they didn't want us taking over there space and that we were making some patrons uncomfortable.  So we paid and left, trying to not make a scene or cause any problems.\n\nNow I've had a couple days to think about this and as right now would be a time that I would have stopped in for a beer, I'm a little pissed.\n\nI feel like I've been discriminated against because of my sexuality which is something that the Gay community has fought to stop. I've always been supportive of the LGBT community, and I don't want to make a straw-man argument, but I can't not see hypocrisy in this. I don't understand how my issue is different then the bakery who refused to bake the cake for the homosexual couple. Them asking me to find another bar is no different then a bigot telling a homosexual couple to find another bakery.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: ISIS isn't about the US or the invasion, it isn't about Bush or Obama. ISIS was created because of internal forces within the middle eastern Islamic world. It isn't about us, and to think it is is just arrogent and self centered lazy thinking. + \n + CMV: ISIS isn't about the US, it isn't about Bush or Obama. ISIS was created because of internal forces within the gigantic Islamic world. It isn't about us, and to think it is is just arrogent and self centered lazy thinking.\n\n\nI hear lots of people arguing that it is the actions of X or Y president that caused ISIS to exist, but I think the internal ideologies and economic, cultural an political forces within the middle east are much more significant than anything the US did, even the US invasion, or whatever the US did or didn't do afterward may have only slowed or hastened such an explosion in the middle east for a few years.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Videogames are harmful even in moderate amounts + \n + I've learned about the concept of the hedonistic treadmill (by myself not by reading the wikipedia page). In short: The more you enjoy something, the more you'll get used to it, and the less you'll enjoy it!\n\nConsequently, in life things like, say, videogames, make you used to high levels of stimulation, making everything else in life seem dull and boring.\n\nThis isn't necessarily a bad thing, that is except for the fact that videogames are like 99% useless, and consequently you could have similar amounts of fun, on average, after getting used to the usual amounts of stimulation you can find in real life, with the plus that you get a lot more time and energy for things like your education and career, your social and love life, and any hobby or intellectual interest you have!\n\nEven in small amounts videogames drain the fun out of life and take a large amount of time and energy, without giving anything back, at all.\n\nConclusively, videogames are bad, and society would be better off without them.\n\nCMV.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Abraham Lincoln was the best President in all of American History. + \n + From his personality to the way he handled Southern Succession there is nothing to dislike about him. He had intelligent, moderate religious views, he was compassionate and held the moral high ground (He criticized the American annexation of Mexico) and he literally died for the preservation of the United States. I think if he lived we would have avoided the problems of Reconstruction. \n\nTo top it all off, he literally is the highest rated president among scholars on history. So change my view. \n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I do not believe in a progressive tax system. Change my view. + \n + I believe in a flat tax system, where everyone pays the same percentage of their earnings in income tax. I do not believe in a progressive tax system where richer people pay a higher percentage than poor people. I am a working class democrat, but I do not see a progressive system stimulating economic growth. It seems to me that it is punishing somebody for making more money, making it more desirable to stay in the middle class instead of encouraging people to work their way up into a higher class.. On the other hand, I believe a flat tax based would be fairer. Rich people would pay more (because 15% of a million is higher than 15% of 35'000) but would still be encouraged to leave their capital in the US economy instead of finding ways around the tax code... Can someone make a solid case for a progressive tax system directed at a working class guy like me?\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Universities should not discontinue class lists. + \n + For centuries, universities have published the results of end of year examinations on noticeboards where students find out their grade. It does not provide exact mark break downs, but does tell students what classification degree they received. \n\nThere has been a recent push to get rid of these class lists due to it hurting students feelings. \n\nHowever, I feel that to do so would not provide any real benefit. If you did badly, you are going to find it just as hard in the employment market regardless of whether or not your peers are aware of your grade. \n\nThe class lists foster healthy competition between candidates. \n\nThere are already provisions in place for candidates to opt out of being in the class list if they have a good reason to do so.\n\nChecking the class lists is also a tradition and, in some subjects, they are even read out by the university examiners in an annual ceremony. \n\n\nIndividual topic breakdown is and, as far as I am aware, has always been private. Otherwise the notice board would have to be the size of a tennis court! ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Bernie Sanders actually has a very realistic chance of winning the 2016 election. + \n + People seem to feel right now that Sanders is just not well-known enough to even have a chance at the presidency, and that it will stay that way. Everyone has mostly accepted that it will be Clinton vs. some ill-fated Republican, and that Sanders stands no chance. \n\nI believe this is fully inaccurate, and anyone who believes this must have forgotten what age we are living in. This is the age of the internet, of instant communication, and of viral sensations. The amount of commercials a candidate is able to put themselves on does not determine their chance at winning. From what I've seen in just the past couple of months, Bernie Sanders has a very strong presence on the internet. He's old, but has the progressive ideals and values of most younger Americans. I think his name has been and will be spreading like wildfire over the next 16 months. And that's the other part people are forgetting...we still have a whopping 16 months till the election. That \"Alex from Target\" kid got popular in about a day for no reason whatsoever. Now think about someone who could potentially lead a nation - someone who many people are very passionate about supporting. Sanders will become just as much a household name as other prominent candidate.\n\n**TL;DR - Through the help of the internet and a shitload of time, Bernie Sanders has very good chance at winning this thing.**\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Professional athletics and sex work are morally equivalent. Either both should be illegal or legal. + \n + Arguments against sex work, primarily but not limited to prostitution, often include but are not limited to;\n\n1) It is frequently used to exploit a societal underclass\n\n2) Training for these activities often begins with the exploitation of children\n\n3) It frequently leads to adverse long-term health effects, including high rates of drug addiction\n\n4) Enables rich individuals with significant networks (often illegal) to control peoples' lives\n\n5) People engaged in these activities are often forcibly relocated\n\n6) It is \"indecent\"\n\nI believe all arguments, except number 6, also apply to professional athletics. Why can a man, or even worse, a child, elect to become a football player and absolutely destroy his body (The average football player [dies in his fifties](https://www.boston.com/lifestyle/health/2013/01/29/nfl-players-union-and-harvard-team-landmark-study-football-injuries-and-illness/aCGnf96h7ptWX2Lnp5MIiP/story.html)) but a woman cannot elect to be paid for sex? They are both professions that use and arguably abuse their bodies. The majority of individuals engaged in both fields often engage in related, self-destructive and/or illegal activities. Having one not only legal but celebrated and the other shunned and rendered illegal is hypocritical.\n\nDisclaimer: My circle of friends includes a higher-than-average amount of women in the sex industry, some of whom engage or have engaged in activities that are illegal in the United States and most other developed nations.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Graduation for infant and primary schools are ridiculous, and cheapen the meaning of a graduation. + \n + There is an increasing trend in the UK of 'graduation' ceremonies for children leaving infant schools and primary schools (ages 7 and 10). A graduation was originally to signify the conferring of a certificate and to celebrate that milestone, and as such should be restricted to University courses, and at a push to cover people at the end of High School (so that the people who go straight into work celebrate an end of their formal education).\n\nI appreciate that schools and the pupils want to celebrate the end of their time at that school, but placing children in garishly-coloured robes at the age of 7 only cheapens what a 'graduation' stands for. **There are other ways they can celebrate a new beginning without appropriating and trampling on existing ceremonies and traditions**\n\nTo give a comparison, consider how engineers in the US and Canada are given an iron ring in a ceremony to symbolise their obligation. The ring and the associated ceremony is a very personal symbol of their choices and achievements to the engineers. Now imagine how they would feel if every single infant school started copying their ceremony word for word, item for item, issuing iron rings to 7 year olds telling them it means the same.\n\nMy son is supposed to have a 'graduation' in a few months, and the vast majority of the parents are planning a boycott, organising their own event in its place. We can't even find out where this tradition started, or why.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Texting is only to deliver messages, not to have full conversations. + \n + Today, talking on WhatsApp with someone new I just met a couple of days ago I realized that chatting is not the same nowadays than 5~ years ago where people sat down in their computers on MSN or stopped anything they were doing to actually talk to someone else, now it's like you need to try very hard to get the attention of someone because people are usually entertained with something else happening in their daily lives and they turn to their phone's or change to their browser tabs where the chat is going on every time they had a chance. Or when they want to because now we can decide to ignore you or not thanks to notifications. \n\nThe thing is that I now see texting only like a fast way to just deliver a message or arrange something and not as a mean to talk with someone just for the sake of talking, or like meeting someone new because that feel of attention you get when directly talking to someone's ear is simply not there.\n\nI prefer way more to do a phone call or talk face to face when I really feel like talking with someone.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is no moral justification for pirating movies, music, or other digital content + \n + Before I begin a disclaimer:  I pirate movies, TV shows, and music. I don't intend to insult those who do the same thing that I do. I do, however, believe that the actions of myself and others who do the same are immoral and done merely for the sake of avoiding spending money of not spending money if one doesn't have to. \n\nSo:\n\nI think an important point to start on is one that I think is always missed in these arguments. High quality digital content such as movies and television shows are a luxury in just the same way that diamonds are. Life goes on without them. I don't mean to say that I don't watch a lot of TV or listen to a lot of music but that doesn't make them a necessity it makes me spoiled with a luxury item. As with any luxury item, the cost for it is usually higher than other things. Those who claim to be \"showing the system what's wrong\" or \"fighting a corrupt system\" are acting no different from someone who breaks into a diamond store because they find diamonds to be nice but to expensive to bother paying for. CMV!", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The claim that gun rights are derived from nature rings as hollow as the claim that gun rights are granted by God. + \n + Some of you you believe the right to bear arms is inherent, my question to you is: \"how does it come about that this right is inherent?\"\n\nWhat makes this right inherent?\n\nThere is a difference between rights granted  by law and natural rights. Laws can define where natural rights are legally applicable. But laws can't give or take away inherent/natural rights. (Laws can, however, violate or protect those rights.)\n\nThere still must be a logical derivation of this right from nature if it exists.\n\nIf \"Natural law derives from the nature of man and the world, just as physical law derives from the nature of space, time, and matter.\" my question is, how exactly is it that you are proposing the right to firearms derives from nature?\n\n\"It just does\" is not a sufficient answer.\n\nhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights\n\nExplain why we have the natural right to self defense, and how, logically, that right extends to include firearm ownership. Or the claim that gun rights derive from natural rights will remain entirely unsubstantiated.\n\nI actually think guns are the least of our problems, and I'm not really a \"gun-grabber\" because there are a couple dozen things I'd rather do first. (And if those happen, guns would mostly only be used for hunting, and target practice. And the potential for a strong national defence, like they ought to be.) I'd rather get people educated and out of poverty. Etc. I tell you this so you can understand, I'm an open mind on this issue, and if you can't convince me, you probably won't convince anyone.\n\nTo be clear: I could give a **** about gun rights, I don't see any logical derivation of those rights from nature. So far as I can see they are only legal rights and not natural rights at all.\n\nAt the same time, people who actually spend effort and time opposing gun rights annoy me, because (duh) there will always be weapons and violence until people get healthy and free. focusing actions on a wedge issue like guns serves to divide, and sow fear, rather than to unify and bring progress. Discussion, though, is another matter.\n\nI am currently against both \"gun grabbers\" (practically) and gun rights (ideologically). So I am mostly heavily neutral on this subject. I have serious questions about the central dogmas of both sides of this debate.\n\nTell me why I should no longer ideologically oppose gun rights. Show the logical derivation from nature, which I believe you are claiming exists. currently without an understanding of the justification for the claim that gun rights are natural rights, It is my view that many legal freedoms or impositions are a matter of practicality, justified by the basic and overriding human drive to form a safe, harmonious, and productive society, and then that guns are simply impractical toward this end.\n\nif you can't convince me of this, (or at least correctly formulate _any_ argument defending your position) , you are probably not really going to convince anyone.\n\nBut If your thought is that the right to firearms is derived from the right to self defend would it not make more sense that the natural right to self defend justifies the legal right to live in a firearm free environment. Since guns take more lives than they save?\n\nTo claim that a right is derived from nature without showing the logic of the derivation is equally meaningless as to claim that a right is granted by God.\n\nI see no logical derivation from nature for the right of humans to bear arms. (Bonus: I can't imagine that there is any which wouldn't also \"justify\" the \"rights of monkeys to bear arms\".)\n\nI invite you to Change My View.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: /r/hiphopheads shouldn't have ban on discussions or posts regarding Lil Dicky. + \n + Lil Dicky\u2019s debut album, *Professional Rapper*, debuted atop the Billboard Rap Album chart, and at number 7 on the Billboard 200, with sales of 22,000. It features guest spots from Snoop Dogg, Fetta Wap, Rich Homie Quan, Jace (from Two-9), and T-Pain. Yet /r/hiphopheads, arguably the best place to discuss rap & hip-hop on the internet, forbids all discussion (whether it be links or even discussion threads) regarding his music. If I\u2019m not mistaken, there are two reasons for the ban:\n\n* Someone in his camp posted one of his videos to Reddit, and either LD or that someone asked their friends to upvote the video. This was claimed to be vote manipulation a or publicity stunt.\n\n* LD is making a mockery of the genre (a hip-hop Weird Al, so to speak) and isn\u2019t a \u201creal\u201d rapper.\n\nFirst, there\u2019s never been proof (from what I can tell) that LD or his camp took part in malicious vote manipulation. It doesn\u2019t seem at all like he\u2019s rap\u2019s /u/Unidan. Second, /r/HHH allows links and discussion threads for The Lonely Island. That alone should indicate at least a slight bias against LD\u2019s music.\n\nI\u2019m not an LD Stan or anything; if anything I lean towards some of [Fantano\u2019s critisicms of him]( http://www.theneedledrop.com/articles/2015/8/lil-dicky-professional-rapper). I\u2019m just saying that the dude\u2019s got the best-selling rap album in the country until Dre\u2019s numbers come in for *Compton*. He clearly has fans, probably a bunch on /r/HHH, and obviously a bunch on Reddit as a whole. If you want to karma-earning links because of \u201cvote manipulation,\u201d I disagree because of a lack of proof but I suppose that\u2019s not ***that*** outrageous. But a complete ban (including discussion threads for fresh releases and albums) is overkill and unnecessary.\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Creativity in \"the West\"* is stagnant + \n + This is the hackneyed opinion of someone who may be losing touch with the younger generation. **Please, show me something new.** I'm specifically addressing this view at what is loosely called \"the Arts\". I am aware of and enervated by technological and scientific progress. Everything new thing I see and hear today seems inherently \"revivalist\" in nature. Perhaps this is the nature of the new, that it builds on the past. And perhaps the nature of post-modernism is that it \"remixes\" what has gone before. But surely, sometimes, there are \"leaps\" you can point to, like the birth of rock n roll, or the explosion in graffiti/street art. **Where is the cutting edge, and what am I missing?**\n\n[.](https://i.imgur.com/IAt9wjT.jpg)\n\n*By \"the West\" I mean the first world, anglosphere, US & Europe kind of deal. I don't feel I can speak to the lives of others outside of this definition.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: In the internet age, retailers and content producers should work together to make content readily accessible rather than fight to punish those who \"pirate\" it. + \n + I think it is the opinion of many people on the internet, and of reddit in particular that the companies trying to fight piracy should \"Deal with it\" -- that they need to realize that the internet is the future and trying to fight piracy is impossible (or prohibitively expensive) in a free web. \n\nA little bit about myself, and my habits -- I am 20 years old, a liberal raised on the internet and currently in school studying film. I have torrented rarely for probably 5 years, but I would consider myself on the bottom end of piracy. I subscribe to Netflix, Amazon prime and Spotify, and usually buy my games on steam. Because of these services I never pirate music or games ever, and I usually do not pirate Television or Movies either.\n\nAs an aspiring filmmaker myself, it feels hypocritical to steal someone else's hard work, and so if at all possible I do not do that. I am more than willing to pay 3-5 dollars to rent a movie I want to watch. But this is not the internet we live in. While some movies are available on youtube, itunes and amazon instant for rental, many are either only available to buy or not available at all. On top of that, these services tend to have a charge to rent the \"HD\" version of the film, a practice I believe to be archaic and stupid in an age where everyone has HD monitors and/or TVs. \n\nIn my mind, if there were a service that made a huge selection of films available for a one-time viewing for $5 easily and at full quality -- with options for downloading if need be -- I personally would never pirate films or TV. \n\nHowever, this may not represent the consumer base as a whole and may not be enough to save the companies afraid of the internet. \n\n(WARNING: I AM GOING OFF WHAT I HAVE READ IN THIS SECTION -- I DO NOT HAVE SOURCES FOR MY CLAIMS YET) \n\nWhile Spotify does seem mitigate piracy, it also does not give much money to artists as a rule. But, at the same time, most artists make their money from touring and not from album sales, as the record label would end up taking most of the money from itunes/CD sales anyways. So part of me thinks that in this open age that perhaps it is the companies that should fail, if they cannot accept the internet's existence, freeing the artists to receive more money for sales directly from services such as Spotify and iTunes. The same applies to movies, television (which Netflix has helped a lot, I think) and games (I don't know many people who pirate games, since they are readily available on Steam and GOG.com as a rule) as well.\n\nTL;DR -- I think the companies fighting piracy should give up and try to mitigate it instead -- adapt rather than fight. \n\nWhat do you think? Change my view!\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I'd like to be convinced that veganism is not currently most moral diet taking into consideration the suffering of farm animals as of right now + \n + Hi, CMV. So, I chose to become a vegetarian about 7 years ago. I've had trouble becoming a vegan, but I do what I can.\n\nHowever, recently, many of my friends have been attempting to convince me that by my own utilitarian views, neither veganism nor vegetarianism are the most moral choice, and in fact, a gluttonous amount of meat is the best for environmental, ethical, and health reasons.\n\nSo far, I've been able to counter most of the evidence offered to me either with my own evidence from trusted sources or by pointing out the lack of merit from the sources given to me (lots of comic sans blogs).\n\nThis is something I do honestly believe that, given enough evidence, I would change my view on, and it seems like a lot of people seem to think they have evidence that a diet of meat is better in some way that I might consider meaningful, and of the many that do, there's bound to be some that might actually have something worth considering, so please change my view. :)\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:People Look for Reasons to be Offended + \n + I've noticed that recently it seems like Americans (in particular) tend to look for reasons to be offended. One example would be race (yes I realize that racism is still a thing, and am in no way trying to minimize that terrible fact). \n\nThere are so many things that can be directly attributed back to race or cultural upbringing, but when this is pointed out it is called \"racist.\" I think that this is wrong and is making the race issue *more* prevalent than it needs to be. *That sentence is not trying to suggest that the race issue needs to be ignored, merely that not as many people are actually racist as are being accused.*\n\nThis same concept can be seen elsewhere, women for example. Women seem to look for areas in which they could possibly be seen as oppressed, even though it's likely that they are not being intentionally oppressed. For example, if a man suggests that a certain job would be done better by a man (which is IMO entirely possible for some positions) that would be seen as sexist an/or oppressive towards women. (To clarify, I'm not suggesting that women shouldn't speak out for their rights to equal treatment - I think that that is very important. I am suggesting that many women are looking for ways they could be offended and being the issue of sexism up in issues that have nothing to do with that).\n\nI think that in America there is a growing \"desire\" to be offended, and that people tend to seek out areas in which they could be offended. This doesn't make sense to me, and I think that it brings up issues that have little to no relevance and actually perpetuates their prevalence.\n\n*Again, really not trying to sound offensive toward anyone with this post. I am aware that I only posted two examples, and I'm sure that I'll get some flack for mentioning only two groups of people - I apologize if I have worded something offensively, and sincerely promise that it was not intended to offend.*\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: It's disingenuous to downplay political motivators in favor of mental illness when discussing mass murders. + \n + So if you haven't heard already, there was a recent [shooting in a Charleston church.](https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/3a8k4r/breaking_active_shooting_downtown_charleston/) Many reports are coming out with evidence that points it as a racially motivated hate crime. (I'm not here to argue whether or not it was, as the investigation is still ongoing and many developments have yet to come, but for the purpose of this discussion I'm going to assume it was.)  \n\nMuch like with the Elliot Rodgers case, there are many people already stating that this is purely a mental health issue and it's just the liberal media drumming up a race war and etc.  \n\nI don't think it's fair to detract from those arguments, as there are many many people with mental illnesses living non-violently. Even if people with certain mental illnesses have a higher chance of committing violence, and even if most mass murderers do have some kind of mental illness, it shouldn't detract from the fact that there are social motivators that led them ultimately to taking others' lives. The reason I say it's \"disingenuous\" to downplay them is because it allows people who believe there's nothing wrong (eg. that racism is still a major problem) to persuade others that there's nothing wrong, even though there's evidence in the form of the killings that there's still a problem. \n\nIn this case, it was the suspect's surrounding himself with racist rhetoric that led him so far down a path of hatred towards black people that he acted violently against them. In Elliot Rodger's case, it was his intense hatred of women not sleeping with him (and resentment of other men he saw as his 'competitors') that ultimately led him to go on his spree.  \n\nI believe that bigoted hatred should also be addressed alongside mental illness, and shouldn't be downplayed by the media or the public whenever these issues arise. Especially since not all killers are mentally ill, and so addressing these motivators will still help reduce violence.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Morality Exists + \n + This is piggybacking off of my previous thread, and I will attempt to clarify a few things here. Morality is important to our survival as a species. If we didn't have morality, then why would we, as human beings, ever look out for one another? Why would we care if someone else was hurt? At the end of the day, wouldn't we be only concerned about ourselves? \n\n\nKeep in mind that when I am talking about morality, I am talking about it as a person who hasn't studied philosophy. I am talking about it the way your average person would. I am using it to mean, \"the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.\" Those distinctions will be different from person to person, but those distinctions still exist. Also, I think the generally understood definition of being \"moral\" is to help others to the best of your ability, to protect others before yourself, to minimize harm done to others. Basically, to protect the flock. \n\nHowever [another discussion on this sub](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/35y0qf/cmv_some_opinions_are_ethically_right_and_can/) has made me start doubting morality even exists. I am having a hard time wrapping my head around this one way or another, and at this point (as another commenter has put it) I've broken through the Matrix into the Real World. So loyal readers of Change My View: break my spirit. Tell me why morality doesn't exist. \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: It is more valuable for an English speaker to learn an East Asian language than any European language + \n + If you genuinely have an interest in an European country or language, then that beats any reason to learn an East Asian one. However, learning Mandarin Chinese, Japanese or Korean is more valuable than learning any European language.\n\n\n-Travel\n\nIt's easier for Europeans to learn English and harder for East Asians to learn English.\nMost Europeans at the very least speak basic English, and most East Asians only know English words.\nYou can travel across Europe only knowing English, but in East Asia it helps more to know the language.\nI don\u2019t consider places like South America and China to be developed enough to travel through, other than tourist spots catering to English speakers.\n\n\n-Media\n\nWhen it comes to media, East Asian countries have their own isolated worlds. Going through their music, films, television and books can almost feel like visiting an alien world since so little reaches the west. \nSpecifically Japan and South Korea are economic powerhouses and understand the importance of [soft power](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power), and as a means produce a lot more films, music, games, comics, literature and TV than any European or South American country.\n\n\n-Availability\n\nEuropean languages have more speakers than East Asian languages, but most Europeans already speak English.\n\nFor an American there may be a lot Latin American immigrants, but there are Asian immigrants everywhere in the world.\n\nEast Asian languages might not be as widely available, but their populations are educated, travel a lot, and have [more native speakers than other European languages.](http://i.imgur.com/SDrGTr8.jpg)\n\n\n-Difficulty\n\nEast Asian languages are said to be notoriously hard by Europeans, but with technology in just the recent years it has become a lot easier. Chinese characters, hangul and Japanese writing systems can now be learned on your smartphone by playing games with apps like memrise or anki.\n\nA lot of European-language speakers complain about how complex European grammar tends to be, whereas East Asian grammar often is \u201clogical\u201d and straight to the point (with exceptions, as any language). \nIf you disclude writing systems, East Asian languages would be easier to learn as a spoken language than European ones for someone who has experience with neither.\n\n\n-Cultural benefits\n\nIt\u2019s almost as if their worlds are isolated from ours.\nLearning a widely different language helps us understand the structures of our own languages. Learning about a completely different culture helps us understand the uniqueness of our own culture. \n\nEuropean cultures are often so similar that we only tend to think of simple things as being differentiating between countries, but what makes us unique as westerners becomes much more apparent when compared to a country at the other side of the world.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: We need to do away with all the small countries in Europe and unite them as a single nation like the U.S, and later strive to turn all small countries into large, united tracts of land. + \n + Greetings!\n\nI've long held this belief and constantly fought with more patriotic members of my country (Hungary) over it, as they say it will lead to cultural decay.\n\nHowever, as far as my understanding of History goes, Humanity kept uniting into bigger and bigger groups.\n\nI'm not sure whether my order is correct, but it's merely to give an example of what I am seeing.\n\nFirst, families started working together as it was easier to hunt that way  \nThen, they started to form small tribal communities  \nThen, these tribal communities united into alliances and \"great tribes\"  \nThen, the tribes became petty kingdoms  \nThen, the petty kingdoms were either swallowed by a larger one, or swallowed the smaller ones.  \nThen, the kingdoms they formed kept absorbing the smaller communities that were similar in culture\n\nAnd then there are countries like the United States and Russia, both spanning almost entire continents or more. Likewise, they have the strongest presence as well. The United Kingdom had an equally great presence during its Imperial days, which it more or less managed to retain.\n\nI feel Europe could easily raise its economy to the third power if each current country paid its tax to a single, central government that viewed each part of the union equally, at most... with different strategies, investiture focuses.\n\nThe main counter arguement I see against an united Europe is cultural decay or incompatibility, but I do not understand how it would get in the way too much. Culture won't disappear just because people answer to a single elected government, neither will it disappear due to people wandering within the borders.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Ads on Hulu are no different from ads we've gotten on cable TV for decades, and people who complain about it are just spoiled. + \n + This is something that I just have such a hard time understanding.  For years we have been stuck with having cable or satellite subscriptions that are overly priced and force you to pay for large bundles of channels that you might not even want.  Streaming services like Hulu and Netflix have offered a great way to circumvent that process at a much more affordable price and are completely changing the way we view content.\n\nAnd yet I still see so many people getting so wound up over watching ads on Hulu.  My perception of their argument is this: \"I pay for Hulu, so I shouldn't have to see ads.\"  Maybe I'm over-simplifying it, but I just haven't seen any other viable argument that really says anything beyond that.\n\nNow, I should say I definitely understand hating ads.  I live in the city, and I can't walk ten feet out my door without someone trying to sell me something.  We are over-saturated by advertising and it's awful.  Thankfully with more options to block advertising on the internet, it's forcing advertisers to create ads that are more entertaining and feel less obtrusive (although, sometimes it does also force the opposite).\n\nBut even though I hate advertising as much as a lot of people do, I still recognize it as a vital part of what makes television work, and since I really like being able to know what happens on my favorite shows every week, I don't get my panties in a twist over it.\n\nI see a lot of people getting wound up who have little understanding of how a service like Hulu works.  I'm certainly not an expert either, but I have an understanding of how the licensing process works and how expensive it can be.  Netflix may be able to get by without ads, but Hulu offers something that Netflix doesn't: content from television that is current and has recently aired.\n\nNetflix usually won't provide new episodes of a show until an entire season is finished.  And even then, it might be a few months until even that happens.  The only current content they do have is their own original programming, which they can get away with because they own the licenses and don't have to pay any licensing fees or performance royalties to any outside production company.\n\nI've seen a lot of my favorite shows on Hulu have episodes be online just hours after it airs on live TV.  Since I dropped cable years ago, this is one of my favorite things about it.  I don't necessarily like that advertising is part of my subscription, but I also realize that Hulu has to license this content from production companies, who have had a history of being apprehensive when it comes to embracing changing technologies.  They are likely charging much higher licensing fees and royalties which means that Hulu in turns has to find other sources of income beyond subscription fees in order to make it work.  Not to mention that the networks themselves probably have their own fees since they probably have exclusivity deals with the production companies who make the programming.\n\nPeople are so quick to jump to the \"X company is a bunch of greedy corporate whores\" argument without understand the major complexities that go into making a service like Hulu work.  I'm sure Hulu is well aware that their subscribers don't like watching ads.  \"I don't like watching ads\" is even an option in their survey when you cancel your account.  People went on the same tirade when Netflix raised its prices, and I remember thinking the same thing then.\n\nI think that people's displeasure with advertising will ultimately shift services in the direction of removing advertising, but I still think that's a long way off.  Streaming services, despite being around for several years now, are still in their infancy in a lot of ways.  It's going to take a while to allow everyone to adapt and a lot of companies will be resistant to it in the hopes they can retain their old business models.  But I don't see any of this as the fault of Hulu for using advertising.\n\nSo my real curiosity here is to find an argument against Hulu's advertising that I haven't seen.  I see so many people upset about it, but I feel like my only understanding of their argument is that they're spoiled and don't want to see ads, which I recognize can be straw-manning on my part.  I'd like to see if someone can shift my bias and provide me some insight I'm not aware of.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe exiling people is a way better alternative than jail + \n + Coming from a country that used to do this a lot (Venezuela), I believe that it would be way better than using jailtime.\n\nA regular prisioner costs around 30 000 USD per year, and by exiling them out of the country not only do you save all that money, you also get rid of the part of the population that was breaking the law, the part you want to get rid off.\n\nIn the end I just believe that getting rid of criminals by exiling them rather than placing them in jail is cheaper, and better overall for the country. \n\n         \n         -For the many People asking about which countries would accept them consider this example: USA has a       several-times drug offender who could get 55 years of jail (1.6M USD) or be exiled to Uruguay. Uruguay can get this educated american and could benfit from having a better working and promote american immigration (This has happened before with Venezuela and Europe and it led to the best decade ever for the country), also many less competent countries promote more competent countries' immigration, which doesn't happen often, besides these countries also are often more open to many crimes that more competent nations are not      \n\n        -This is coming way too often, if you are skeptical of the fact that there are unfair, life long, jail sentences, here read [this] (http://famm.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Chart-All-Fed-MMs-NW.pdf) if TL;DR 1000 plants of cannabis, 1g of LSD, or 50g of meth can get you life sentence\n\n -This is in light of United States condemming Venezuela's Presidents decision to exile Leopoldo Lopez\n         \n-This post is reuploaded! thanks for the comments and keep them coming\n        \n- I'm not suggesting exiling serial killers or others of the sort, just for minor offences  (marijuana, prostitution, ect) sending them to places where this is legal and give them the option for jail or exile\n        \n          - Feel free to correct my grammar\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: guys and girls can NEVER be 'just friends' + \n + First Let me just say I am 16 and don't have much experience with how it is in the 'adult world'. But I don't think a 100% platonic relationship can exist between a straight male and a straight female. \n\nCan you think back to any friendship and say with absolute certainty that there was never even a hint of attraction? And even if you can, how do you know they don't or never haven't felt that way?\n\nIt doesn't even need to be acted on to affect the relationship. It often with subconsciously. From my personal experience, this sort of friendship doesn't exist. \n\nSo, change my view, Reddit! ", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Taylor Swift is the wrong person to be criticizing Apple, and her stance on streaming services in general is wrong. + \n + *(The following is a blog post I posted earlier today, but I wanted to get this forum's opinion as well.)*\n\nYesterday, Taylor Swift made headlines by releasing an open letter to Apple about its new streaming service, Apple Music, and the company\u2019s decision to give users a free three month trial period without compensating its artists. In an eternal testament to Swift\u2019s influence in the industry, Apple has already reversed its decision.\n\nThis isn\u2019t the first time Swift has taken an issue with a streaming service. Back in November, she pulled her music from Spotify, insisting that the service wasn\u2019t compensating its artists well enough. At first glance, this seems a fairly worthy cause for Swift to take up arms about. I highly doubt many people would disagree with the notion that artists deserve to be compensated for their work.\n\nHowever, I don\u2019t think Swift is being entirely honest in her intentions. To be clear, I\u2019m not defending Apple here. Even though it has the legal ability not to compensate its artists for those first three months, it\u2019s also more than capable of footing the bill. I have a strong suspicion that the quick reversal had more to do with the potential PR backlash than it did anything else. I think it was good that someone called Apple out on it; I just wonder if Swift was the right person to do it. Her crusade against Spotify (who was/is compensating its artists, just not enough for Swift) already makes it look less like a righteous protest against this specific policy from Apple Music, and more like she just hates streaming services cutting into her bottom line. This is especially true when she\u2019s pretty much the only major artist complaining.\n\nNot to mention the fact that despite the apparent comfort Swift has in speaking for all the struggling artists out there, she\u2019s probably less qualified than almost any other musician alive today. She moved to Nashville when she was 14 and spent two years working with some of the prolific and experienced songwriters in the world before releasing her debut album at the age of 16. That\u2019s a debut album which sold 40,000 copies in its first week, by the way. For someone speaking out in defense of new artists, the absurd advantages she\u2019s been given in the music world make her just about the least struggling artist imaginable. Swift quite simply doesn\u2019t understand what it\u2019s like to play a local music scene and hope she catches the eye of someone, or to sign on an indie label and hope a song sees some radio play. Swift, for all intents and purposes, was born with a silver spoon in her mouth. For her to act like she\u2019s the spokesperson for a group she\u2019s never been a part of and whose struggles she\u2019s never experienced\u2026 Well, it would be like a white woman becoming the head of an NAACP chapter.\n\nThat lack of experience as a struggling artist might help explain why she seems so ignorant to the idea of the need for exposure, as well. While the paycheck is certainly important, it\u2019s nothing without enough people hearing about you that they want to buy your music. Spotify and other services allow artists to get their name out there in a way that wasn\u2019t even possible 10 years ago. That doesn\u2019t give these services license to rip off artists, but many artists are simply happy to have the platform at all, regardless of the royalties being paid out. Given that she had the full PR hype machine of a major label behind her from day one, I\u2019d wager that exposure isn\u2019t really something she\u2019s ever had to worry about.\n\nThere\u2019s a whole argument about the nature of art and putting a price on it here, but that\u2019s an entire article on its own. More than anything else, what really bothers me about Swift\u2019s attitude is that she\u2019s completely ignoring the pretty large portion of the music-listening population who simply can\u2019t afford to go out and buy albums. Swift\u2019s fanbase is pretty heavily weighted towards adolescents, who are far less likely to be able to drop $9.99 on an album than say, the 23 year old college student with a job. For some, streaming from Spotify or Youtube is literally the only way they\u2019ll get to hear Swift\u2019s music (sans radio singles). In all of her protests against Spotify, she has completely and totally refused to acknowledge the kid with no job and no allowance who can\u2019t afford a copy of 1989.\n\nAnd really, it\u2019s all probably for naught anyway. Swift may have removed her music from Spotify, but piracy means there will always be a way to get her music for free, and with The Pirate Bay, she\u2019s not getting any royalties. I just hope she can afford some tissues to wipe her righteous tears with. $200 million isn\u2019t what it used to be.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: It is not worth the money it costs to conserve biodiversity + \n + I've been told this is a horrible viewpoint to hold, so I'm hoping someone can help me out.\n\nGenerally, I have seen a large focus on trying to stop human-caused biodiversity decline (\"Save the ____\").  While I understand that this is a noble cause, I do not believe that there is reasoning behind it besides simple morality.  People dump large amounts of money into urban planning being more environmentally friendly, but it seems as though, besides agriculture, we have little to gain from having a wide variety of species in urban and suburban areas.  I've read a fair amount on the topic, but I still have yet to find something that really changes my view.\n\nSo, please CMV.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Green power is the only way to go + \n + the name of the post says it all, I think the eco-friendly energy such as wind farms, solar, and hydro-electric power will benefit us in the long run. although most types of eco-friendly energy creation, as of now, tend to be more expensive to put in place I think that they will pay for themselves over tome and that they are also infinitely better than fossil fuels.  \nI also think that Hydroelectric is one of the best replacements for fossil fuels as more than 2/3rd of the world consists of water and many developing countries which rely heavily on fossil fuels in their industries have plenty of rivers and oceans whose energy they can harness; my main examples being india, china, and other asian countries. as well as this some african countries lay along rivers and are situated on coasts and this could help eliminate costs that come with transporting fuels for energy across the continent\n\nProve me wrong, change my view.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: \"Identity politics\" is really just a euphemism for pandering to bigotry + \n + When I hear arguments based in or supporting identity politics, it just has more of a ring to it of group-superiorism or \"two wrongs will make it right\" type reasoning than of civil rights movement-style egalitarianism. \n\nA real-life example of the phenomenon to which I'm referring is located [here](http://damemagazine.com/2015/04/14/i-am-voting-my-vagina-hillary-clinton-president). In this editorial, the author defends voting for Hillary Clinton specifically because of their shared gender. \n\nPlease, change my view, if you can, that identity politics of this sort is just a euphemism for a trendy, politically correct style of bigotry.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: What's the benefit / point of \"seniority\" rule vs merit? (specifically around pay) + \n + This is of course often pointed out in unionized environment, I never get the point of \"seniority\" rules, more specifically around pay and opportunities\n\nWhy should one be paid more simply because they have been around longer? Why can't we simply pay (and give raises / bonus, etc) simply based on merit?\n\nOften the argument I've seen is that \"people who are more senior (been there longer) know better through experience\" - well, if this is true, then they should have no problem with merit-based rule since they know better, they will be equally (or even better) rewarded based on their merit.\n\nSeniority seems like taking away any incentive of actually improving oneself and doing better. One simply need *to be there* (and probably do the minimum and don't do anything stupid to get fired) ... If everybody collectively do this - then society will never progress because nobody will have the incentive to do better.\n\nIf you have a young, smart, sharp, enthusiastic, passionate, etc worker who actually *producing better results* than their older compatriot (often times because older worker likes to keep \"status quo\" and refuse to take advantage of the latest / greatest tool to make things better) - why wouldn't we want to reward these younger workers? Why do we hold back their progress simply because they haven't been around long enough?\n\nTake for example: teachers union where young teachers often having a lot of trouble getting jobs whereas there are a lot of old-soon-to-retire teachers who really don't give a sh*t anymore about their work ... there are a lot of younger teachers who are very enthusiastic about teaching and they are more \"in touch\" with what the kids doing these days, which likely to better equipped them to keep up and in turn, make them better teachers. Yet, the way unionized environment work - these younger teachers are being hold back because of seniority.\n\nI am not talking about ageism and getting rid of older workers here - I am simply talking about rewarding people based on merit *regardless* of their \"seniority rank\".\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Other countries should follow France and ban the use of burqas. + \n + Note: I don't fully believe they should be banned, but I'm conflicted on my view here. \nI live in Colorado so my personal experience with women in burqas is 0, this is probably why I feel this way. Anyway, here are some of my justifications:\n\nWearing a burqa steals the wearers identity. Without the ability to read facial/body expressions, interaction with somebody wearing a burqa is mysterious. \n\nThe ability to commit crime and be unrecognizable. \n\nSo I've reached the end of the post. The little substance to support my argument has made me realize that I might just be xenophobic. I'm still going to post this in hopes somebody can offer some personal experience/belief. ", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: People who leave their hometown after High School do better in adulthood + \n + I don't have any statistical evidence, only anecdotal experience.  However, in discussing with my friends and stalking high school acquaintances on Facebook, I see a very strong correlation between people who are successful in life (well paying jobs, more stable marriages, waiting to have children until the can support a family) and people who left their hometown after high school - whether for college, military, or for work.  This is doubly true for people who not only left their hometown, but left their hometown not to the same state school that everyone else from my high school went to.\n\nI'm willing to listen to other opinions or evidence, but it seems that by people leaving their childhood friends and family that they become more stable and responsible adults.  A necessary consequence of this is that I always encourage teenagers to go to colleges away from home and not someplace where all of their friends are going.  Forcing someone to meet new people, re-invent themselves, and discovering how to stand on their own as an adult is in general a healthy thing to do even if it requires taking on a manageable amount of student debt vs. living at home and going to the local college.  \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I find hunting inherently disrespectful to animals + \n + With the recent killing of Cecil the Lion, I've heard people say things along the lines of \"this isn't hunting, as a hunter I find that guy repulsive\" and I see where they're coming from. That all makes sense. But I've heard people say how when they hunt, they believe in keeping it respectful to the animal, and I've even heard hunters say they find taxidermy respectful to the animal.\n\nI personally think that if you're going kill an animal, it's inherently disrespectful to the animal (unless you're putting it out of misery like it's been hurt badly and is suffering). Even if an animal is killed painlessly, it's still obviously in their interests to not die. In fact just about every action and impulse an animal has is from the interest of survival.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Random encounters, like in the Final Fantasy series, are a bad game mechanic. + \n + so random battles that just happen with no warning, while you're walking, just like, warpy screen, you're in a battle now stuff. this really only applies to turn based games, in fact, i don't know of any real time games that have this system of enemy encounters. i don't think they have the need. \n\nit's annoying as hell. you take 4 steps after getting out of a battle, and arrive in another one that the run functino won't work for and you start taking damage, and then you can't escape again so you take more damage, and that just starts a whole snowball of \"oh my god fuck this shit.\" meanwhile, the battles themselves are just often an unnecessary, repetitive, near useless way to grind. the millionth time we saw a zubat in pokemon, it. it wasn't really doing anything for us.\n\nwith an rpg game, the logic seems simple enough, i guess - there's a turn based system of combat, and there needs to be a way to trigger the combat screen from the overworld. and it shouldn't necessarily be purely predictable, should it? the player needs to progress and level up so they can meet their bigger challenges in the future. putting aside the discussion about other games mechanics and why in some cases it works much worse than others - there's just better, non annoying ways of doing that now. off the top of my head, paper mario on n64 had visible enemy mobs walking around. if you collided with them, you started a battle. that makes *much* more sense. it's not annoying. it doesn't happen every five steps. it doesn't come out of nowhere. it still accomplishes the same purpose that random encounters do. invisible enemies starting a 5 second battle transition, with a chance that you can't run, especially if you're in over your head and trying to get out of an area, with no ability to see it coming, no warning, no possibility of avoiding it, is just, bad. especially when even something like the paper mario system exists. at least that way, if you have no items, and are on your way back to somewhere because you're too injured, you have a chance of maybe avoiding the enemy mobs.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: In software development; and in other fields involving extended thought-work that depends on focus and concentration; there is no value in having coworkers to interact with face to face - and in fact, distractions created that way are counter-productive + \n + I believe this comic expresses the argument most cogently:\n\nhttp://heeris.id.au/2013/this-is-why-you-shouldnt-interrupt-a-programmer/\n\nNow, to my wall of text:\n\nI run a small software company that's reasonably successful. I've been doing this for the past 15 years.\n\nI've been employing people for years that I have never met \u2014 and quite possibly never will meet.\n\nLast time I met any of my developers face to face was maybe 6 years ago.\n\nI perceive no value whatsoever in meeting face to face. None.\n\nWorking together in an office is an impediment to getting work done, and is a source of constant interruption.\n\nEmail is generally better for productivity than face to face contact, or instant messaging.\n\nBoth face to face contact, and instant messaging, are distractions, and are useful primarily in the situation that you cannot progress on anything without immediate input. Such situations are extraordinary.\n\nThe people I meet face to face in my life are my wife, my son, and our nanny. I don't have a social need for more.\n\nI believe people who think they need face to face contact for work in software development are either confusing social needs with work \u2014 or possibly, I would fear, aren't competent to work on their own. Or maybe they're involved in some kind of work that involves extraordinary synchronization \u2014 the kind of which I do not know.\n\nIf someone can't work independently, and must constantly interrupt other developers, I would consider them a burden, rather than an asset. To be an asset, one must be able to get work done on one's own, and coordinate as necessary.\n\nIn fact, I would go so far as to say that, if you're not going to physically touch the other person, there is nothing you can do in a face to face meeting that you cannot do online.\n\nThere's literally no reason to meet unless you're going to kiss, or have sex, or give a person a massage.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do. + \n + I want to start by I believe we made horrible mistakes once we entered Iraq. The biggest being the dissolution of the Iraq army and the laws that were passed to essentially keep them out, there were many many more but this is the biggest.\n\n\n\nThe invasion of Iraq was a good thing in these ways. Sadaam was a true representation of evil. All of his evils need not be explained one by one, but I think it's universally held he was evil and poison to the country he was ruling.\n\n\n\n As far as WMD, bush had conflicting reports as to whether they were there or not. Even if the reports leaned in the favor he did not presently own, there was evidence he had been trying to obtain WMD. Should we wait till he had obtained such to invade where he would surely use his obtained WMD in war? He also has the history of using WMD in war. He also stated in his trial, he did give the illusion to having WMD because he was worried if he didn't and it was known Iran would invade. He also I believe in 1998, not sure this exact year, refused to cooperate with having people come into the country to examine if he had WMD or not something he agreed to do in the early 90's.\n\n\n\nHe was also giving diplomatic immunity to terrorist and war criminals. He might not have had direct ties to bin laden but was aiding other terrorist and war criminals in other ways. The war on terror was not just about bin laden but to all terrorist organizations. \n\n\n\n\nTo summarize, He wAs a terrible person to be in power, giving the illusion he had WMD by his own admission and history of being willing to use such, and aiding terrorist and war criminals. This was a good thing to strip him of his power. With that said we made many mistakes after the invasion. As far as setting up the governing body, dissolving the iraq army,etc. but as far as the decision to invade it was the right thing to do, and it lessened the places terror could operate in that part of the world. Also showing USA would not tolerate these many threats, not one or two, as other leaders have done,  but the many violations sadaam has committed will not be tolerated. Change my views\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: European style pooping is the worst way to go to the bathroom + \n + 1. Squatting is more comfortable, easier and healthier than sitting. it creates less stress on the the puborectalis muscle allowing for a smoother uninterrupted experience. it plays well with gravity so less pressure is needed and lowers the risk of cancer and other ailments.\n\n2. Toilet paper is messy, expensive and damages the environment. When washed properly the use of your hand is preferable to toilet paper, It might sound disgusting but when you think about it using a thin piece of frail paper to smear around fecal matter with no water or soap is even worse. \n\n3. Modern europen toilets are large, bulky and complex. They take more space, require more maintenance and are ultimately dirtier as butts keep touching them.  \n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is no such thing as good frozen pizza. + \n + Where a restaurant's pizza quality can range from amazing to average, frozen pizza ranges from average to inedible.  There is no overlap; even the very best frozen pizza isn't as good as the worst pizza you can find in a restaurant.\n\nI have searched for years trying to find frozen pizza that's half as good as even Little Caesar's, but to no avail.  I've come to terms with the fact that every variety has low-quality sauce and not enough cheese.  What I can't stand, however, and definitely the most common flaw, is the terrible, *terrible* crust, which ends up either undercooked or bone dry, without fail.\n\nI understand that pizza can only be properly cooked using a pizza stone, but it completely baffles me that this is the best we can do without one in 2015.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The art of conversation and salesmanship is dead. + \n + \nAs technology continues to progress, one thing that has started to become a lost art has been the face to face conversation. Typically there is a gap between old school folks who did not grow up with technology and the average 18 year old who was awarded the entire worlds information since likely age five. The art of conversation is becoming more and more rare. Reaction based conversation is uncommon. Anyone can come up with a perfectly crafted response if given enough time to do so, which is why it is hard to identify genuine people.\nGone are the days of yesteryear. The loyalty that people used to have to not only each other, but companies no longer exist. Pensions and not trying to spark a political debate but social security might not exist some where down the line. So we have older folks with financial security that won't be seen again with the new generations... We also have the folks who graduated around 2000 who grew up without technology but also with it and seem to be the bridge between the two generations. How do those people maximize their value?\nEach generation loses something, there is a human element that today's generation seems to have lost. They are exposed to and are comfortable with all kinds of technology but there is a human aspect that is disappearing with each generation. At some point the value of experiencing the world and society in person , versus just reading about it online has to amount to something. Salesmanship has become a lost art and I am writing this post to see if anyone strongly agrees or disagrees with me. The art of salesmanship seems to be disappearing.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:HAES (healthy at every size) is a horrible idea enabling people who are unhealthy to remain that way causing more of a burden on society. + \n + \nI recently learned about the healthy at every size movement, I thought it was a joke at first but I did a bit of digging and found out it's an actual thing. \n\nI know people can have all types of bodies and still be healthy ect and that BMI is in a technical way a poor indicator of health however someone who is clearly overweight/obese/morbidly obese being told by others that they are healthy is not only unethical it's unfair to that person.\n\nIf someone who is obese and has a very poor grasp of medicine and health having someone lie to them and tell them they're not unhealthy and indeed of weight loss is enabling and tantamount to telling a drug addict that they are healthy while abusing their substance of choice, the substance in this case being food.\n\nThe HAES movement is doing absolutely nothing but encourage an unhealthy lifestyle that will be a burden on society the medical system and their families. \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Men are more prone to be pedophiles than women. + \n + I'm sure there are sexual child predators who are women, but statistics show that they are overwhelmingly men. \n\nIt even seems in every online confession, it's a man, young man, teenage boy, etc... who seems to have come to a realization that he is sexually interested in prepubescent children AKA pedophilia. \n\nMy personal belief is that it's because men have penises (biological urge for sexual release) and higher levels of testosterone. And that sort of sexual potency may make everything or everyone seem like a sexual outlet. \n\nThat is my intuitive understanding of the phenomena. \n\n\nI am aware that a pedophile is not a predator if he/she does not act on those urges. \n\nMy OP is speculating as to **why more men than women seem to IDENTIFY as pedophiles?** Why do more men, than women seem to be sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children?", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: James Holmes Should Be Executed + \n + I am not a death penalty advocate. I realize and acknowledge the dangers of state executions and the danger to innocents. However, James Holmes is guilty. Beyond any reasonable doubt... He took the lives of many others in his madness. Why should we be forced to pay for his food, housing, healthcare, etc... for the rest of his life, as taxpayers? Is this not salt in the wounds of the victims and their families? \n\nIn clear cut cases of mass murder, what is to gain from sustaining these sick minds in a prison cell? Doesn't this just encourage the system of incarceration? I mean, it seems the prison/court system has a clearcut monetary incentive for lifelong incarceration over execution.  \n---", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is no more effective method of archival/preservation than mass piracy. + \n + During the first week alone [32 million people](https://torrentfreak.com/game-of-thrones-piracy-surges-to-new-high-150422/) downloaded a copy of a Game of Thrones episode. Even if only 1% of those people keep the file they downloaded after they watch it it's still an amazing 320k - it's a pretty safe bet that possibly hundreds of years from now we'll still be able to watch that show. \nAt no point in history has it ever been easier to ensure archival and preservation due to digital mediums, and yet by applying copyright protections the content makers are doing nothing more than ensuring their great works might be lost to the ages.\n\nIt's not too hard to believe something like this might be lost - only 46 years ago millions of people *watched* the moon landing on TV, but almost no one had the technical means to have their own recording of it. Here we are now with the [original tapes missing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes) - sure we have a recording, but think of how much better recordings we might have if (like today) people could have made their own high-end home recordings at least matching the quality of the original broadcast.\nA very similar story can be said about the [missing Dr. Who epsiodes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_missing_episodes)  - of which [some were recovered thanks to piracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_missing_episodes#Private_collectors)\n\n500+ years from now - I think the only copies of some uncommon films going to be some pirated copy taken out of a private archive, of which copyright protection had to be illegally circumvented to make.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: People who enjoy horror movies are crazy and should be in asylums. + \n + I don't understand why people would enjoy watching anything with other humans they can relate to suffering and dying. I just don't get it. This goes for horror movies, /r/watchpeopledie, or just some TVshow with abnormal violence like my beloved games of thrones or Walking Dead (never watched though). I can't stand watching a scene when someone is suffering for \"free\", but so far in my life I felt like the only one feeling disturbed in those moment; so far, everyone I know has no problem watching. But I keep thinking I am the normal one and people should not enjoy (it sounds weird but I am not forbidding people to do anything. People should not enjoy drinking bleach. But if you want to drink a full bottle I have no problem with that). \n\nOn the front page right now, there is a r/WTF link with 4k upvote (or score): 3972 Man Still Alive After being Cut in half by train [NSFL].\nI think you would have to pay me something like 1k$ to have me click on this link. But 4k people clicking on it **and recommending it to others**, I don't understand. Whatever gore picture is behind this, is it fun ? What is the motivation, the enjoyment ?\n\nI guess I should be a bit more clear, why would people choose to feel fear (like in horror movie, from which windows is the killer going to come from ?) or feel sick (let's see some dead body in a bad condition but with blood everywhere) when they could avoid that ? Isn't that madness/psychopath demeanor ?\n\nPS: The asylum thing is of course exagerated.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Climate change effort is a red herring and humanity is doomed to extinction due to stubbornness and backwards thinkers. + \n + The issue is more prevalent now more than ever and conservative senators (i.e. TED CRUZ) are pushing to shut down NASA's climate research to push their agenda of denial. Pretty much everyone I know drives to work, doesn't carpool, and fills up at least twice a week. In addition there's hardly any mention or raised awareness about the situation in the news. I'm convinced that scientists are aware that people don't care and know that our grandchildren are doomed to an inhospitable planet. My parents and I are almost ready to give up conserving energy and raising awareness. I'm dead tired of rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. We've hit the iceberg and everyone around me is pretending there's no water in the hull while they dump buckets onto the deck.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think being proud of your race is ridiculous. + \n + Disclaimer: i'm an American middle class white girl, so no one cares what i have to say about race.\n\nNow that that's been said, i just think the concept of being proud of your race doesn't make any sense. You were born with your skin a different color than someone else's, why does that make you special? Maybe it's just because I think the concept of race is stupid (biologically speaking, it doesn't exist), but i don't think your race should differentiate you from anyone else, for better or worse.\n\nRight now, there's a kiosk at a store I frequent selling \"black art.\" Some of it is African, some of it is art of significant black Americans, some of it is related to traditionally black fraternities and sororities. The only thing connecting these pieces of art is the color of the skin of the artist. Why does that matter?\n\nI think the problem here is that i just don't understand. Can y'all help change my view and help me understand why people would be proud of the color of their skin?", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The writers of Charlie Hebdo are heroes, and those who do not recognize this are ignorant fools + \n + At the beginning of this year, multiple staff members at Charlie Hebdo were slaughtered in their offices. The reason for their murders were due to cartoons they published - satirizing the prophet Muhammed. Whilst the majority of people I've seen have been firmly in Charlie Hebdo's camp, there seems to be a noticeable backlash against Charlie Hebdo and some of the things they've done - to the extent that people have protested against PEN's (a freedom of speech organisation) decision to award them honours. I want to address some of these claims.\n\nA Guardian article recently had this to say about CH:\n\n\nFirst issue - this is a complete dehumanization of the staff who lost their lives that day. Suddenly, a murder becomes a narrative; that way, we don't have to see it as a crime. Furthermore, I imagine that Mustapha Ourad, copy editor of Charlie Hebdo, would be surprised to hear that he is white (if he were alive to hear it).\n\nThere are these claims that the writers at CH are racists (a claim that is demonstrably wrong, as I shall go on to explain), who oppress 'marginalized' peoples with cartoons. I suppose the people who make these claims either simply ignore, or do not see, the fact that the people who killed the cartoonists are very, very, very obviously racists themselves - demonstrated by their targeting of a Jewish community following the attack on CH - making them authentic, evidently racist killers. No one mentions that part of the 'narrative', do they?\n\nThe claim that CH is racist is an absurd one. I'll demonstrate why. Take this image from the [New Yorker](http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/files/2015/04/original.jpg). Say you knew nothing of The New Yorker or wider US culture. What do you think this image conveys? That the New Yorker thinks Obama is a terrorist - that would be the only logical conclusion you could deduce.\n\nThe real purpose of that image is to parody the extreme right wingers of US politics and their claims about Obama - tea party claims that he is a terrorist, muslim, and unable to stand for presidency. To understand this, you require an understanding of current US political culture.\n\nNow, take this [widely circulated cover of CH's apparent racism](https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2925558/CHARLIE-HEBDO.0.jpg). It shows Boko Haram sex slaves shouting 'Don't touch our welfare'. Now, imagine you have no understanding of Frances wider political culture of CH. What do you think this image conveys? That CH is a racist, right wing magazine.\n\nNow, if you *did* happen to possess an understanding of Charlie Hebdo and France's wider political culture; you'd immediately understand that the image is doing something extremely similar to the one on the New Yorker. It's parodying the extreme paranoia of the right wing, anti immigration parties that began to arise in France by displaying enslaved, pregnant, Boko Haram sex slaves invading France and taking their money.\n\nAnyone with any understanding of French culture and CH know for a fact that CH is a left wing magazine that has routinely expressed their desire for immigrants to remain in their country, and that the rights of immigrants be respected. Ignorant people with no prior knowledge of parisian culture, of the history of CH, make these absurd, disgusting, disrespectful claims about CH.\n\n\nFirstly, if attacking 'marginalized peoples' is such a major issue - then their would be zero criticism, parody, or satire from the left aimed at the working class peoples who voted for the Tea Party, Ukip, of the French NF. Is that the case? If Tea Partiers, or the French NF, had gunned down CH - would their be claims that CH's vicious attacks on their ideology lay hold to the blame of the attacks? Would that argument be defended?\n\nThe people who argue this way must therefore agree that there is an Islamic blasphemy law that is enforced at gunpoint - regardless of whether a population wants it - and that you are to blame if you are slaughtered for saying something other people don't like.\n\nCharlie Hebdo was a beacon of light, a welcome friend, and an invaluable ally to moderate and liberal Muslims across the globe. \n\n\nIslam has no special place. It should receive the same level of parody, criticism, satire, and insults that every other religion and ideology has - if not more so given it's followers reluctance to accept this. It's followers have no right to demand people not to write this way. Muslims have zero right to murder those who don't believe the same things as they do, or insult the things they believe. Muslims who support those who commit these murders are equally as disgusting and retched as those who commit them. \n\n\nYou also shouldn't kill people. This is not an argument I take seriously - Islam *needs* criticism, parody, and satire, and muslims need to see it, in order to understand that in Western Countries, this is an important aspect of our culture. Islam is not above reproach, it is not above satire. The reason for the killings given doesn't even make sense anyway - Islam restricts muslims from drawing Muhammed. Non-muslims can draw whatever they want.\n\nI understand there are people who do not agree with CH. I'm imploring you to explain to me why I'm incorrect in my support for them.\n\n\n\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe that Islam is an inherently violent religion that is incompatible with Western society and for moral and ethical reasons must be non-violently eradicated. + \n + Hello /r/changemyview, I'm here today because I believe Islam is an inherently intolerant religion that not only condones violence against non believers but actually commands it. To this end I believe that Islam will never be able to fully reconcile with the West and that humans in general have a moral and ethical responsibility to eradicate it. Of course I do not condone violent means. Quite frankly I believe that if the US and other 1st world secular countries (such as in Europe) began to fund universities all over the Middle East that Islam would fall apart naturally, as its persistence throughout the world is predicated upon ignorance and the valuing of the Ummah above all else. That being out of the way, Id like to breakdown my indictment of Islam into three main points:\n\n1. The first is the Islamic theology of abrogation, which is the idea that God can contradict Himself and change reality from the rules He previously set; this is dangerous for many reasons - one can argue that the surah saying to respect other people is chronologically prior to God's commandment to destroy the infidels. \n\n2. I would say is the ummah (=nation), which is actually a departing from the Semitic thought of what a community was until that point (Syriac and Christian Arabs use the word for \"people\" instead). The very idea of the Ummah creates an unreconcilable \"us v. them\" mentality, inherently incompatible with multiculturalism or even coexistence. It also perpetuates ideas of petty tribalism and poverty (by denouncing the importance of education and societal advancement in benefit of reproduction and growing the Ummah). Which yields the last -\n\n3. Jihad is much more dangerous than people think, despite it being a buzz word. Jihad as-saif, or \"struggle of the sword\", is the idea that anyone in the common body of Islam is obliged to join in physical resistance against infidels anywhere they threaten Islam. This is basically the theological justification of the aggression of Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, ISIS, etc. It's very dangerous because the Western mind compartmentalizes groups into nations - this transcends national boundaries because many Islamic fundamentalists deny states even legitimately exist. So for instance when Afghanistan was fighting against the USSR, there were muslims from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Morocco, etc. fighting for Islam in Afghanistan. Likewise, these same countries (even muslims from the US and Britain) have joined in fighting those they view as evil secular leaders, such as Bashar al-Assad.\n\nI know what most of you will respond, that I am a bigot who cannot see over the shortcomings of other Abrahamic faiths like Christianity and Judaism, and that just as many atrocities have been committed under those faiths. I would say to you that these acts were committed by representatives of the faith but not sanctioned by the faith. Christianity itself dos not sanction violence, but Islam does. Jesus taught to love your enemies, and Mohammed sought to destroy them. This leaves no room for interpretation and very specifically calls all Muslims to fight against enemies of the faith (read: Non-Muslims) wherever they may be.\n\nWith regard to my three points, people would argue that the first point is not an issue because Islam knows the proper order of the Surat, and that the only reason why God commanded Mohammed to kill everyone is because they were threatened and it is analogous to the Israelites being commanded to fight surrounding tribes. To this I would emphatically say \"Yea, right.\"\n\nTo my second point, they would say that nothing about the idea of the Ummah excludes non-Muslims, they're just not equal, but that's every religious society. They might even go so far as to say that the Ummah isn't even necessary for Islam, just Muslim dominant countries. I passionately disagree with this, and Islam CANNOT exist as a minority religion anywhere by its own nature. Wherever it exists it seeks to establish Sharia, and must be the ruling religion at least by its own mechanics. I don't have the source here but a recent survey stated for instance that 4 out of 10 Muslims in the UK seek to institute Sharia law. And there are already muslim arbitrated courthouses in the country. This desire to force sharia is not a product of extremism but rather an actual tennet of the faith, and that difference is crucial.\n\nLastly they would say that jihad as saif is only one type of jihad (the one normally portrayed in the media) and that only extremists would commit this act. To them I would say that they are bad Muslims because technically their prophet and hadith commands this form. M Surah 9:5, also known as the Verse of the Sword, proves this.\nWell that isn't a very strong argument just because Christianity doesn't inherently sanction use of violence, more so examples like the crusades were a specific historical incident (not to mention they killed other Christians, sacking Constantinople and killing many Greeks, Copts and Syriacs whereas at least Copts and Syriacs have lived centuries under the yoke of Islam with no theology of violent reaction).\n\nIslam is very much a material reality of political philosophy. No one is an Islamic theologian; the biggest names in Islam are Sharia interpreters. Islam's entire existence supervenes on the ruling of the Ummah, whereas Christianity can exist in Christian countries or in pagan countries.\n\nMany moderate and so called \"modern Muslims\" would no doubt be offended by what I'm saying, and assert that I am touching on only the extreme points of the faith and that most Muslims don't practice these things. To them I would say unapologetically, you are bad Muslims. Let me unpack that statement. I do not mean to say they are bad people, and in fact I find their modernism and willingness to compromise refreshing. However, they are \"bad\" Muslims in the sense that they are not following a path that their faith is explicitly calling them down. Most modern Muslims are humanists, and their faith is more of an inherited cultural identity than anything else.\n\nBack to extremism. There are many modern nations where Islam exists in the minority, such as the USA and Europe, and it is relatively tolerated. I do not know an example of a Islamic majority country where minority religions exist without a noticeable and tangible degree of persecution.\n\nSo reddit, CMV.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:I believe European countries should only take in female refugees + \n + This post is about Europe because that is the only context I am familiar enough to argue about. Feel free to bring up other contexts, though. \n\nI believe Europe should only take in female refugees due to three reasons. Women and girls are harmed far worse in the conflicts and in the refugee camps than men and boys are. The receiving countries suffer from the violence and criminality of those refugees who fail to integrate, and lastly having clear lines on who can enter and can not does not create false hope and unnecessary deaths. At the moment refugees are over 70% male, which in practice means we mostly ignore the most vulnerable population.\n\nhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Share_of_male_(non-EU)_asylum_applicants_in_the_EU-28,_by_age_group_and_status_of_minors,_2014_(%25)_YB15_III.png\n\nWomen are the primary victims of these conflicts:\n\nhttp://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c1d9.html\n\n\nhttp://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/jan/24/syrian-women-refugees-risk-sexual-exploitation\n\n\nhttp://www.ibtimes.com/syrian-refugee-crisis-girls-sold-sex-slaves-aged-wealthy-arabs-1589863\n\nSome reports have found that 95% of refugee women have been raped:\n\nhttps://books.google.fi/books?id=DMOD6bRtMl8C&pg=RA2-PA194&lpg=RA2-PA194&dq=women+refugee+feminism&source=bl&ots=ou_oE3IbIO&sig=8AnyFCzgJilHzmtYo1gSfjykTh8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBGoVChMI--iR-KO6xwIVyJ5yCh3XVQl3#v=onepage&q=women%20refugee%20feminism&f=false\n\nCrime. Higher criminality of men is well known.\n\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_crime\n\nAs is that of immigrants and refugees from poor countries.\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime\n\nRecently Sweden Democrats, an anti-immigrant party polled as the largest party in Sweden, after an asylum seeker murdered two people in Ikea for no apparent reason. The debate about refugee criminality seems to be leading many to rather extreme positions. Since women commit next to no sex and violent crime, especially in patriarchal cultures, this would relieve some of the fears of the native populations.\n\nThe last argument is admittedly weak. People are very bad at probabilities. Therefore it might be best not to take in men at all, as that would create false hope and cause many of them to risk their lives and property in hopes of an asylum. From a cost perspective, it would be easier and faster to automatically deport all men. Some family exceptions would of course be appropriate.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: CMV: Unless you're vegan, you have absolutely no justifiable reason to be upset about this Cecil the Lion business. + \n + Vegans have every right to get upset about someone senselessly murdering a majestic animal just for the hell of it.  But if you eat meat, fish, poultry, or eggs, then you can just take your self-righteous \"animal rights\" non-sense and shove it.\n\nLet me be clear, I'm not vegan.  I eat meat regularly though probably less frequently than most Americans.  I'm also not really upset about this dude who bought a permit and license to hunt a lion and then went ahead and killed one.  I wish he hadn't; I think it's messed up that this sort of thing even exists; I wouldn't do it in a million years.  \n\nBut, I also understand that I morally don't have the right to be upset about one animal being murdered for the enjoyment of a human if my habits actively encourage the murder of literally billions of animals each year, simply because bacon tastes good.  Pork chops taste good, too.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Non-white races are (intentionally or unintentionally), marginalized by social engineering. + \n + https://www.reddit.com/r/AsianMasculinity/comments/37da2i/word_of_the_day_social_engineering/\n\nThis post makes a very compelling point with tons of evidence to back up the stance. Compensating for individual biases, this still makes sense in my mind.\n\nAs a minority, I have felt the effects of social engineering firsthand. Asian achieves academically? Expected. White achieves academically? Studious, hard working, brilliant. Media headlines such as \"Asians too smart for their own good\" (Ivy league schools refuse high-scoring Asians) come with subtle implications that the Asian identity is attached to intelligence.\n\nFurthermore, look at Hollywood. Positive Asian male role models: Sung Kang? Most films in Hollywood that cast Asians cast them in one of these roles:\n\n* Nerd\n* Joker\n* Hardworking worker, but not leader\n* Involved in organized crime (is antagonist/evil-protagonist)\n\nMeanwhile, most Asian women are cast as the \"prize\" for the dominant white lead role. For example, Hugh Jackman and Tao Okamoto in \"The Wolverine.\" One could argue that Rila Fukushima was cast to demonstrate a strong, independent female role model, but that doesn't change the fact that the romantic interest was obviously forcefully written into the film like an afterthought in order to generate revenue.\n\nThis is just some of my experience as an Canadian Asian. Based on my understanding of black stereotypes, black people must experience a similar kind of racism, but reversed. The analysis of the dichotomic nature of asian racism vs black racism in the linked post is very accurate, in my opinion.\n\nCMV?", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Handwriting/Cursive is an important skill that should be taught throughout a minor's schooling. + \n + I spend my summer as a representative of the college I attend and interact regularly with kids between the ages of 10 and 18. In these interactions, I have noticed that - regardless of age and gender, these kids are often unable to write in cursive and sometimes even their print Handwriting is hardly legible.\nNow, I realize that we live in the digital age and typing is king (I think touch typing should also be taught), but I believe that learning handwriting from an early age (and throughout even high school) has several benefits including...\n1) Improved sense of symmetry and order\n2) Improved appreciation for art of different time periods\n3) Larger/more diverse vocabulary\n4) Prepares users for the business world where signatures and other handwritten items are still fairly common\n\nMaybe I'm old-fashioned, but I really think good Handwriting is useful even in the digital age.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Feminists should change their title (maybe to egalitarians) to disassociate themselves from the extremists. + \n + First, I know \"egalitarian\" is a long word, a lot of people don't know what it means, and it doesn't have the history nor the recognition that the word \"feminism\" has, but I feel like it's time for a change. \n\nThe internet has caused a lot of voices that may otherwise be drowned out come to the forefront, such as the feminist extremists (or \"feminazis\" if you will). It seems that because of this many people are being turned off by the idea of feminism (myself included) because they associate that word with the people that blame all of life's problems on the patriarchy. \n\nMy friends are starting to joke about feminism and I see more people mocking it every day. I believe it is due to the extremists, and how polarizing and antagonistic a lot of their views are. This stubbornness to stick to the name is causing a lot of people to dismiss, or even despise, the movement and is hurting it's support. I feel that if true feminists were willing to distance themselves from the \"feminazis\" it would stop a lot of animosity people have towards them. \n\nThis might end up being as simple as calling it something different, because maybe the only ones that would keep the term \"feminism\" would be the extremists. They might want to retain the name so as to not give in or lose the fight. Of course there is no way of telling, and they may very well go along with the \"true feminists\" and call themselves egalitarian anyways. \n\nIn either case, I feel like it would be beneficial to cause a clear divide between feminists and feminazis in order to garner more support and to have feminist ideas to be taken more seriously.\n\nChange my view guys!", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: As an uninformed citizen, I shouldn't be allowed to vote. + \n + **Update! See Edit #2 below!**\n\nI don't know much about politics. I have a pretty poor understanding of real world economics. I don't follow world events or watch the news. I generally don't bother to keep track of what's going on in the world unless it impacts me directly, or maybe I think there's something meaningful I can do to change it to my own benefit (which has never actually come up).\n\nWhen it comes to who should be elected in any local, state or federal capacity, or what laws should or should not be passed, I am simply not a qualified to provide input on any level.\n\nSo why am I allowed to vote?\n\nChanging my view may require addressing the following positions of mine:\n\n* If one wishes to cast any kind of vote related to government or legislation, one should be required to complete some sort of test to confirm that they understand the subject on which they are voting. This could include acknowledgment of a candidate's qualifications and positions, or the *actual content* of a particular bill. This has the added benefit of rendering wild claims and accusations made by the media, random bloggers, etc. less impactful on the views of the general public. *Note: Regarding this point, I don't want to discuss the specific content of such tests. As a rule, I believe it can be known what is true and what isn't, and so let's assume that the pre-vote tests won't contain personal opinions or interpretations of the subject.*\n\n* If voting is limited to only citizens deemed \"qualified\" by some form of the process described in the previous bullet point, the general outcome is more likely to be better (e.g. the people are more likely to choose a candidate they will still approve of a year later, and there will be less confusion regarding what is contained in proposed bills, etc.).\n\n* The \"right to vote\" should be a privilege that I am not entitled to if I'm not even going to take the time to research the subject.\n\nChange my view by convincing me that, as a 29 year old citizen of the United States of America, I deserve to be able to vote on important matters and issues without doing any research or showing that I understand what I'm voting for/against.\n\n\n\nMy view is that, assuming we *could* somehow successfully identify qualified individuals for a given subject and restrict the polls to only these people, it would be advantageous to do so at the expense of the (Constitutional?) right to uninformed voting.\n\nIn general, I feel that it's justifiable to say that no American citizen should be allowed to cast a vote regarding a subject about which he/she doesn't have a clear and accurate understanding.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: \"equal rights, equal lefts\" isn't about equality, it's about violence + \n + A common meme among MRAs and the \"pussy pass\" crowd is that whenever a woman hits a man in some way and then gets hit back, it's \"equality\" in action because society sees violence against women as more important than violence against men.  \n\nA shorthand catch phrase that expresses this is \"equal rights, equal lefts\" which implies that if women want to be treated equally they should expect to be hit back if they hit someone else.  \n\nI disagree that this is about equality at all.  \n\n1) Overwhelmingly, in cases where this concept is used on reddit, the man used disproportionate violence. See this thread for an example: https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/3chyco/fsu_quarterback_is_filmed_punching_a_woman_in_the/  \n\nMost of the upvoted comments in the linked /r/news thread stated she had it coming and that it was equality for her to be hit. But if you actually watch the video she hardly posed a threat to him, and all she did was weakly hit him. Then he lobbed a punch that knocked her flat  \n\n2) The stronger/larger person should show self restraint. Many of the same people who argue in favor of this phrase are also the same people who constantly argue about the physical differences between men and women. Is it not then hypocritical to expect fair fights?   \n\n3) I think all you need to do is check out how much people revel in women \"getting their comeuppance\" in these fight videos to see that they enjoy watching women get beat as if they always expect not to get hit back (ie. \"using their pussy pass\") when in fact I've rarely if ever seen videos where women are shown saying or expecting that.  \n\n---\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The ACA should force all insurance companies to cover transgender surgeries + \n + Why? A better question is why not. \nYou might say transgender surgeries are elective so they should not. But I think most people would consider birth control to be elective and that's is covered under health insurance by law (Obamacare) at [i]zero copay[i]. \nThink about it, if a boy were born with something wrong with his penis, you'd say health insurance (whether you're in America or in a country with actual universal health care) should pay for it? \nThat's what transgender men are. They are boys born with no male genitals. \nI know trans people who want to change genders but they don't have the $$$. So they save and wait. If you want to change your physical gender, I would like America to pay for that via taxes, but we don't have single payer health care, we have Obamacare, so Obamacare should force insurance to cover this, just as it does birth control.\n\nI don't think this would have much financial effect because there are so few transgender people within the population who actually go through with the surgery. I bet this would add pennies to your monthly premium. So why not?\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is no good reason to colonize mars. + \n + Mars is significantly more expensive to get to and less hospitable than any place on earth.  Here are the common arguments I've heard for martian colonization:\n\n1. **We will run out of resources on earth.**  Mars could be made of diamonds, iPhone 7's, and Amazon gift cards and it still wouldn't be worth the cost to go there.  Furthermore it is a huge use of our limited resources here on earth to create and continue to supply a settlement on mars.\n2. **We could get hit by an asteriod or nuke ourselves.**  True, but aren't there much cheaper ways to invest in the continuation of mankind?  We could build bunkers near the center of the earth, we could create satelites to detect, shift or destroy meteors or other space debris that threatens us, and that would save all of mankind, not just the limited amount who might have gone to mars.\n3. **Exploration/mapping the universe.** Don't satelites do this better and much more cheaply?\n4. **Inspiration for potential scientists.**  This one seems true, but there are many other things that kids dream of just as much.  When I was a kid I was inspired to become a programmer by watching giant fighting robots who could transform into cars.  That doesn't seem like a good enough reason to invest in building real life transformers with government money.\n5. **Potential innovations as byproducts.**  I know there are a lot of examples of this from the trip to the moon, but couldn't we have focused directly on getting benefits we know we want?  For example, life extension.  We are beginning to see that it may be possible to obtain immortality or close to it.  The direct result of this would cause immeasureable progress to humanity.  Our greatest minds could live forever.  Our scientists and innovators could live longer and produce even greater inventions.  Why not focus on that instead?\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Due to the way sex is portrayed in the media, and several other factors, the majority of American males will never have a truly gratifying sexual encounter. + \n + Yes I'm an American male, and I don't know how things differ for women or those outside the United States, so I'll leave those two large groups out of the discussion. \n\nFor any given American male, I believe the chances are less (possibly way less) than 50% that he will at some point in his life have a sexual encounter that truly fulfills his fantasies. I think this is due to a combination of factors, that when taken together hurt his chances greatly:\n\n1) Most mainstream media (movies, TV, magazines, websites, porn, etc.) focuses on very attractive women (and men). Most people (maybe 80-90%) don't get anywhere near those standards. Yet the media offers what becomes, in many cases, the yardstick by which we judge attractiveness. This means the pool of attractive potential partners becomes smaller both for the guy and for those he has an interest in.\n\n2) Many if not most men watch porn, and a lot (though certainly not all) of it glorifies unrealistic or demeaning things done to (generally) attractive people who are paid to do it and to act like they enjoy it whether they really do or not. A ludicrous amount of free porn is available to most people, usually from a young age, and much easier to access than an actual partner.\n\n3) Lots of food, sedentary lifestyles, increasing obesity. This ties in with #1, in that we're taught that obesity is unattractive, yet people are getting fatter because of... lots of things, but we'll just say food is a business that's very heavily marketed to us, and usually not to keep people in good physical form.\n\nI think this is a recipe for fat, porn-addicted dudes who dream of boning the hottest of the hot in ways that most self-respecting people would refuse. I'm sure some guys are lucky enough to have a truly gratifying experience with another person, but I think the majority will have to settle for something less than what they dream of. I think that's hard to argue against but also really depressing, so change my view. \n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Trump is the everyman's candidate + \n + A friend and I were talking about the current candidates and she couldn't understand why Trump was doing so well in the polls.  The best I could articulate it is that he is the most populist candidate out, his politics are moderate but heavily nationalist, his demeanor is one of our idealized archetypes, and he is wealthy but appears genuine, achieving a halo effect (unlike Romney.)  \n\nAfter realizing this, I asked several other people, and realized that basically my friends, like Clinton, don't like how he communicates, but then have no major disagreement with the content.\n\nAm I missing something?  Is there a good reason to dismiss him as a candidate?  More importantly, who is real competition for him?\n\nFrom todays conversations:\nI see an argument for why he may not have a good chance in an election (delta awarded), mainly in that whatever percentage of his 25% popularity is republican is all he may get from the republicans, and as a more mainstream candidate arises, the split votes wont go to him (that is, the people who polled for him may be all that would poll for him in the primary, given any other more mainstream republican candidate.\n\nHowever, I have seen no compelling argument for why he is not a populist candidate.  Some have tried to narrow the definition of a populist to being representative of a position or policies that in some fashion clearly serve the underserve or/and the majority, but this is difficult to define, and ignores the perception.  One person argued at length that the self perception of the constituency as victim and the candidate's policy being to address that sense of victimization is what makes them populist, and while I can agree that it is a fine definition, the person then asserts that this is not trump, and I disagree, as Trump clearly paints the American people as victimized by poor, self interested leadership, a corrupt political culture, and compromised ideas and strategies, and his entire platform is about going in as a normal private citizen and fixing it.\n\nMany (most?) have simply tried to argue that he is too insulting to win, but I remain unconvinced that that would stop a sizable percentage of Americans from voting for him.  This is because Americans don't actually value formality and decorum as much as power and conviction.  For the same reason that this is the America we have, I can't see how a candidate, fundamentally in favor of current nationalist policies, but simultaneously harping on being free from big money interests and the many leadership deficits that are frustrating Americans, isn't hitting so many of the right cords with mainstream America.\n\nIf he sticks to a policy (rather than sentiment,) that is antithetical to a group, then another would be preferred by that group.  But a career politician vs Trump, both speaking in vagaries, I see Trump coming out on top rather consistently.  (Saw a headline today, Trump took a hit in polls for being in favor of higher taxes, this looks like an example of the very thing.)\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I'm not worried about the US government spying on citizens. + \n + Please note before reading: Please do not downvote my comments and replies on basis of disagreement. I've done several CMV's where I was the clear minority in terms of viewpoint, and got downvoted on nearly every post. Due to Reddit's karma system, this makes me wait a period of 7 minutes in between replies if my karma is low, and makes it more difficult for me to respond to everyone (the more karma you have, the less time you need to wait to post). If I act like a dick to you, act irrational, or say something logically fallacious, I implore you to downvote me, but I'd really like to be able to discuss with everybody and not be held back by my inability to reply (and consequently hear replies).\n\nOkay, onto my view. I'm not worried about the US government spying on citizens, for the following reasons.\n\n1. I don't necessarily \"have nothing to hide\", but I don't expect that there is literally a person on a computer looking through what I post to Reddit, Twitter, and Facebook (or what porn I look at). I have some personal things I wouldn't want an actual person to know or look through, but I feel entirely comfortable with a machine using a CTRL-F function to search for terrorist activity, or other organized illegal activities since I don't commit any major crime. I know a lot of people are worried about the government seeing people torrenting things illegally or watching movies/shows illegally on the internet, but considering how widely this is done and how nonexistent people are prosecuted for it based on the governments ability to view all this, I'm not worried about it. I don't do drugs, but if I did and tried to buy drugs over FB or text, I doubt the government would even care. We have /r/trees for instance, thousands of people openly doing minor illegal things and the government doesn't care enough to try and arrest them.\n\n2. I remember hearing during Rand Paul's filibuster that there has been terrorist activity stopped by government spying on people. I think government spying still has an effect as a deterrent (terrorists can't use media to communicate, and therefore it makes terrorist activity harder to commit. I also heard during the filibuster that the government was using spying to take down organized crime. I'm not worried about that, considering I'm not involved in organized crime and therefore am not worried about it. (I'd like to point out here, that it's not really a view regarding sympathy or empathy towards criminals and what rights they should have to privacy, but simply my *feeling of worry* about being spied on). I don't view the NSA spying on druglords to be much different than wire taps or undercover officers.\n\n3. In addition to the above, I have the view that Islamic extremism is, as of ISIS' international attacks (or extremist Muslims inspired by ISIS at least), a legitimate threat to the United States. There have been US citizens that have gone to fight for ISIS and local Islamic extremist attacks, and believe the US should be able to spy on their communications. They have claimed to have thousands of people in the US, and while that may be an exaggeration, I don't believe it to be unbelievable considering they have had 150 individuals that have travelled to Syria to fight for ISIS (Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/25/american-foreign-fighters-isis_n_6753854.html). I would expect if many people are willing to take the trouble to travel to another country to fight others, it's not unexpected that they more would stay in the US to try and perform terrorist activity here considering it would be easier.\n\n4. I'm not worried about the government knowing my political views. I broadcast them publicly on Facebook, and considering our country's devotion to free speech as well as multiple political parties, I don't view any dissent to be any threat to my well-being.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Donald Trump would be a bad president + \n + Donald Trump is a decent businessman who inherited his capital. He's a punchline. A rich punchline, but a punchline all the same.\n\nHis views on immigration would not only alienate the countries south and north of the border, essentially saying they can't be trusted not to \"send\" their criminals here, but it would make us look paranoid to the rest of the world. People can come to the U.S. as tourists from several countries, not just Mexico, completely legally. They then can slip into the sea of people and stay, illegally. The problem with illegal immigration is much more complex than he seems to realize.\n\nThe man has no foreign policy experience. Boardroom deals with businessmen and bureaucrats from another country does not equate to nation-to-nation diplomacy.\n\nHis national defense ideas that I've heard seem to amount to, \"more guns and let's tell other countries to screw off.\"\n\nThe Democrats' stance that the rich want to influence policy to get richer does not exclude Donald Trump. Who is to say he wouldn't endorse policies that would make it easier for both him and his kids to double their fortune?\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: People dont eat meat because they think its morally okay, they just dont give a shit about morality. + \n + I think its fair to say that most people dont give a single shit about morality unless they're driven by compassion/\"their conscience\" or worried about being judged by others for doing the wrong thing. \n\nSo people eat meat because \n\n* Most people wont judge them for it\n\n* They have no compassion for the animal\n\nI feel compassion for animals and so I dont contribute to their mass-abuse and slaughter, aside from the obivously immoral support of animal cruelty there's a bunch of reasons why vegetarianism is better for the earth, for your health etc, but until I gained that compassion it didnt matter to me.\n\nPeople like to act like their decision to eat meat is some kind of well thought-out position that they're sure is logically and morally sound, but IMO its 100% backwards rationalisation. They already made the decision to eat meat as a child without thinking about it at all, and they want to keep doing it so they try to explain to themself why they do it instead of honestly thinking about whether or not they actually should.\n\nEating meat can never be more or as ethical as not eating meat, because you're taking life needlessly and contributing to/causing (no snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible) all kinds of abuse towards animals. But people just dont really give a shit.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Gay people are gay because of their upbringing and socialization, not because of biological factors. + \n + I think gay people are gay because of their upbringing and socialization, not because of biological factors. I think it happens in families where the father doesn't fulfill the authoritarian male role, and/or the mother doesn't fulfill the nourishing female role.\n\nI also think that gay people probably won't be fulfilling those two roles in future generations, thus increasing the chance of new gay people emerging from new families.\n\nI'm not sure if that's good or bad. I think the average gay couple will have fewer children than straight couples, which is great considering there's like 7 billion of us already. Then again, I think gay children will have more trouble in their lives for a few more decades (even more in conservative societies).\n\nMy speculations are based on a bit of Freud, a bit of Wikipedia, and a bit of personal experience with gay people I know.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Prescriptivism + \n + I've been studying Linguistics as an undergraduate for about 8 months or so now, so this one is important to me academically. In discussions of language, there are typically two camps into which people fall: prescriptivism, and descriptivism. Prescriptivists, think your typical grammarian, David Crystal, Lynne Truss, etc., correcting people's grammar, getting fussy about punctuation, insisting upon proper pronunciation. At the heart of prescriptivism is the idea that there is a way that language *should* be spoken. Descriptivism, on the other hand, argues that there is no such thing as \"correct\" language, that what prescriptivists call \"mistakes\" are just non-standard varieties, and that we shouldn't ever make judgements about people's language.\n\nLinguistics is whole-heartedly and almost exceptionlessly (AFAIK) descriptivist, and as a student, I recognise its importance. The view that there is any single \"correct\" variety of language is obviously misleading from the beginning: which variety? Who says X dialect is better than Y dialect? And judgements against language, I-believe-it-was-Peter Trudgill argued, are actually judgements against people's social class, as supposedly \"incorrect\" language features are often described by the upper classes as being used by the lower classes. And I do mostly agree with it.\n\nBut. While I understand all this, I find it difficult to truly shake off the claws of prescriptivism. In particular, the idea that there isn't any \"correct\" language. For example:\n\n\"He _went_ to the shops\"\n\"He _gone_ to the shops\"\n\nI can accept that in some English dialects, the past participle of \"go\" is \"gone\" instead of \"went\". That's not a mistake. But then take a sentence like:\n\n\"Shops went the he to\"\n\nThis isn't syntactically valid: it doesn't parse as a sentence. You might just be understood, but more likely you would confuse everybody with this sentence, so it fails as communication. If this sentence both isn't a valid sentence, and can't be understood, what other word to describe it than \"incorrect\"? It can't be a valid form of language if almost nobody understands it, surely.\n\nSo what I'm really seeking, is to understand how sentences like the above can fit into the framework of descriptivism, and for someone to convince me that we can't describe sentences like the above as \"wrong\". Please VCM.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Climate change should be every politician's first priority, and we are doing too little about it, since no one seems to care anymore + \n + Climate change has been a problem for decades and we have done very little about it. The Kyoto Protocol had obviously failed, and had since become forgotten. I'm not an expert on climate but statistics do serve as solid evidence for this issue, and it had been viewed as one of the fastest growing problems of the century.\n\nI understand preventing climate change is not as feasible as it looks, regarding economic, environmental and societal factors; not to mention the controversial opinions and theories surrounding it. But the key is that the majority of scientists agree on the same consensus that it is indeed a human caused issue, and all promote the cliched \"decrease greenhouse gas emissions\" solution. But obviously its place in the media has become less prominent while it should be a considered growing problem whose severity should be taken seriously.\n\n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Pro-vaxxers and anti-vaxxers are both fear-mongerers. + \n + Most of Reddit seems to be very pro-vaccine, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. But here's where I stand on the issue. I believe that most people should get vaccinated, and we should definitely persuade people to do so because they do cause more good than harm, but I am against mandatory vaccinations because 1) I believe it's an issue of personal choice and 2) I was harmed by a vaccine when I was very young, and I know a few people who were as well, and I think doctors need to stop pretending that all vaccines are entirely harmless.\n\nA lot of the anti-vaxxers still perpetuate the myth that vaccines cause autism, which has been disproven several times. I have Aspberger's Syndrome and even I don't believe this anymore. Anti-vaxxers seem to have what is called confirmation bias, where they cling to their belief so much that any opposing arguments just do not register to them, and they will only bother looking at viewpoints that support their belief, because it makes them feel good. \n\nHowever, while pro-vaxxers tend to be a little better at acknowledging other points of view, a lot of them still have this mentality that anyone who questions the pharmaceutical industry at all must be an ignorant dumbass who doesn't know anything. This is simply not true. Since when is it wrong to question the intent of large businesses like the pharmaceutical companies? Now I don't subscribe to the anti-vax belief that these companies are trying to poison us or anything, but is it too far-fetched to say that since they are for-profit companies, making money does come first and foremost and effectiveness second? I'm not denying that they are expert scientists who are working to make them as effective as possible, but effectiveness sure isn't a requirement for them to make money. [And since they can't get sued for any vaccine injuries](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-vaccine-ruling-parents-cant-sue-drug-makers-for-kids-health-problems/), they have very little incentive to make sure their vaccines aren't causing any damage. The government is protecting them instead of protecting us.\n\n*Now regardless of how you feel about what I said above*, you must admit that many of the pro-vaxxers can be extremely judgmental towards the vaccine skeptics, making heartless and cruel statements like \"Any parent who doesn't vaccinate their children should have their kids taken away from them.\" *Really?* Let's break this down. You're saying that just because there's a small chance that an unvaccinated child will get some sort of disease, an even smaller chance that he will spread it to others before the disease is noticed, and an even smaller chance that the disease would be life-threatening, you think that's bad enough for a parent to be taken away from their children!? You think that's worse than people who smoke around their kids? Do you think parents who are bad drivers and could get their kids killed in an accident are any better? **I'm sorry but unless a parent is beating or abusing their child, you have no fucking right to say whether that parent deserves to be with his/her kids.** \n\nI have no problem with people telling others \"Vaccines are beneficial to society and I believe more people need to get vaccinated so we can get rid of disease.\" But when you call people like me \"a walking disease\" and claim that I'm putting everyone at my school at risk every day just because I'm not vaccinated, I'm sorry but that's bullshit. Sure, there's a slightly higher risk of me getting sick but you can't act like it's inevitably going to happen just because I'm not vaccinated. Vaccinations aren't the only way of getting rid of disease. [Look at this measles mortality graph from 1900.](http://healthimpactnews.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/11/G14.7-US-Measles-RM-1900-1987.png) The vaccine definitely helped, but measles was on its way down before the vaccine as well. \n\nAnother side note, I've heard that the United States currently has a more aggressive vaccine schedule than everywhere else in the world. I don't remember where I heard this. If someone wants to dispute this, be my guest.\n\n**My main two points are**, 1) Anti-vaxxers do spread mistruths and lies about vaccines (which we can all agree on), but 2) pro-vaxxers over-exaggerate the necessity for vaccines, and unnecessarily shame those who don't get vaccinated as if it's the end of the world. I am neither pro-vaccine nor anti-vaccine. [Please watch this video with Bill Maher, as it sums up my beliefs perfectly](http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-maher-im-not-an-anti-vaxxer-but/). (I don't care what you think about Bill Maher, watch it anyway just so you can understand where I'm coming from). As Marianne Williamson states in the video, \"There's a difference between having skepticism about science and having skepticism about the pharmaceutical industry.\" \n\nI know this is a sensitive topic. Please don't comment by attacking me for my beliefs. Do not compare me to a climate change denier. I just want to have a civil discussion about this, and since I'll admit I still don't know much about the issue, I'm very open to learning more about science and vaccines. Educate me, Reddit! :)\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The terms \"male\" and \"female\" have no coherent, socially-sanctioned meaning. + \n + I should caveat that I'm talking about these terms as applied to humans --  not plants, nonhuman animals, or electronic devices. \n\nAnd by \"socially-sanctioned,\" I mean a definition broadly acceptable to the PC mainstream, such that you could print it in the OpEd section of the NYT without major media or social-media backlash.\n\nThe [OED definitions](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/female), while coherent, are trans-exclusionary and therefore not socially sanctioned:\n\n\nSo maybe there's a socially-sanctioned definition of \"male\" or \"female\" which doesn't reference anatomy?  If you can think of one, you may CMV. \n\nCiting studies less compelling/conclusive than mythologized by redditors, you might respond that \"male\" and \"female\" refer to the innate biology of the brain, not the body.  But the studies you're thinking of identify general trends, not clear markers of a \"male brain\" vs. \"female brain.\"  It would be like talking about a \"male height\" vs. \"female height.\"  Not a very coherent concept. \n\n \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Keynesian economics is a thin cover for class warfare + \n + This stemmed from a discussion I had on another sub about the Greek economic crisis, and what people are saying should have been done in terms of policy by the EU and the Greek government, which dovetails with what I heard should have been done by the US government in 2008-2010 in the worst part of the Great Recession.\n\nMy understanding of Keynesian theory as applied to this kind of economic situation is that it prescribes the government to spend money by using public debt, getting that money to the worker and the spending class. This money, once spent, will require producers to produce more, meaning they need to hire more people, which will give those people more money to spend, creating a virtuous circle of economic growth.\n\nOnce recession is over and growth is good, the theory then says that the government should raise revenue out of the booming economy by taxing the producers, the saving class, and the wealthy so as to pay down the debt that it acquired in the previous step.\n\nFrom that, I conclude that Keynesianism is always either for the working class, the spending class, and the generally poor; and/or against the capitalist, the saving class, and the generally rich. The activities of the former group are economically good and should be encouraged; the activities of the latter group are economically bad (albeit necessary) and should be discouraged, minimized to only what\u2019s absolutely needed to support the activities of the former group.\n\nAt this point, I see five possibilities:\n\n1.\tKeynesian economics is pure class warfare. Keynes and his followers believe that the working class deserves more and the capitalist class deserves less, and developed a theory to fit that opinion. \n2.\tKeynesian economics is *co-opted* by people with an agenda of pure class warfare. It\u2019s perfectly valid under the theory to create the virtuous circle through government spending on Rolls-Royces and summer homes for the rich, and perfectly possible to pay down government debt by heavy taxes on working-class activities like buying groceries and holding personal debt. *How* we spend and tax isn\u2019t the issue, just that we do.\n3.\tI have an incomplete understanding of Keynesian theory. There can arise economic situations where alternative actions are recommended. For instance, once the economy is growing and the debt is paid, does Keynesianism say to reduce both taxes and spending so as to \u201cshake up the system\u201d and achieve new growth? Or any other situation where good economic policy is to increase inequality and use the natural human jealousy, envy, and fear to spur people to produce more?\n4.\tI have an inaccurate understanding of Keynesian theory in general. \n5. My understanding is accurate, but my logic is faulty.\n\nRight now my view is hovering between One and Two, but I\u2019d really like to understand this theory better.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: the grade point average system is better than the British honours degree classification system. + \n + My basic reasoning behind thinking that GPA is better than the [British honours degree classification system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_undergraduate_degree_classification)(the 1st, 2:1, 2:2, 3rd degrees you get in the UK) is that GPA is simply a more accurate representation of academic achievement. GPA allows for a more refined estimate of a student's achievement, since there are more possible combinations you can get with GPA(3.9, 3.91, 3.99, etc.). Whereas with the British honours degree classification, you can only get the 4 that I've previously mentioned(or a fail). That seems unfair if for example you're on the edge of getting 2:1 but just miss the mark and get a 2:2. Lastly, I'll mention that British universities [seem to recognise](https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/workstreams-research/themes/assessment-and-feedback/grade-point-average-gpa/gpa-faqs) this and there are a few that are experimenting with using GPA.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe any published lies should be illegal + \n + I realize the OP is a bit vague, so let me clarify.  Similar to false advertising, I believe that people who release lies (in a publishable, marketable format).  This includes magazines, (information based) books,  etc.\n\n Now, dont get me wrong.  I fully agree with freedom of speech. But when the speech is being purposely distributed to the public to spread lies, my agreement tends to disappear.  \n\nI'll just clarify a little bit more.  if a book is saying something, claiming facts that are not true, (for the sake of argument) that the US faked the moonlanding but there is massive evidence against it,  this book should not be allowed.  same with \"documentary\" books that base arguments against fake studies etc.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Video games built around addiction by investment are immoral. + \n + I believe that video games that are designed from the ground up to retain players by constantly reminding them of the time they've already invested in the game are immoral, regardless of the actual quality of the game otherwise. For my argument, I have three major examples: World of Warcraft, League of Legends, and Clash of Clans. These may not be the worst offenders or even the best examples, but they are the ones that I have the most personal experience with and thus feel like I am most able to discuss.\n\nWorld of Warcraft has often received flak for its addictive properties by way of grinding. The player is led into a repetitive cycle of doing the same or similar things over and over again to slowly improve their character or extensions of their character. This is often cited as the core reason that World of Warcraft and other MMO's are so addictive, but I believe that another reason that often goes unnoticed is how attached players get to their investment of time. Players who may not gain much actual enjoyment out of the game anymore continue to play because they feel that if they stop playing that the countless hours that they've sunk into the game have been for nothing. This is doubly emphasized by the monthly subscription fee, where players considering quitting the game will consider not just the time they've invested, but also the money. The longer they've played, the more money they've \"wasted\" if they stop.\n\nLeague of Legends follows very similar principles. Even if the core game itself is well-designed and fun in its own right, the fact that the game is still built around an investment damns it all the same. Players who get hooked on the gameplay will accumulate points that they can use to unlock new characters and different gameplay-adjusting tools. Eventually they will probably spend money on the game to either unlock and new character faster or to purchase a cosmetic skin for a character that they particularly enjoy. So now they've been put in the same situation. Even if they start to get bored with the game, many people will continue to play because of how much time and usually money that they've invested into the game. If they quit, it's not just the knowledge and skills they've developed that are going to waste, but also all the time and money they've devoted to unlocking things within the game.\n\nAnd of course if you've followed this far, you probably know where I'm going with Clash of Clans. Mobile games in general seem to have taken this principle to an extreme. In Clash of Clans not only are you constantly trying to improve your base and troops, but you are constantly seeing other people's bases which motivates the player in two different ways: one by showing them better bases, which they envy, and two by showing them worse bases, to remind them of how far they've come. And there the same principle comes to play. Players don't want to stop playing because they are constantly reminded of how much time (and, again, possibly money) that they've already invested and they don't want to \"waste\" it by quitting.\n\nWhy I think this is immoral should be, I hope, obvious. Players who no longer enjoy a game are psychologically manipulated into continuing to play, and the longer they play, the harder it is for them to stop. But what makes it even worse is the social aspect of it. All the aforementioned game are also very social games where players are encouraged to \"show off\" what they've earned or bought. This gives positive feedback on their investment and makes the addiction that much stronger. And as I touched on with the Clash of Clans paragraph, this effect hits twice as players with less who are shown off to are likely to be envious and be motivated to be trapped in the same investment addiction that the show offs are trapped in. Of course, much of that is human nature, but that makes taking advantage of it, especially in such refined and systematic ways, no less immoral.\n\nPlease challenge my view.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I would rather be a neandertal than a human. + \n + Neandertals were bad in the best sense of the word. They were ridiculously ripped, and regularly took on big game like wooly rhinoceros in hand to hand combat, and won. They had thrusting spears. Not throwing spears. They had to get up close and personal with their prey to hunt. Once they killed an animal, they had to fight off all the lions and bears and hyenas and wolves that lived in europe at the time. Once again, they took them on up close and personal in hand to hand combat. \n\nThey were just as smart as we were. They had art, made jewelry, clothing, maybe even musical instruments. They cared for their sick and wounded, they buried their dead, and probably had rituals to do so.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: r/changemyview is essentially \"Teach me How to Groupthink\". + \n + First off, this is an exciting new subreddit for me and I love the idea.\nHowever, I can't seem to shake feeling that many of the posts here stem from people's discomfort with their own nonconformity and outlying ideas more than from a thirst for truth.\n\nAdditional info: I am currently writing an essay on the phenomenon of 'groupthink' so the theme is ripe in my mind.\nI showed this sub to a friend of mine who immediately believes the moral statuses quo of Tumblr, including contradicting ideas, and has always seemed to me to have difficulty breaking social norms and thinking for herself. Her immediate reaction was to dismiss all posts she saw as 'stupid' (that'd be the first page of 'hot' at time of posting). This, no doubt, has influenced my view.\n\nI'd like to highlight again that I am excited to have found this sub and I'll be visiting here often. But I'd like to discuss this idea first.\n\nP.S. I'm so meta I post requests for people to change my view about /r/changemyview on /r/changemyview as a critique of /r/changemyview.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The \"Fuck Pao\" crowd has no end-game. + \n + A few days after the banning of /r/fatpeoplehate, the dust is beginning to settle. There are still multiple posts at the top of /r/all from subs like /r/EllenPao_IsA_Cunt and /r/gasthesnoo, but with every passing day, it's relenting.\n\nHowever, many people remain steadfast in the belief that they can get Ellen Pao ousted from the CEO position. One of the top posts in /r/all right now is this: \n\n\nI don't think those people are really thinking this through, and it will ultimately prove to be a waste of time. Board members aren't going to look at a bunch of people (most of whom are upset because their hatred of people has been censored) calling the CEO a cunt and say, \"Boy they're making a mess of things. We'd best give them what they want.\" A far more likely scenario is, \"We don't want those assholes on our site anyway. Good riddance.\"\n\nI also don't think any great exodus is inbound. /r/fatpeoplehate had 150,000 subscribers. The two subs (that weren't direct responses to this whole incident) that seem to be the most outraged are /r/KotakuinAction (41,000) and /r/conspiracy (313,000). Even if we put all of those together and assume they're separate people, that comes to 504,000 people. Hell, to account for users who don't log in, we'll even double it, and say 1 million people. Against Reddit's [172.7 million monthly unique users](http://www.reddit.com/about/). I don't think anyone is going to sweat that, especially when most of the site (even those who decry the censorship) didn't like /r/fatpeoplehate to begin with. I think at most one million people ultimately leave Reddit for Voat, and I don't think that number is nearly high enough for any of the higher ups to care.\n\nSo ultimately, I think all this outrage will prove fruitless and nothing will come of any of this. CMV.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The left's response to Bush's comments on working more hours is just like the right's reaction to Obama's \" If you\u2019ve got a business \u2014 you didn\u2019t build that\". + \n + Reddit, I have been causally watching this Jeb Bush comment make its rounds around the internet and news sites. It seemed pretty obvious to me the first time I heard it that he was talking about trying to reduce part time jobs and have more full time jobs. I am not trying to debate the merit of his argument or if the president has any say on if this could happen or not.\n\nBush Interview:\n\n\nObama's Quote: \n\n\"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you\u2019ve got a business \u2014 you didn\u2019t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn\u2019t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.\"\nIt seems like everyone is trying to pull these comments out of context. Reddit pleas change my view. Am I missing something?\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I'm not Transphobic + \n + Recently I have seen a lot of posts regarding the topic of transgender and transphobia. This post is based upon a statement that I have read over and over again. \"If you were attracted to someone, learned they were trans, and then lost sexual interest in them, then you're transphobic.\"\n[Example](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/395o5x/cmv_transgender_people_who_have_had_sex/cs0lp9c)\n(If pointing to someone else's comment isn't okay with the mods then let me know and I'll edit this out)\n\nMy argument revolves around the definition of Homophobia and comparing that to Transphobia.\nA quick google will result in having them both defined as... Homophobia / Transphobia is the irrational fear of, aversion to, intense dislike of ,or prejudice against gay or transsexual or transgender people\n\nI do not go out of my way to avoid gay people, I am perfectly fine with having a gay friend, and I don't look down on someone for being gay. By the above definition I am not homophobic. Assuming I follow all of the same rules, but for transgender or transsexual people, then I'm not transphobic.\n\nThe counter argument seems to be that if I am no longer attracted to someone after I learn that they are trans, then I am somehow discriminating or I have an aversion to them. But I would say that going by that definition I would also be homophobic.\n\nAs a straight male, I'm not attracted to other men. If we assume that I would enjoy anal with a woman, but not a man, then it could be said that I am discriminating against gay men or that I have an aversion to them. That's simply not true though. My body is programmed to want to be with a woman, so my sexual preference clearly isn't what determines if I'm homophobic. It's how I act around gay people that determines if I am homophobic.\n\n Just because I would avoid having sex with someone who is currently a man, and was previously a man turns me off, doesn't mean I have shaky morals. It simply means I have been programmed to be that way. Just because I don't like the taste of avocados doesn't mean I'm avophobic.\n\nIn the same sense, if I were to be turned off by learning that someone I would have had sex with a is currently a female, but formerly a man, it isn't due to me discriminating against them, its due to a biological mechanism trying to get me to have offspring. Again in this situation, my sexual preference is not a question of morals.\n\nIn conclusion since I am not homophobic and I act the same around gays and trans, then I am not Transphobic.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: \u2018Be yourself\u2019 is a totally useless piece of advice. + \n + What does it even mean? How can one not be one-self? \n\nNow I\u2019m mostly talking about the everyday use of the phrase \u2013 where it is typically offered moments before an uncomfortable or unfamiliar social interaction, like a date.\n\nAnd in this scenario, I assume it means something like \u2018be yourself but without any of the debilitating neurosis and subsequent fa\u00e7ade\u2019.\nBut this is just as useless. Don\u2019t you think if people could magically wish away such impediments, they would have already done so? It\u2019s possible that some people are able to do this \u2013 but then they presumably wouldn\u2019t be in need of such banal advice. \n\nBut even if you are held back by anxiety / hiding behind a fa\u00e7ade etc. \u2013 are these things not an integral part of the ego that constitutes the \u2018self\u2019? Wouldn\u2019t someone co-existing with these neuroses be closer to their \u2018true self\u2019 (whatever that is) than someone trying to change their mental state? Perhaps. Though how can anyone be \u2018other\u2019 than \u2018themself\u2019? It seems like whatever a person does, by definition, is being themself. \n\nMaybe \u2018be yourself\u2019 means \u2018don\u2019t pretend to be someone you\u2019re not\u2019? Again, this very act of pretending is still \u2018me\u2019 being \u2018myself\u2019.  If I pretend, then I am a pretender, and that\u2019s who I am. \n\nDoes it mean \u2018be your best self? If we could just flip a switch and become our \u2018best self\u2019 \u2013 wouldn\u2019t everyone leave it on all the time?   \n\n\u2018Don\u2019t overthink\u2019? Fuck you. Don\u2019t underthink. \n\nIs it just empty rhetoric meant as bit of comfort / a morale boost?  Well then don\u2019t dress it up in misleading instructions. \u2018There, there\u2019 would be more useful / plain. \n \nAlso, even if my \u2018true self\u2019 is for some reason a \u2018me\u2019 without these hang-ups - much of this assumes I have any choice or ability or inclination to change it, and that free will exists (which I\u2019m inclined to doubt \u2013 but that\u2019s another issue). \n\nFinally, it\u2019s usually a cop-out on the part of the advisor, who incites this clich\u00e9 in lieu of anything more profound or nuanced or comprehensive or useful.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Our local bridge's rails should not be heightened to prevent suicide off the bridge into the water + \n + I think it's a dystopic society that would want to prevent people from leaving this world. If someone wants to go, they should be able to. If there is any meaning in calling life \"free\" then one should freely be able to leave at their discretion.\n\nRaising the rails could be argued for as a preventative measure for someone throwing someone else off the bridge, but that's not what I'm interested in. Should it be raised as a preventative for suicide.\n\nI don't think suicide is as much of a problem as we think. \"People shouldn't commit suicide\" - this belief stems from Middle Age christian era and seems to have been passed on from generation to generation. I don't have any scientific knowledge, in fact I don't think there can even be any scientific knowledge that can imply a reasoning such as this. It seems to me to be an idea that could be true and also may not be true.\n\nFurther, who am I to judge that someone else's life with someone else's perspective that it is always wrong to kill oneself? Surely even with a simple cost-benefit analysis it can sometimes be ok.\n\nI still understand the sadness that arises when someone does it, but it's not because they've done it, it's because of where they must've been to want to do it.\n\nSure, I'll admit that raising them may prevent a few cases, but someone that is intent on doing will still climb over it. But I don't know for sure that it will, there's no evidence to my knowledge that supports this. Then there's also the side that raising the bars will make the initial altitude higher and increase the acceleration of the falling person increasing the likelihood of death from the impact.\n\nFor those who don't want to change my mind, I'm interested in hearing your arguments that support my opinion also.\n\nThanks!\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Having children is a selfish, immoral act + \n + One of the biggest problems in the world is overpopulation, there are just too many people on Earth. Add to that, there are tons of unadopted children who need a home, but people feel the need to have children that share their genes. People are just having children to fulfill their selfish desires and bring meaning to their lives. People often say that we need to propagate the human race, but with over six billion people on the planet, it seems like that's definitely not in danger of happening anytime soon.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I do not think tipping is moral. + \n + I'll probably get downvoted for this, but here we go. The idea of supporting the business model, \"that we can get away with paying you dirt, as long as people pay extra to fill in the gap\"... is bull shit. I do not support that, and you should pay your employees accordingly. Also, why the fuck does poor service deserve a tip? I pay your establishment, why should I have to pay more for good service, and if I don't, are you going to screw with my food?, because not only is that immoral, but it is illegal. So good or bad I have to pay tip. Why should I support that business model, it is absurd. Other countries, Japan for instance, consider it an insult to pay a tip, because they pride themselves in their job, and they do a good job because it is their job to do a good job. Why should I, or you, continue to tip to support this? If everyone stopped tipping, then restaurant owners would have to stop being greedy, or hire qualified people who deserve tips, and pay them as qualified people deserve.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The Next Generation depicts a dystopian future after TOS + \n + Okay so this requires a Trek-sized wall of text to even make par for a Trekkie ~~war~~ discussion. I'll break this into two parts to meet the sub's 500 character limit, part II being in the comments section:\n\n**Part I**\n\nSome people absolutely love TNG. For many, it\u2019s their introduction to Star Trek. This makes no sense as even TNG\u2019s writing staff have come forward complaining that Gene Roddenberry thoroughly tied their hands and forced the show to have zero conflict, zero drama, and to resemble his vision of a utopian future, by force mind you. Gene forced the staff, fans of TOS wishing to pay homage to the series, to create utopia against their will via his absolute authority as the creator (cutting out the influence of men like ~~Trotsky~~ D.C. Fontana or Gene Coon, and crowning himself grand chancellor or Star Trek). Let this be a foreshadowing to the sort of show that would unfold.\n\nEven beyond it\u2019s creation, if taken seriously as canon, TNG represents a dystopian future. Take the NCC-1701 Enterprise-D for example. The original Enterprise was just one of an historic line of ships, form the Earth seas to the stars. So why the Enterprise-D, with the same number and name? Why no other ship? Why no Constellation-D, or NCC-1700 Constitution-D? There is no other explanation: It was pure propaganda.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Being Transgender to the point of wanting surgery or hormonal treatment is a mental illness, and saying otherwise is harmful to both transgender people and to the stigma surrounding mental illness. + \n + Being transgender and wanting surgery/hormonal treatment is being so uncomfortable with yourself as a person that you need invasive surgery, or completely body-altering hormonal treatment to feel comfortable. I think that the only reason we don't define it as that is political correctness, combined with the stigma around mental illness. Transgender people don't want to be lumped in with other people with mental illnesses because there is a such a stigma against it. And if society starts treating transgender people as having no mental issue, and accepting invasive surgery as the standard treatment then that will slow research towards less drastic treatments.\n\nIdeally, in the future, if someone were to come into a doctor's office and say \"I feel so bad in my current body that I want hormonal treatment and invasive surgery\" the doctor would be able to prescribe something that would just make the transgender person no longer feel terrible in their current body.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Batman is morally culpable for the people that he Joker has killed. + \n + Batman's strict no-killing policy has lead to the deaths of hundreds of people. Normally I don't support vigilante justice, but at this point, Batman is obviously the only person who can stop the Joker. Additionally, it is obvious that Arkham cannot hold him. He has escaped countless times, and every time, Batman has to go recapture him (after he's killed or injured who-knows-how-many people). \n\nOstensibly, Batman's no-killing policy is a self imposed check on his inner demons that he is sure will consume him if he gives into them. I believe that, in reality, he uses this policy as a security blanket he can cling to so that he doesn't have to get his hands dirty and make a difficult decision. I think he wraps up his own cowardice in a cloak of self-righteousness (albeit a fireproof, bulletproof cloak).\n\nHere are my main views\n\n1) The only way to stop the Joker is to kill or permanently incapacitate him\n\n2) Batman has a moral obligation to kill or incapacitate the Joker since the state can't or won't do it.\n\n3) He bares responsibility for everyone the Joker harms.\n\n**Important Points** \n\n* The Joker is responsible for everyone he kills. The full burden of each person's murder is on his head. This CMV in no way negates his responsibility for his actions.\n\n* Batman is **not** equally as responsible as the Joker for the people he kills. I'm not attempting to assign a specific amount of blame to Batman. All I am saying is that he bares some level of responsibility for his refusal to stop the Joker.\n\n* Finally, Batman is not responsible for the people that the Joker killed early on in his career before it became apparent that he could not be contained. \n\n\n* If you are against capitol punishment or killing in general, we obviously have an unbridgeable gap here, and cannot possibly come to an agreement\n\n* The only criminal that I am applying this argument to is the Joker. I'm not advocating for Batman to kill anyone else.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Bernie Sanders is too old to be president + \n + Bernie Sanders is clearly an intelligent man with a lot of interesting views, many of which I support. I think him getting some traction in the election is a great way to draw attention to those ideas.  But right now I feel I cannot truly support him for actually being elected president because of his age.\n\nBernie Sanders will be 75 when the next president of the USA is elected.  If elected, he would be 79 at the end of his first term, and if re-elected would be 83 at the end of his second term. The oldest president in US history was Ronald Reagan, elected at 69 years old.  And he ran into health trouble later in his presidency.\n\nThe man appears to be in good health now, but health can decline quite precipitously at that age.  A president dying is a trying thing for the country, but I think a president in ever-declining health would be worse. \n\nIn addition, POTUS is an incredibly demanding job.  I am quite skeptical that someone that age can really keep up with the rigors of such a job, even if they manage to stay in otherwise good health. \n\nI currently feel these concerns are strong enough that they outweigh any support I have for his views. Care to change my mind?\n\n(FWIW, I have some concerns about Hillary Clinton's age, too).\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Basic Income Is Infeasible And Will Destroy The Economy + \n + There is a popular opinion on Reddit that \"basic income\" is a good idea. \"Basic income\" is the idea that every citizen is given enough money to cover basic needs like food, rent, etc. If they wish to earn more, they have to work for it.\n\nSome arguments I'm already aware of:\n\n\nLikely true for poverty-driven crimes like theft, but likely has little impact on other more serious crimes in which money isn't the motivating factor(or big hauling crimes like ponzi schemes/ransomware)\n\nIf you set it too low, crimes will happen anyways because criminals want more luxuries/can't cover basic costs. If you set it too high, nobody will work and it'll be too expensive to support.\n\n\nAlso likely untrue. You have to consider that EVERYONE would be getting \"basic income\", and that is a lot more expensive than just keeping the criminals in jail. Also, not every criminal will obey laws just because they receive basic income. The reduced amount of criminals is unlikely to cover the costs of paying income to every single citizen.\n\nNow, for arguments against it:\n\n-**If basic income existed, many 100% capable people would refuse to work, or work less**\n\nIf I could live reasonably comfortable, why work? I could slave away for 40 hours a week just to earn money that gets taxed to hell to support basic income, or I can just relax and live comfortably. Time is valuable, I don't mind giving up luxuries to save time doing what I love-browsing reddit and playing videogames.\n\nI don't mind if I wouldn't be able to afford fancy stuff like a nice car or a high end gaming PC, I'd still be much happier with more free time and cheap belongings than having to work my life away to enjoy a few nice things.\n\nIf a large portion of my hard earned money went to people that refuse to work, i don't see any reason to. I'd rather just join them and leech off of the middle/upper class that works risky jobs or \nskilled positions that bring us high end products and services.\n\nMaybe I would work a few hours a week just to save for nice things, but it would depend on how much I'm getting for free.\n\n**Wage spiral inflation, alongside unemployment, will result in high prices and reduced supply**\n\nLess people working will result in reduced supply. Additionally, unemployed people would still have money, so the increased demand will result in a shortage of goods.  \n\nThe \"1%\"(really the 0.001% people refer to) don't necessarily spend all their money-they just hoard it. As a result, prices are not pushed up by their abundance of wealth because it sits in limbo being thrown into speculative markets and assets. Only time it screwed over the middle/lower class was when the real estate bubble turned housing into a speculative tool and inflated prices to hell before crashing it.\n\nThings that lower class individuals need(food, utilities, etc) aren't hoarded by rich individuals. A billionaire doesn't eat 1,000,000 pounds of potatoes a day, so it doesn't influence the pricing on that. Same with utilities like gas, electricity, water, etc. The ONLY hoarding problem I see with billionaires is the real estate market, where housing is used as an investment tool.\n\nNow, they might go crazy with stuff like a private jet/pilot, solid gold statue, expensive jewelry, and other luxuries, but those don't impact the pricing of everyday items as much as you would think. \n\nbasically, the huge abundance of wealth the .1% isn't as significant because it's simply hoarded, unlike low-middle class individuals that will spend the majority of what they make.**Having 50% of the country's wealth does not equate to consuming 50% of the country's production**\n\nAs a result, basic income would need to be continually raised to support rising prices, which would raise the prices more, resulting in a nonstop cycle of inflation. \n\nFrom this, we can conclude that basic income will:\n\n-Reduce productivity, as many people stop working or work less(Less output of goods/services)\n\n-Increase prices due to reduced supply\n\n-Result in a shortage of goods.\n\n**Disclaimer:**\n\nI'm not against welfare that helps those unable to work or that helps people that were laid off and looking for new employment. I just worry about basic income because it takes money from hard working individuals, and gives it to 100% capable individuals that refuse to work, resulting in people quitting their jobs and punishing people that contribute to society.\n\n**The ONLY way I see basic income working is if autonomous technologies advance enough to where people don't need to work anymore, and robots do everything besides creative/artistic works.**\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:Social Security is welfare for the elderly and should be viewed as such. + \n + \"But they paid into it.\" Okay, but what welfare program do you not pay into? You pay into welfare as a safety for yourself if your parents die and a bunch of debt ridden events happen.   \n  \n\"It's not that big of a problem.\" It's 24%ish of your taxes. Currently #1 contributor to our deficit.  \n  \n\"They deserve it.\" Maybe, but do poor people deserve welfare in the same way?  \n  \n\"They need it.\" Only because they were an entire generation that didn't save and spent on credit. I can do more with my money now with stocks and 401ks than i could with the same money when i'm old. \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Tips at restaurants should not be based upon a percentage of the cost of the meal. + \n + The old tipping debate. I generally side with those that want to end the mostly American practice of tipping about 20% percent of the cost of the meal. That may never happen.\n\nWhat bothers me, is the idea that the server's time is as only as valuable as the cost of what's on the plate. If I get a $8 plate of eggs at Waffle House I am to tip about 2 dollars. If I am to get a $50 steak at the local trendy restaurant or steak house, I am to tip over $10? \n\nI understand that *generally* at a more expensive restaurant I will spend more time there making the servers work a longer time on my needs. And they are usually expected to be more knowledgeable about the menu. And the bus has to make thing look better and the bartender has to know more cocktails....\n\nBut it seems to me, the tipping tradition has propped up a non-egalitarian system where the young and attractive can rake in a decent pay check because expensive restaurants can be exclusive about hiring, and others, especially the older who probably did not really want to be stuck server their whole career, are left taking the 15% on my cheap dinner.\n\nIf I go in simply for a beer and a dessert, I try to tip above 50%. For \"affordable\" dinners I try to tip 25-30%. For nicer dinners I usually end up tip 15-20%. Truly bad service and I will only tip 10-15%. And if they have a truly helpful suggestion at that trendy restaurant I may tip over 20%.....\n\nI think we should move to a system based more on how long you are in the restaurant, and the amount of attention your visit actually needed, rather than a simple percentage completely isolated from the nuance of the service.\n\nBut the whole system just makes me feel guilty.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Using stream-based services like spotify instead of having music files localy. + \n + Spotify. You spend so much time finding music, putting them into playlists and all of these is stored on spotify's servers. However, if you purchase premium, the monthly fee, you have the option to save it localy. But that's not the point here. \n\nWhat i don't understand is the longevity in this solution. What happends that day spotify crashes/goes through bankcruptcy/et cetera? All that music, gone. \nIf instead, someone would use musicfiles like .mp3 or .flac it would be different, because you had control over it. \n\nI really don't understand why, for big collectors of music why you would use spotify. ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The second amendment is not effective as protection against the government's tyranny + \n + I've seen many times the claim that guns help protect against the government getting out of hand. I don't find this argument persuasive for these reasons:\n\n**The threat isn't effective:**\n\n* For the argument to really work, guns must present an effective threat to the government, or at least to the politician introducing some sort of freedom restricting legislation. Just having the gun isn't enough, there must be a perception of that people are willing to use it.\n* Guns are a weapon of last resort. To take arms against the government means a near guarantee that you'll sacrifice your life for it. This means it only makes sense if what the government is doing is so awful that death is an acceptable risk.\n* To achieve success there needs to be a large amount of agreement that this is the right path. Until that, it'll simply be terrorism and opposed by the rest of the population.\n* In fact, the actions of the US government don't seem to be especially careful when compared to the actions of say, an European government where gun ownership is restricted. So the threat doesn't seem to be working.\n\n**There won't be a clear point at which to resort to weapons:**\n\n* One path a government may take is to slowly reduce freedoms, in such a way that no single reduction warrants a violent response.\n* The other path is to drastically reduce freedoms, at a time where the country seems to be under attack. The violent response will be prevented by patriotism.\n\n**The results will be counterproductive:**\n\n* By the speed with which things like the PATRIOT act and the TSA appeared it seems like there are laws and proposed organisms lying in wait for just the right incident. An attack against the government that doesn't have widespread public support will result in the swift reduction of freedoms, using the attack as the perfect excuse for it. And the public will support it.\n* The American public is deeply patriotic and any such attacks won't get a positive reception, even despite the people having a serious distrust and lack of faith in the government.\n\n**The willingness to fight will be neutralized:**\n\n* A government changing to a tyranny, unless it's completely stupid, will do so with an amount of care and will try to ensure its own success.\n* A slow introduction of surveillance and restrictions will be able to push back the willingness to fight and undermine any forming resistance. Already existing laws and mechanisms can be used to sabotage such efforts.\n* If a resistance is forming anyway, a government may make just enough concessions to avoid a revolution.\n\n**My conclusion:**\n\nGuns as a way of protecting against the government overstepping its bounds aren't effective until things really get out of hand. By that point, there isn't really any freedom left to protect. \n\nCMV.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Americans of all races should actively refrain form using the N-word with the hope that it fades from use entirely over time. + \n + The N-word - no other word in the English language has such a powerfully negative meaning or evokes such a visceral reaction from both blacks and whites alike. \n\nIt seems African Americans in the U.S. attempt to \"own it\" or \"redefine it in a positive way\", as some kind of symbol of brotherhood - at least within their own community.  This seems to me as ridiculous as Jews trying to re-appropriate the Swastika as a positive icon in their community. However, by continuing to use the word, they merely keep the term in use in modern language and create awkward circumstances for other races for whom it's not socially acceptable to be used in even the most positive contexts.\n\nThere are plenty of derogatory terms throughout history that have faded from use and are no longer relevant and I think given the inflammatory nature of the word, as well as the shameful history it represents, it should be actively avoided - even in \"positive\" contexts which only serve to perpetuate its use.\n\nLastly, how would language truly suffer by the removal of this particularly nasty word?  Language evolves and adapts over time, and if the majority of people both black and white actively discourage its use, eventually it will die out - and the English language will be better for it.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: America has a responsibility to get involved in foreign conflicts because we are in a position of power. + \n + We have a responsibility to prevent massacres or civil wars in foreign countries because we are one of the only ones who can. We are one of the only ones who are in a position where we can help a foreign people. Its like this, lets say you are one of those people who carry a concealed firearm with you wherever you go, and you see someone being raped in an alley at 2 in the morning. To walk away is a terrible thing to do, you have a gun, why wouldn't you use it to protect that poor woman? You are the only one who can! I think we can all agree that when you are in a position of power, you should use your power to fight for the greater good. It is our responsibility to be \"world police\" because we can.\n\n\nLets say 2 countries both depend on a certain river for water, and the up stream nation takes all the water before it reaches its downstream neighbor. So the down steam neighbor, after trying to negotiate, resorts to warfare, and attacks its upstream neighbor. We should get involved, but not necessarily with force. We should start negotiations to get them to share the water. Or we could help the downstream neighbor develop a new source of water. The point is, we don't necessarily have to use force to solve the conflict. But if the upstream nation absolutely refused to allow the downstream nation any water, than we may have to threaten them with force, and if that doesn't work, then we could use force.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think that the federal government in the USA should function more like an economic union and that the states should have much more political power. + \n + I think that the only role of the federal government should be to help economic cooperation between states, ensure state laws don't violate people's rights and provide defense against clear threats to the United States and their allies. There is a massive divide between different states. I've traveled abroad, and while traveling to other parts of the United States from my home in California it often feels like I'm in another country. I think that if governments worked for lesser people they could get more done and people could build governments that work for their state's way of living and be better able to fix problems. I also think that the federal government shouldn't collect taxes directly but instead should just write states a bill and then it would be the responsibility of state governments to decide how they're going to get everyone to pay up. It doesn't make sense to me why politicians elected by people who live in states thousands of miles away from me have so much power in my state. It is completely understandable to me how different political philosophies would work in some states and completely fail in others. \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The default provision of water at restaurants is often wasteful and should be stopped. + \n + Throughout my lifetime in the southwestern US I have been provided with water at restaurants whether I requested it or not. It's brought out even before drink orders are requested. I drink soda and will leave water completely untouched if it is provided. Often, despite my not requesting it, I've been brought a glass of water along with my glass of soda.\n\nAs many probably know, my area of the country is in a prolonged drought that has led to water rationing, limits on car washing and lawn watering, etc.  We're all advised to limit water usage and waste by turning the tap off while brushing our teeth. We are trying to limit water waste but seem to overlook the waste generated by every diner, whether they will drink it or not, being provided a glass of water, sometimes even an additional carafe on the table. Furthermore, the extra glass that I did not need will now need to be washed, leading to more wasted resources, including more water.\n\nI have been traveling/eating out a lot recently and have been observing many other diners who do not drink the water provided for them because they opt for alcohol or soda.\n\nI certainly think water should be provided for free, but I see no reason that it should be provided preemptively rather than upon request. This practice should be halted in order to reduce water waste.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Economic growth in developed countries is bad and will lead to resource strain in the future. + \n + Estimates show that the average american uses around 4 times the resources that the planet could support, if everyone was an American. These numbers are somewhat lower in Western Europe, however still double what the planet could support at 8 billion people. My point is the more that people in developed countries accumulate wealth, the less wealth there will be for developing and undeveloped countries to accumulate. If we do not accept that our material wealth must remain stagnant from now on in places such as America, and Europe; countries in places such as Africa and Asia will forever be stuck in a low income way of life.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: It's dishonest when feminists respond to criticism of feminism with \"It's just the belief that women are equal\" + \n + I'll preface this with saying that I'm a guy and I consider myself extremely feminist and would disagree with the criticisms for feminism for other reasons. I think it's clear that modern feminism is much more than just that belief, and that it's totally reasonable to believe that women and men should be equal, but not be feminist.\n\n**There are multiple valid perceptions of equality, some of which do not lend themselves to modern feminism**\n\nThe perception of equality that most critics of feminism would subscribe to would be a pretty basic \"equality of opportunity,\" where women are given the same legal rights as men. For the most part, this sense of equality is achieved in the developed world, and feminism doesn't seem extremely necessary\n\nThe more feminist perception of equality is a more complex view of equality of opportunity that attempts to achieve equality through other actions. For example, many biases prevent women from succeeding in certain fields, so feminists would often embrace some form of affirmative action or grants for women in these fields. I personally believe this is the right way to go about things, but it's it would technically violate the very strict interpretation of equality. Other policies like supporting abortion, maternity leave, etc. all attempt to create equality by making physical factors that advantage men over women less of an issue would fit the same argument as above.\n\n**3rd wave feminism is more than just wanting equality**\n\nFeminism has evolved from just \"women deserve equal rights\" to a discussion about what it means to be female (or other gender and sometimes racial identities.) This type of discussion is really interesting and really important. However, it can be off-putting to somebody who doesn't really fit the identities feminism focuses on (mainly cisgendered men.) \n\nI think it's perfectly reasonable for a guy who isn't interested in discussing female identity in modern society to not identity as feminist, or even feel abandoned by it. There are plenty of ways that feminism helps men, but those issues tend to be on the back-burner. Unfortunately, there's not many misogyny-free communities for discussing men's issues. Until more of those exist and are promoted, it doesn't make much sense to expect men to identify as feminist.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I Don't Like Political Correctness. + \n + I don't always think before I speak.  In sales, the ability to respond to questions quickly tends to be an asset, and it's a skill that I'm lucky enough to have naturally.\n\nI'd never intentionally contribute to our culture of racism, and so far I haven't.  Still, I might make a mistake some day.   There's nothing I can do to make sure I don't slip up that doesn't also hurt my ability to make a living.\n\nSo why would I want to live in a world where all it takes is a single gaffe to wind up in HR?  Why would I support civil rights causes, despite the fact that they're dear to me, if the only way to support civil rights is to join groups that demand PC compliance as well?\n\nCensorship is the enemy of the glib, and all of the people who are considered witty or fun to talk to are glib.  I don't think it's strategically sound to alienate the people who are the best at convincing people of stuff from causes that require the majority of people to be convinced in order to be effective.\n\nhttp://i.imgur.com/oyjb1pd.webm\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Punishment has little value in deterring bad behavior and is primary motivated by an innate human love of violence + \n + I think the real reason people punish others for transgressions is not so much to discourage the behavior, but rather to channel humanity's inherently predatory nature in a way that's socially acceptable and does not contradict with the moral values we have invented (or discovered, depending on how you look at it).\n\nMost people feel a smug sense of satisfaction if they hear about a bully being beat up, or a murderer being executed by the state. Humans, being predatory creatures, have a certain sense of bloodlust and channeling this predatory instinct towards people who are predatory allows them to continue to view themselves as not being predators, while still enjoying violence.\n\nEven bullies often justify their torments of victims as a form of punishment for not fitting the social norms, being \"annoying\" or acting in a way that is in their eyes unacceptable. Serial killers also often see their acts as a sort of punishment towards humanity. Rapists are often motivated by a desire to punish women. It seems like evil deeds are often motivated by a perverted sense of justice rather than mere selfishness or greed.\n\nAnother reason I think punishment has more to do with humans enjoying violence than it does with stopping bad behavior is the fact that corporal punishment of children is still very popular and defended by the majority of adults. I always felt like my parents took pleasure in punishing me, so I may be biased, but I really do think parents spank their children more out of anger and frustration than out of a will to help them develop.\n\nAnother reason I think it's innate is because the moral goodness of punishment is something virtually everybody agrees on. Liberals and conservatives alike usually have a \"tough on crime\" stance and would rather a violent criminal receive a harsh punishment even if it's more expensive and makes them less likely to be rehabilitated, than a lesser punishment that rehabilitated them more effectively. This sentiment is prevalent in every culture, even in societies like Scandinavia where the laws are more lenient.\n\nWe punish people because we perceive them as \"deserving it\" ie, we despise them and lust for their blood because we perceive them as being no longer part of the same species, and something that needs to be predated upon for the benefit of the community.\n\nI actually think if there was no prison or capital punishment it would have very little effect on crime rates. The few people who are truly serial offenders could just be put in hospitals and the rest will eventually be released from prison anyway and will be far crazier on release after spending decades in the pen.\n\nIn a nutshell, I think punishment has actually caused far more evil than it's prevented and is really just an outlet for our inherent cruelty as a meat-eating species at the top of the food chain. Punishing people we consider \"bad\" also has the effect of affirming our own self righteousness.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I find it problematic that a Clinton and Bush is runing for president again + \n + So first of I am danish. That means that I follow american politics, much in the same way I follow german politics. Somethings are importent for me and my situation, but most thing are not that importent to me. It is kind of like watching a football match where you don't cheer for any of the teams.\n\nWith that said I find it kind of scary that there is a Clinton and a Bush in this election. The kings in Denmark used to be elected, some thousand years ago, but then it became normal to elect kings from the same familly. Then latter it was always the oldest son and then we endeed up with the system where the king was always the oldest son from the old king. The same is more or less true in many other countries. People seem to rather want to vote on people from families they know than random people.\n\nTo me it kind of seems like America is getting set in their political dynasties and that if this development continues, we might end up with a system where everyone in theory can try to be elected president, but in practise it will always be people from the same political dynasties that gets elected. That is not a nice view to have. Please change it.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: After an apocalypse, society would lack the natural resources needed to rebuild an industrialized society + \n + There is a very interesting theory I've read about recently which discusses humanity's capacity to rebuild after an apocalypse and support any sort of industrialization a second time around.  A very in-depth discussion is available in this article \n\nhttp://aeon.co/magazine/technology/could-we-reboot-civilisation-without-fossil-fuels/\n\nSo, let's assume the world collapses, through some terrible tragedy.  For the sake of argument it doesn't really matter if it is nuclear war, or plague, a zombie outbreak, or whatever.  Let's simply assume that its devastating enough that 99% of humanity is gone, and society completely collapses.  Humanity has basically hit a reset button, and except for some ruins lying around the world, we are back in the stone age.  Eventually, we'll assume that society begins to rebuild.  First as small communities, and then eventually into larger and larger cities/states like we've seen in past human history.   \n\nHowever, if we wanted to replicate our modern society, we simply wouldn't have the natural resources necessary to do so.  The basic theory is that due to our current use of fossil fuels, we've mined or extracted all the easily accessible fossil fuels that would be needed by an early industrializing society.  Almost all of the easily accessible coal, oil and other fuels are simply not available.  The remaining sources that are available require complex engineering that would likely not be available in early stages of industrialization.  And while renewable sources of energy, such as wind and water are available, they lack some of the benefits that fossil fuels bring.  The basic argument is that in order for a society to industrialize, it needs a source of relatively cheap, easily accessible energy, and that really only comes from fossil fuels in a pre-industrial society.  Renewable energy is really only feasible much further down the technology development curve.\n\n\nFor the sake of clarity, let's assume that reindustrialization is the goal.  Ultimately, we want to be able to colonize another planet.  I understand humanity could simply go back to living more in tune with nature, but for this discussion, lets assume that the goal is the longer term survival of the species by moving to another planet.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is a stronger stigma in the American workplace against men who choose not to get married and/or have children, than there is against almost any other group + \n + In the workplace there is a clear stigma against people who choose to not marry and/or have kids. The married guy is seen as more stable, more reliable, more financially adept (somehow), and generally more mature. The man who is single is looked at with apprehension, if not suspicion. The married man needs time off? Sure, you need to take care of the kids! The single guy needs time off? What could you possibly need time off for? Get to work. \n\nWhat about people who are discriminated against on the basis of their race? Sexual orientation? These are protected classes under the rule of law. However, if a man is single, that is a life choice, and that is looked down upon.\n\nA common response to this may be \"what about atheists? Surely atheists are more strongly discriminated against.\" Atheism is something that is much easier to hide. I am an atheist myself, and I have experienced more friction with my employers and colleagues regarding my marriage/breeding views rather than my religious views, which frankly have never come up. \n\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Seltzer is superior soda/pop. + \n + I have recently realized that plain soda (seltzer) is superior to all other sodas.\n\n1. No health risks! No sugar, no weird sugar substitutes.\n\n2. Great Flavor! You get the popping sensation from the bubbles, and the carbonic acid generated by CO2 dissolved in water provides great slightly sour/bitter flavor.\n\n3. Because the flavor is unobtrusive, you can drink Seltzer all day without getting tired of it. In fact you can replace all water you drink with seltzer, something you can't do with any other soda.\n\n4. Seltzer tends to be cheaper than other sodas.\n\nSo go ahead, CMV, what soda should I be drinking instead?\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Exams should have a 'tap out' option + \n + First, this may sound weird but let me explain how this would work. Ideally, all exam papers should have a 'tap out' option where students can ask for a 5 minute 'fresh air' break or something similar. The purpose of this 'tap out' option - and the suggested break time above may not be the best system, but it's just off the top of my head - would be to allow students suffering from a brain freeze, panic attack, stress moment etc. to take a breather. From personal experience many students experience these terrifying ARGHHHHH HELP moments during exams, and I feel that in many cases, a short break and an opportunity to stand up for awhile would really clear the mind. \n\nPossible objections include: \n\n- Ease of cheating. Yes, but an extra invigilator could follow the student out or simply have someone standing in the hallway. \n\n- It's not fair, disruptive, etc. Yes, but ideally the student would be able to raise his/her hand (just like if you had a crazy stomachache) and be escorted quietly out. Also, not too many students would take advantage of this system IMO. \n\n- Extra thinking time: I don't believe that the 5 min 'tap out' should be counted in the exam writing time as this would discourage anxious/stressing students from making use of this option. I also think that it would cause more stress to students who would already be freaking out about not finishing the paper. In my opinion, 5 minutes extra for an exam should not be causing so much difference in terms of performance; if students are working to the last minute, the time limit is 1) too tight or 2) they simply don't know the material. \n\nI would really welcome thoughts on why this is not a practice and suggestions as to why this current suggestion is not a good idea/is a good idea.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: for an average user of the site, the Ashley Madison hack is no worse than any other hack that reveals credit card information + \n + There are 37 million users whose data will be leaked. To sort through all of those names would be highly tedious, especially for someone who doesn't have much reason to suspect their spouse of cheating. Most of those 37 million will manage to go unnoticed, since no one would bother to search for them. Most of these users will not be caught by their spouses due to the high number of names to sort through (especially if they have common names). The only people truly affected by the names of clients being leaked are celebrities, since there will certainly be tabloids combing through the list for them.\n\nFor a typical user, the only negative impact this will have is that their credit card information will be leaked, making this hack no worse than, for example, the Target hack.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The solution to unfair nipple appearances is to ban the male nipple, not \"free\" the female nipple + \n + I have several opinions on this matter.  \n\nFirst, even if it becomes more common for people to post pictures of women topless, private sites like Facebook or Instagram are fully entitled to block/remove those posts.  They are private websites, so they can choose what is decent and indecent to be posted.  \n\nSecondly, although I am conservative in nature, I think it is best for Western Culture to adopt a \"no nipples\" censorship.  \n\nI think that nipples are sexualized features in all genders, and if there is a huge concern with there being inequality in male vs. female nipple showing, then it should be taboo for anyone to show their nipples, and topless pictures (of all genders) should be removed.\n\nI would love to have my mind opened to why people want the female nipple freed, instead of having the male nipple banned.  I sincerely do not understand their view.  So, CMV!\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: New York City should abolish rent regulations. + \n + NYC currently has two schemes for limiting rent: rent control, and rent stabilization.  Both of them should be abolished, though gradually.  I would propose that currently controlled units remain controlled, but that:\n\n* Current units cannot be transferred to a new tenant.  If the original tenant on the lease at the time of the decontrol law vacates the unit, the unit can be listed by the landlord at market rates.  Currently, other occupants related to the lessor can inherit the lease, meaning units pass down in families indefinitely.\n\n* Newly constructed or rented units are not subject to any controls.\n\n* Rents in all controlled units can rise by up to 5% per year.\n\n* Rent decontrol be coupled with large scale upzoning to allow more housing to come on to the market.  This will include infill construction in NYCHA housing projects where developers are willing to pay market rates for the land.\n\n* Buildings which received Mitchell-Lama or other tax subsidies must pay back the subsidies with interest before decontrolling units which were built as a condition of the subsidy, on a pro-rated basis.\n\nThe reason I want to abolish rent regulations in NYC is that it drastically reduces the available housing supply and harms people looking to move to or within the city.  Anyone who has won the rent regulation lottery never moves out, and you end up with a highly inefficient allocation of apartments within the city.\n\nIt also hugely depresses the creation of new rental units within the city, because new landlords see what happened to old landlords who got stuck with controlled units.\n\nI don't think there should be a property right in a rental.  If you want a property interest in the place where you live, you should buy it.  If you're renting, you should be subject to the market forces that come with that.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: A Conservative will never be US president again + \n + I recently saw a video on why the Republicans [can't win](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFrsmi-wazI) the 2016 election. If we go by raw numbers, Hillary will most likely win the next election. This got me thinking.\n\nDemographics are changing in America. Firstly, Non-whites become a higher percent of the US population seemingly every year. This could be for a number of reasons, like immigration, but it's a good thing for the democrats because non-whites are statistically more likely to be liberal. I don't see this trend changing so I have a hard time seeing how the a Conservative will be voted into office again. \n\nSecondly, Conservatives are aging. Statistically, older people are typically more conservative whereas younger people are typically more liberal. The older Conservatives will eventually all die and be replaced by young liberals. \n\nI must be overlooking something, or missing some way that Conservatives can get votes in the future. Has a situation like this happened before? \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Much modern and contemporary art (i.e. non-figurative, \"ready-made\", conceptual etc.) is of profound and deeply expressive merit + \n + Thought I would flip the usual \"Modern art isn't real art\" stance around and present a muscular defense of the various 'radical' branches of 20th and 21st century art. Come at me with all you've got about the poverty of modern art! I'm going to start with a rebuttal of some of the common points raised against the worth of modern art, and then list some of the artists I like and why I like them.\n\n\nSo here's what I see as the commonly raised objections to the value of modern and contemporary art (the distinction between these two terms is somewhat ambiguous, but basically modern art is most of what was created from 1900-1960s, and then a shift to 'contemporary' art gradually occurred). \n\n\n* No effort/technical skill is required to create it\n\n* \"I don't get it/it's just colors\"\n\n* It's not pretty/beautiful\n\nPlease let me know of any others you can think of! But, to address these I've listed:\n\n\nFirst: No effort is required to create it. Yes, in many cases very little traditional technical skill is necessary to create any number of famous pieces of the last century. And by the same token, often very little quantifiable time or physical effort would have been necessary to create the same pieces. But why do we want art to require technical skill or effort? The answer seems to me that it makes worth quantifiable in terms of man-hours spent or technical skills applied - we assign worth to goods with money, and we earn certain amounts of money based on the time we work at a particular job. That feels simple - but actually we know when we think about it that even the apparently firm valuation possible with money is linked to arbitrary process - the economic status of the country which issues it, political contingencies and emergencies, the variability of market prices for goods and services, etc. And time itself is subject to the same instability - it zips by when we're having fun, and drags endlessly when we're working on a tedious task. Similar insights to these are driving factors in the way the artwork of the 20th century moved gradually away from traditional technical representation of subject matter. When we acknowledge that all processes of valuation are, at bottom, arbitrary, we are liberated from the requirement to adhere to traditional systems of valuation, but also forced to confront the problem of using any system of valuation at all. If all value is arbitrary, can we value anything? Is creation valuable? Life itself?\n\n\nThis brings us the 2nd objection: \"It's just colors/abstract\". A common whipping-boy for Reddit's typical reaction against modern art is Mark Rothko, whose monumental color blocks are often presented as a sort of \"Emperor's New Clothes\". And of course, while there actually is a great deal of technical canvas and paint ability which goes into Rothko's works, traditional figurative techniques are abandoned in them. But we must take note: the 'effort' Rothko is putting into his work is not technical effort but rather effort towards discovering a system of valuation which he can stand on and for after he has abandoned traditional systems. For Rothko, his paintings represented man's transcendental relationship with his own consciousness, a kind of pure, experiential expression of pure Being. It is noteworthy that the dominant philosophical trends of the time were phenomenology and existentialism, which were attempts to find a fundamental ground for consciousness in a newly modern world whose science had demoted God from his throne but neglected to nominate a new Fundamental Arbiter in replacement. So, while Rothko does not use traditional figurative techniques, his work is effortful in the sense that it tries to express a new sense of modern spirituality without God. Variations of the same can be said for much of the various avant-gardes of the first half of the 20th century; traditional artistic valuation was being abandoned (and concrete and universal measurement along with it), but the search for a new ground from and of which to create art was a consuming occupation.\n\n\nAnd finally, number 3, \"It's not beautiful/it's ugly\": This point obviously is answered to some degree by the points I've previously made - in dismissing traditional techniques, traditional standards are also held up to question. Beauty becomes something that is not necessarily inherent in a particular nude figure painted with particular colors and brush-strokes, if it is even something to be strived after at all. Duchamp's 'Fountain', among much of his other work, was a fairly direct critique of traditional concepts of artistic beauty, and later Conceptual artists would work with ideas which were in many cases almost totally devoid of physical manifestation, or any object with which to invest with traditional beauty. That doesn't mean many of their works are not beautiful however - the simplicity and poetic elegance of Hans Haacke's [Condensation Cube](http://www.macba.cat/en/condensation-cube-1523) would, I argue, meet many updated standards of beauty; a simple transparent figure which manifests changes in the heat and pressure of the room it is within it, providing a sort of spiritual residue of the minds and bodies which perceive and surround it. In any case, the gist of my rebuttal to this last point is that just as artistic techniques had to shift fundamentally to address our experience of living in the modern age, so did standards of beauty, and even the valuation of beauty itself.\n\n\nSo those are my initial defenses against some of the more common critiques of modern art - please do your best to pick them apart, as well as point out other points that I've missed. Take your best shot! But now that I've put up a defense, I'm going to launch a little offense - examples of some of my favorite artists of the last century, all having worked at some points at least in very untraditional mediums. Perhaps some of you will appreciate these artists as much as I do - and perhaps others of you will gain new fodder for the pointed attacks against my favorable stance towards modern art that I am hoping for!\n\n\nI love [Marcel Duchamp] (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Duchamp_Fountaine.jpg). I love [Dieter Roth](http://blog.art21.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/moma_roth_literaturesausage.jpg). I love [Martin Kippenberger](http://www.markorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/kippenburger-moma-032809.jpg). I love [Bruce Nauman](http://inhalemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/bruce-nauman2.jpg). All of these artists have in common their use of non-representational artistic techniques. Duchamp introduced the 'ready-made', and irreverently demonstrated the contingency of artistic value through his 'Fountain'. Roth frequently incorporated real food into his work, which inevitably would decompose and change form (and smell). His use of this material points towards the mortality and changeability of things, as well as linking the traditionally abstract realm of artistic production to the corporeality of bodily functioning. One of Martin Kippenberger's most famous pieces is his 'Happy End of Franz Kafka's America', which assembled dozens of pairs of chairs around desks on a sports playing field, with books commissioned by friends of the artists on many of the desks. The work is almost all 'ready-mades', so to speak, with most of the furniture being found and the books written by someone other than the artist, but that's exactly the point - Kippenberger's conception of the creativity of the artist rejected the traditional image of the solitary genius plucking ideas from the ether. Rather, art for Kippenberger was an inherently social function, a variable form of communication of the same type as talking or writing - although a communicative form of imperative spiritual importance. Kippenberger repositioned the artist within the social milieu from which he is at bottom inseparable. Nauman is a mercurial figure who works in many mediums - from sculptures that look like rags tossed in a corner to blinking poetic invocations in neon. What they have in common is an ambiguously anti-monumental sense; if art can be anything, as Duchamp demonstrated, then much of what the artist does in his art studio can be art, as Nauman intuited, even if appears to be trash or built in a gaudily commercial medium, or even if it's simply the act of walking around the studio itself. Here the social role of the artist creates the work as much as the artistic concept. Thus Nauman's dispersed and abject sculptures, or his [lists of neon words](http://beautifuldecay.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/bruce-nauman-1-e1299486791926.jpg) which, as portions constantly blink on and off, modulate to new ambiguities the ambiguity already present in each phrase, demonstrate a freedom of creation bound to the realm of play opened by the identification of the artist with his social role.\n\n\nOK, so that's enough theorizing from me - change my view! Make me realize that modern art is worthless. I don't care how you do it, but I want to be feeling deep existential dread at the way I've wasted years of my life on a total void by the time I wake up tomorrow morning! Have at it. \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe schools should be allowed to use corporal punishment. + \n + I believe negative reinforcement can teach children to behave better and become better people and is a much more universal method than others that can be applied to any student and work in the end.\n\nWhile things like talking to the student or denying him attention or other modern ways of 'discipline' may work sometimes, they don't work for every student, (I believe some cases may even make the situation worse). Corporal punishment, on the other hand, works for every student and builds a stronger person, pain and fear being much more powerful motivators than a little 'maybe you shouldn't, Johnny.'\n\n\nYes, positive reinforcement is also important, but without any kind of real punishment then students who do nothing at all are neither punished nor rewarded, which means that most kids would end up there because it requires no effort, so kids don't try to do anything.\n\nAlso, corporal punishment was not put there to reduce crime, its to ensure students are punished for bad actions so that they do not happen at school again. Beyond that, it's up to parents to raise their kids correctly.\n\n> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The US president is right to refer to the White House as \"my house\" + \n + So [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tma1CM0f4dM) happened today. And on Facebook and on youtube the majority of comments calls out his semantics that its not his house. Because it is a \"property\" of \"we the people\" and thus he cannot refer to it as \"his house\" ( Im aware that he still can say what he wants because the first Amendment)\n\nI think that you it is justified to call a place where you life \" your house\" as you call the City you are a citizen of \"your\" city even though you dont own the City.\n\nSo for me he can justifiably call the White House his house while being the president. Even though he does not own it. \n\nCMV\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Many aims of the transsexual community contradict many 2nd and 3rd wave feminist views + \n + I hear a lot about modern feminism being closely related or even incorporating LGBT+ into itself, and this makes very little sense to me.  \n\n\nEquality of opportunity can only truly exist if male and female people are perceived as equal in every way as long as  humans and inherent human bias are still factors - this is one issue I have with Feminism in general, but not the point of this CMV. My view is that this directly contradicts the very idea of transgenderism and even to an extent homosexuality in that it removes the unorthodoxy in interaction between gender in non-traditional ways not via acceptance, but by unifying the genders.\n\n \nIdeally, in a feminist world as I see it, genders would be identical in interaction both socially and in work, and biological sex either disregarded or put onto a 'spectrum', in which case transgenderism could be considered a purely cosmetic change (which would be undesirable to undergo seen as the perception of you would not change despite the effort you put in). The current reason as I see it is that they fit better into their reassigned gender roles, which I respect, but gender roles would be eliminated by many feminists, given a chance.\n\nBeacause of this, I see transgenderism as either meaningless in the context of Feminism, or a stepping stone for a pseudo-Orwellian future of counter-constructive normality.  \n\nPlease CMV.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: its stupid to get excited about political candidates (eg. bernie) and expect their election to bring about any significant change. + \n + Same shit happened with obeezy. I have no faith in our political system, its fundamentally ineffective and archaic to the extent that i dont see a huge difference in policy no matter who ends up being elected.\n\nI believe that if you want something to change that the best and more or less only way to do it is through grass roots activism, eg. We kept CSG mines out of our community by fighting the actual companies and protesting instead of relying on politicians, the same thing recently happened on a larger scale with the Adani coal mine, an example in the US would be the introduction of bodycams on police and heightened scrutiny of their behavior in general thanks to regular peoples social activism.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Telling kids to ignore bullying, or telling them that it's their own fault, is victim blaming and should not be done. + \n + When I was in Middle School kids bullied me all the time, I told the teachers, but they just told me to ignore it. I had to use every ounce of my willpower to prevent myself from fighting back. Whenever I was bullied, I would scream at the bullies. The teachers told me that it was my own fault that I was being bullied because of the way I screamed at them. I tried to tell them that screaming was a reflex which I physically couldn't control, but they just kept telling me that it was my own fault. For years, I had to hold in all of my anger because I knew that if I fought back I would be suspended. It was holding in all that anger which led to a suicide attempt. This was a long time ago, so I'm better now. However, the reason why victims of bullying commit suicide is because no one takes them seriously. No matter how minor the bullying is, a person should never be told to ignore it, and certainly never told that it's their own fault. It is the very definition of victim blaming and should not be done. I'm sure some of the comments will say that they only bullied me to get a reaction, so if I didn't scream at them they would have stopped bullying me. However, saying that is victim blaming, no matter how true it is. I would also like to point out that screaming is a natural reaction to fear, and that I was using all of my willpower to prevent myself from fight back. If the school will not allow kids to fight back, than the school should do something about the bullying. If I could have fought back without being suspended, than I would have. My school has a policy that all kids involved in a fight are suspended. In my school, kids given out-of-school suspension are forced to go to an \"Alternative Learning Center\" for the duration of their suspension. I knew that if I was suspended I would be sent their, and that it was filled with bad kids who would have been far worse than the bullies at the school.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Price gouging during natural disasters is a good thing, and should not be banned. + \n + This came up in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy for me, since I live in an area of NY (Long Island) that was fairly heavily effected.\n\nAfter the storm, generators and gasoline were in very high demand and very short supply.  Due to [NY's price gouging law](http://www.ag.ny.gov/price-gouging), gas prices rose only very modestly after the storm, and many gas stations had incredibly long lines.  Generators were basically unavailable at any price.  \n\nIf price gouging had been allowed, the high prices  would have had two effects, both beneficial:\n\n* The price would have attracted needed items from outside the effected area to come in via unusual means.\n\nNormally, gasoline was delivered by pipeline.  But due to the flooding, the main pipeline terminals were knocked offline.  If gas had been, say, $6 a gallon in NY, every gasoline tank truck in the Northeastern US would have started heading there full of gas.  On a 2500 gallon truck, you could make $5000 per trip by hauling in gas from Binghamton or Boston.  And I think most tank trucks are even bigger than that.  Likewise, every generator along the eastern seaboard would have been heading for the area.  Because the price wasn't allowed to rise though, there wasn't the monetary incentive needed to get people to do crazy things to overcome the logistical challenges.\n\n* The higher prices would have caused people to conserve.\n\nPeople panicked when they thought supply of gas might be unavailable.  They'd flock to any open station and have huge lines, even if they had enough gas in the car to last a few days.  When the price rises substantially, it will make people conserve more, and leave what's left for people who really need it and are thus willing to pay the temporarily higher prices.\n \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Gender fluidity is not a thing. + \n + In response to this [article](http://www.elle.com/culture/movies-tv/a28865/ruby-rose-oitnb/). I believe you can be a man or a woman or trans, and you can be any sexual orientation you want under the rainbow! Every persons orientation is a little nuanced. I don't believe you're gender can be nuanced. You are a man or a woman, whether you were born that way or you underwent physical changes later in life because you knew deep down that you were a man/woman under the skin you were born in. I don't believe you can make a daily choice to identify as a different gender. So you are a girl who hates skirts? You aren't a man because of that, you are just a girl who hates skirts. Not conforming to gender roles doesn't mean that you have the choice to identify yourself as a different gender whenever you please.   \nWhen a trans person switches, they have to jump through all sorts of hoops to legally be a gender. If we recognized \"gender fluidity\" all sorts of problems could arise, such as \"which change room should I use?\". Would it just change depending on how they were feeling that day? Would we all be okay with men, deciding that they are more of a woman today, going into female change rooms and stripping down in front of children?  \nI don't believe that people really feel the need to change their genders on a daily basis, and I don't agree with those who would try to force me to respect their \"fluid\" gender. There is already a term for people who don't conform to gender stereotypes and it's androgyny. I consider myself to be a very open person, especially when it comes to other peoples personal choices that don't affect me so please CMV.  \nThat being said I understand how they is a good term over he/she. It sounds weird to call a girl a they but if someone asked me to refer to them that way, obviously I would. ", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:One should be ashamed to call themselves \"white\". + \n + Whiteness is a normative social construct. As such, it is used as a benchmark--those not meeting the criteria of whiteness are automatically (by the internal logic of this system) inferior. This benchmark is subject to change, but always exists--e.g.: Italians, Irish, and some Hispanics are now eligible for whiteness, but this was not always the case.\n\nNo good has ever been brought about by a person acting \"as a white\". Acting as a white is always concurrent to causing harm to \"nonwhites\". In claiming whiteness, one has ipso facto claimed superiority over others purely on the basis of meeting some loosely defined criteria centered on skin tone. Being proud to be white is tantamount to white pride, which is of course tantamount to hate. As a corollary, black pride is not hateful, and is a positive defense to the harm caused by whiteness.\n\nI am ashamed of my perceived race. You should be too.\n\n...\n\n\n\nI will award a delta if I am convinced that:\n\n* Race (not ethnic background) is not a social construct.\n\n* Within the context of race, as a social construct, white is not the normative value.\n\n* (Cringe) Whiteness should be the normative value.\n\nThe above is not exhaustive. CMV!\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: About Transgenderism, sincerely please + \n + I would ultimately call transgenderism an abnormality; keeping in mind that normalcy is subject to change and is culture specific. In the same way, I would call blue eyes and homosexuality an abnormality. None of which, in this day an age, negatively impact these people's outlook of life and how happily they could live their lives (ignoring reactions from social responses of being transgender/gay/blue eyes). My flow of logic is as follows:\n\nAn abnormality is something that differs from what is usually observed in any life form.\n\nIf in a perfect world, all humans primarily use right hands over left, then a left handed person would be abnormal but still able to live just as easily as any right handed person.\n\nIf in this nonperfect world, a life form's goal is ultimately to survive and procreate for future generations; then something that inhibits this primal goal would be a negative change.\n\nLiving in the world that we do, our goal as a species is not to procreate as much as possible, because we do not require it for survival of the species. More so the goal changes simply to be as happy as we can be.\n\nIf a human who lived in our early stages as humans was 100% homosexual in a world mostly heterosexual, a homosexual would have difficulty passing their genes along to future generations.\n\nIn early stages of human life, homosexuality was a negative change from normality because it disallowed the life form to bare more life.\n\nIn 2015, homosexuality is not a negative change because procreation is not a fundamental goal, whereas happiness is. \n\nTherefore, being homosexual is no longer a negative change, simply an abnormality.\n\nBeing transgender is a 'disagreement' between mind and body.\n\nIn early stages of human life, a human that thought it was not human (ie: a plant or a fish) would have a very difficult time achieving it's specie's fundamental goals.\n\nIn 2015, we no longer have these fundamental goals, because instead, being comfortable and happy is what we desire.\n\nA homosexual or transgender is a person with an abnormality that at a point in time would negatively impact their ability to survive and procreate, but has 'no' impact on their ability to be happy.\n\nAlso, I would say if modernism has a way to remedy the abnormality to allow the abnormal being to still be happy, then it ought to be remedied. \n\nThe easiest way to change modernism to allow all peoples to be happy is to change our view of how we perceive them; in a similar way we do not hate people with retardations; because in a point in time it was okay to allow those who cannot survive and procreate to die off. But as I have said, ability to survive is not something we restrict happiness to. \n\nIf a person 'chooses' (or not chooses) to live happily in a way that defies the necessities of survival that person ought to be respected nonetheless. \n\nBut social variations that directly go against how we were 'designed' to live are abnormalities.\n\nA transgender person is abnormal, but not lesser.\n\nA homosexual person is abnormal, but not lesser.\n\nA blue eyed person is abnormal, but not lesser.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The actions taken on gay marriage and the ACA are ultimately more helpful to the GOP than the dems. + \n + By the time gay marriage ruling comes in, the GOP will have been helped a lot to win the presidential election. Why? Because these become settled issues. \n\nIn my heart, I truly believe there are a lot of republicans who are not racist and homophobic. But they get branded that way by virtue of being part of the GOP. These republicans are now freer to say, let's move on. They can now pivot to other issues. Issues that a broader segment of the population might be favorable to. The Dems have now lost an important rallying issue with gay marriage.  \n\nI worked in politics for years and if theres one thing politicians love, it's an issue they can complain about and do nothing to fix. For the dems, it's campaign finance. For the the GOP, it's the ACA. For 18 months, the GOP can talk all about how bad the ACA is and how their plan is better. Or just complain. But they can also throw up their hands and say their hands are partitially tied by the SCOTUS ruling. \n\nBy not having to help reach a conclusion to the gay marriage debate and being told by the SCOTUS to give it a rest, GOP presidential candidates are better positioned to win the presidency. CMV\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Game of Thrones is shot in a very bland, utilitarian sort of way + \n + Shot composition is, in my opinion, one of the most important aspects of good cinematography, and yet despite the incredibly high production values, wonderful costumes, lavish sets, and generally decent acting, Game of Thrones never seems to make the most of the things it chooses to point a camera at. \n\n\nThere's something very unambitious and utilitarian about the way the shots are composed. In every episode, we're treated with one or two shots which feel like a bit of thought has gone into where the camera will be positioned and how the shot will be framed. In the most recent episode, for example, there were a few nice shots where two characters are on a beach, reflected by the wet sand. And the action scenes are generally pretty good. But the dialogue scenes are just bland. Most of the dialogue scenes between two characters follow a very uninteresting formula:\n\n\n* One character is doing something quietly by themselves (reading, eating, thinking, sweeping, etc.)\n* The other character approaches. We'll get a lot of static shots with both characters in the frame\n* The conversation plays out, and generally neither actor will really do much during the conversation. If they were doing something before (like making a fire) they'll keep doing it, but otherwise they'll either just sit there or stand there. Only in the most extreme of cases (usually during life-or-death bits) will they let emotion actually allow them to use gestures, or do things while speaking. They're reminiscent of Skyrim characters in that way. This wouldn't be such a problem if the camera wasn't so static and uninteresting also. We'll get lots of 'shot reverse-shot', lots of static shots with both characters in, and generally every shot will be there merely to be pointed at whoever is speaking and little more. There seems no attempt to use the beautiful language of cinema to convey emotion. That scene between Jon Snow and Brian Blessed in the most recent episode, for example, was not half as tense as it could have been in the hands of more competent cinematographers.\n\n\nI mean, put it this way. Watch this bit (1:20:39)[https://youtu.be/ABcXyZn9xjg?t=4839] of RedLetterMedia's excellent review of Star Wars: Episode 3. I feel you could almost lift RLM's criticism and apply it directly to Game of Thrones. Other than, as I've mentioned, the occasional decent shot (normally one per episode) and very occasionally a shot which is actually memorable (normally one per season) - can you really say Game of Thrones understands the power of shot composition any more than Episode 3 does?\n\n\nOne more point based on what I anticipate I will get in reply to this: I don't think it's unfair to hold TV shows to the same high standard of cinematography that films achieve. We've seen what TV shows can achieve with great filming: Breaking Bad (particularly the episodes directed by Rian Johnson such as 'Fly', 'Ozymandias' and '51') frames shots to help us understand its characters through the power of symbolism. Garth Marenghi's Darkplace exploits the limitations of the film medium for comedic effect. Even hit-and-miss shows like Sherlock manage to shoot scenes in creative, interesting ways. Game of Thrones, however, seems almost entirely utilitarian in its approach. As long as we can see what's going on in each shot, that's good enough for them.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: while keeping freedom of press and expression, money should be removed from corrupting enterprises like porn, gambling and prisons + \n + The idea is not to infringe on anyone's right to express themselves. If someone wants to have and film adult consenting adults having sex then they are free to do this. Instead remove money from the industry to ensure those who do not want to engaged in such behavior do not find themselves with no alternative. In other words, remove the incentive for the creation of such content. \n\nThis idea could be extended to other gray areas where we value freedom but we do not want to incentivize the behavior.  Perhaps limit the profits casinos can make. Limit the profits prisons can make from prisoners. \n\nBasically remove the incentives that encoruage taking advantage of people", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: A psychologist or psychiatrist can't do anything for my issues, other than prescribe medication. + \n + Basically I have some mental issues (mainly anxiety, OCD and trusting people). I realize the issues are irrational but what irritates me is when someone tells me I should \"talk to someone about them\"\n\nI'm not sure what talking to someone would do, as from every experience I've had they will just parrot back at me what I already know about the disorder.\n\nAside from maybe giving me medication, I see absolutely no value in \"talking\" to someone, when I've pretty much analyzed the root of most of my problems.\n\nWhen it comes to anxiety, OCD and trust, these are all things I'm extremely cautious about. Telling me to be *less* cautious about a valid threat is like telling me to be less cautious about walking through the ghetto at night.\n\nI can't possibly imagine what benefit a psych professional would give to someone who is aware they are irrational. \n\nThe neurotic precautions I take aren't on the scale of not leaving the house because a meteor might hit, they are legitimate precautions that most normal people admit to me are a valid concern, but that they \"try not to think about what could happen\" and thus don't take precautions.\n\nFor example:\n\n-Sleeping in my car instead of a hotel for fear of bed bugs.\n\n-Completely writing off living in apartments as an option for fear of getting bed bugs/cockroaches.\n\n-Throwing away food (as opposed to making a scene or eating it) if I see the food employee handle it with their bare hands, or inadvertently touch the side of the napkin that will grab my pastry with their dirty hands, before picking it up.\n\n-Unscrewing my lightbulbs before I leave my house to confuse potential burglars.\n\n-Taking alternate routes if I see a gravel truck a mile ahead of me on the highway, as opposed to being forced to inevitably pass it and get my car pelted with stone chips.\n\n-Dating, at all. Would not commit to someone unless I was on a desert island where noone else could interfere. Dating in a dynamic world where I am anything less than a top 10% male is too risky, as all it would take is a determined individual with more to offer than myself and an opportunistic time.\n\n-Expiration dates: When in doubt of how long a food item was opened for I throw it away, even if it's a condiment that tends to have a long shelf life. Unknown = toss. I wasted so much money doing this I now exclusively eat out to avoid having to throw food away.\n\n\nSo as you can see I have rational concerns but irrational worry about them. Telling me *not* to do any of those things is asking me to be more vulnerable to threats with relatively high probability of happening. IT isn't like I'm afraid of meteors and volcano's here... I spend too much time researching things and have become hyper aware.\n\nFor example, each one of the things I listed, a person in that profession may also do the same thing I do, for example a pest control professional might also avoid hotels, knowing the high risks.... a car detailer might also avoid highways if he sees a gravel truck, and a food safety professional might also throw food away if he sees a dirty hand touch it...\n\nthe problem is because I research everything, I have developed the \"experts precaution\" on just about all of it... and it costs me a lot of time and money, though I don't see what a psych could do other than prescribe me meds or tell me to be more accepting of risk.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The Slut/Stud Inequality Is Generally Justified + \n + Or more specifically, it is justified in general when a man gets praise for \u201csleeping around\", and it is also justified when the woman does not get the same level of praise for the same behaviour. \n\nI want to make this point clear \u2013 I am NOT debating whether or not it is good/bad when a woman engages in behavior that is typically defined under the scope of \"slut.\" That is another argument altogether. I am only asserting that the difference in reaction the majority of people have when they hear about the sexual exploits of either gender is, in general, justified.\n\nThe reason for this, of course, is biological. It is generally imperative for males to propagate their DNA throughout many different potential mates as possible, to ensure the survival of his line. Historically, however, females had to be more restrictive with who they engage in intercourse with, because they were then strapped with the burden of taking care of/raising a child as a product of the encounter. The brains, hormone profiles, and physiology are disparate between the genders to reflect, in part, these differences in motivation.\n\nGiven these differences, the crux of my argument boils down to this: it is simply more difficult for a heterosexual man to attain sex, than a woman, ceterus paribus. \n\nOnce again, to be very clear, I'm not making any moral claims about being a slut; I'm simply stating the difference in difficulty in accomplishing the same task, and the justification of the subsequent reaction.\n\nTo illustrate this point, I would like to I highlight the scenario of Bob. Bob built a business from the ground up; through sheer hard work and determination, he came from nothing, and now runs a company of hundreds of employees, making millions in revenue.\n\nNow, here is Patrick. Patrick also has a company of hundreds of employees, making million dollars in revenue, through his hard work and determination.\n\nThe difference between Bob and Patrick is this \u2013 Bob had absolutely zero dollars in his bank account when he started his business, while Patrick inherited over $5 billion from his father's trust fund.\n\nSo, even though both have technically accomplished the same thing, it would be fair to say that Bob deserves higher praise. The difference being, of course, while the task itself was the same, the difficulty level of either party to achieve/accomplish this task is significantly different. In the same way, we can assert that (all things being equal) it is much more difficult for a man to sleep with many women, than the reverse.\n\nNow, anticipating potential rebuttals, I would like to highlight other scenarios using the same logic above: I believe that heterosexual men (and homosexual women) deserve more praise than homosexual men for the same acts. To what degree, I'm honestly not sure, as I'm not an expert in biology/sociology of this kind, but using the biological argument for the difficulty of the task, I would say that homosexual men hooking up is generally easier than the other scenarios. I could be wrong on this, but it's more of an ancillary point rather than my main argument.\n\nTo make sure that you've been reading all the way down to the bottom, I would really appreciate it if you started your post with any word that rhymes with \"crime.\" \n\nThanks!!!\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: You can't compare Serena Williams to Roger Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic + \n + *Note I'm not anti-women or online troll\n\nI'm sorry, but male and female sports athletes can't be compared.\n\nAny of the top 50-150 male ATP players would beat her 9.5 out of 10 times, there are huge differences in the sport.\n\n1. The average serve for at the 2015 Wimbledon Finals for a Female(I saw the stat during a Semi-Final game) was 94MPH while the males was 124MPH. That's a huge difference, the fastest ever female serve was 131 while the males fastest serve was 163MPH, Cilic, Groth, Karlovic, Raonic, and Roddick all of those players average first serve is above [124MPH](http://heavytopspin.com/2011/10/13/us-open-serve-speed-by-player/).\n\n2. Females play best to 2 sets and men play best to 3 sets\n\n3. It was tested in Battle of the sexes tennis game where Bobby Riggs(Former number 1) at age 55 played 30 year old Margrett Court(Ranked 1 at the time) and she lost in straight sets. Note he latter played King age 26 who beat him at age 56,(He couldn't get any drop shots, but still forced a 3rd set.)\n\n4. Serrnia said in 1998 at the age of 16 that she could beat and male under 200, Karsten Braash responded ranked 203 that he would play her, and she accepted and lost (6,1 6,1)(Note: She won the US open in 1999). Venus then challenged him and lost (6,2)(6,2).\n\nBaraash said he played like a 600th ranked player to keep the game fun.\n\n\nAlso the whole Female World Cup players should be paid the same is total BS in my opinion for two reasons\n\n1. The Female World Cup was projected to bring in 26M viewers while the Male World Cup brought in 800M-1B people(Note: That some countries don't have good reporting standards so the numbers are off.)\n\n2. The Female World Cup brought in $40M Ad revenue while the 2015 male World Cup brought in $4B which is 100x more and thats why the Mens side is paid more.\n\nIn my opinion its insulting to women to pay them the same as the male tournament if they didn't earn it.\n\nIf they want the same tournament winnings they should be advocating for a single tournament not two different tournaments. The same with Tennis if you want to compare Serrna to the male version you should be pushing for a single tournament.\n\n\nhttp://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2014/06/05/the-billion-dollar-business-of-the-world-cup/\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Being quick to anger and violence is a mental illness or disability, and we should be more proactive about getting it treated if we see its symptoms, and preventing it occurring + \n + Often in life, and on the internet, I see people who see violence or anger on a personal level (I would rather not discuss things like wars or gang violence, which have other issues in play) as a solution or immediate reaction to a problem. On a personal level, I cannot fathom how such a person could reach adulthood without being institutionalised or requiring severe therapy in order to control these emotions.  \n\nOur emotions *inform* our actions, but they should never *control* them. I might get irritated at being cut off in traffic, but I would never start cursing out and gesticulating at the driver in front of me - because I rationally know that this will have zero effect in correcting the problem currently being faced. I might get pissed off when I start losing an online game, but I don't start abusing other players, or physically breaking my computer or punching a wall - because that would result in me materially losing, not gaining. So such a person who *does* do such a thing should be considered mentally disabled or ill, as they are taking actions that don't benefit them for only the most minor of catharsis - it's just another flavour of self-harm.  \n\nA simple Google search of \"anger mental illness\" backs up my views, with many anger-related mental health issues. It's even in the public consciousness, with movies like *Anger Management*. Yet somehow, domestic violence continues to be a problem - so somehow, these mentally ill people aren't being caught and somehow believe that violence is ever an acceptable response in an adult life. Even shouting matches still occur despite the fact that any rational adult should be able to carry out a calm conversation and either keep themselves under control, or withdraw if they feel they cannot.   \n\nSo the short version of the CMV is: Being quick or accepting of violence and anger is already partially recognised as a mental disability/illness, but we're not doing enough to combat it. As a global society, we should be more active in teaching children that it's literally never OK in standard adult life (self-defence being the only exception), and if we ever see it in adults, we should be quick to recommend them to therapy in the long-term, and ask them why they feel anger/violence is acceptable in the short term when any sane person would know it's the wrong thing to do.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Islam is incompatible with today's society. + \n + Islam is a religion that spawned from the Quran, a religious text considered to be the Word of God (Allah). This religion began in the Arabian peninsula in the early 600s. \n\nIslam is not only out of date, dangerous to today's society and subversive, but it has always been a violent religion. This would be fine if Islam could be reformed. But that's the trouble with Islam. It has not been widely reformed and I'm afraid it cannot be due to its structure. Sure, it has a similar structure\n\nThe concept of Dar-al-harb/Garb/Kufr (War, War(ottoman),Infidel) and the Dar-al-Islam (Islam/Peace) is one that divides the world into two; nations that follow the law of Islam (Shariah) and those that don't. Before you say that this practice is outdated and out of style, please look at Salafis, the extremist groups in the middle east, and [this fine fellow and other people like him that do not classify as salafis](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV710c1dgpU). Even if the Quran is not taken literally, Shariah law still applies. I have lived in an Islamic country. You do not need to take the Hadith and Quran literally to be subject to literal Shariah law.\n\nRead here:\n\nYou can literally go to jail for renouncing Islam. It's far more serious in countries like Saudi Arabia, and 4 in 10 muslims in the UK want to establish Shariah law. In fact, there are 85 shariah law courthouses in the UK which run by court-approval basis. I personally believe that the political stress plus the fact that both parties signed an agreement to be judged by shariah law makes every case a stamp-and-go case. Before you say that both if both parties consent to it, it's alright, please think about the cultural and familial pressure of Islam and their treatment of women.\n\nWe must not forget Islam's borderline slavery of women. They are covered, silenced, veiled, separated, and treated as commodity. God willing, they at least inherit half the amount a man of the same level of descendence would.\n\nI do not say that muslims are bad people and must convert to be part of today's society. I do not say that at all. In fact, I say the opposite. If anything can stop the self-indulgent hedonism of today's society it is Muslims (And Sikhs). I just say that Islam conflicts with today's society, and it cannot be wholly compatible with today's world. I do not approve of Islam. \n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The greeks are acting like entitled children. + \n + Hi, I'm new.\n\nSo the greeks are complaining about the EU's imposed austerity measures, the terms of their countries increasing debt problems, even going as far as to boycott german goods and compare them to nazi's.\n\nBut they *have* been outspending their means, and are lashing out because they have gotten used to their improved quality of life under the euro and are now being threatened with having that QOL decreased.\n\nThe alternative to the imposed austerity measures is the country defaulting on its debts and becoming a failed state, and the rest of the EU is taking on a large risk by continuing to loan to a country which over the last 5 years has done nothing but ignore the demands of their creditors and complain about sanctions.\n\nYes, its the government's fault and not the people's, but they can't reasonably refuse cuts to their public spending that they can no longer afford, and moreover, why blame the eurozone for trying to help, and not their own incompetent government? Edit: And striking, as if their country didn't have enough problems already?!\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Rand Paul would be a better choice for the presidency than Hillary Clinton. + \n + \n\nI would like to mention that I am a registered independent and will most likely vote for a third party candidate, but I am fairly left wing and agree with the Democratic Party far more often than with the Republican Party. Paul is a pretty progressive guy with a clean record (as far as I know) and his views on many issues differ greatly from the rest of the GOP. While Clinton is very experienced and progressive, she seems like the perfect archetype of the classic sketchy and dishonest politician who is willing to use her power to do whatever it takes to do what she wants. I am afraid I am choosing a better president based on the wrong qualities, or my preference based on too little information.  ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: College students are incredibly foolish, and deserve no pity for their poor decisions + \n + In short, college students are absolute fools, and by and large deserve no pity for their stupidity. I understand what I\u2019m saying is very contentious but allow me to try and explain without sounding like an arrogant jerk (I\u2019ll fail, but whatever). One of the most frustrating things I see in the news is the ridiculous debate over \u201crape-culture\u201d on college campuses as if they\u2019re full of malicious serial rapists and murderers. Now, I\u2019ll admit I am a member of a large social fraternity at my school, a highly ranked university in California with ~40,000 students, so let the bias be noted. I want to first point out that this \u201cdebate\u201d is absurd, there is an imaginary opposition to the idea that rape and rape-culture is bad. You won\u2019t find rallies supporting rape or anyone (of course a few but exceptionally rare) suggesting that rape is acceptable. What the debate clearly stems from is the idea that rape and sexual assault is some liquid term with varying boundaries. A man having sex with a drunk girl is considered rape by some people and to be fine by others. Those saying it is rape see the opposition as suggesting any drunk girl is conscientious \u201casking for it\u201d and likewise those saying it is normal see the other side as suggesting being drunk rids you of responsibility for your actions. This creates an intense debate despite the fact that they all agree on the same fundamental principle. \n\t\nWith that out of the way, let\u2019s talk about the behavior of college students. As I said before I am in a fraternity and the ridiculous nonsense I see every week of the school year is beginning to weigh on me. I have seen a girl give head on a dancefloor in our house surrounded by hundreds of people, I have been assaulted by random guys drunk as hell, I have had to physically remove several guys because they\u2019re pissing in the corner of a room. Of course, we\u2019re totally asking for all of this I suppose is the first thing that comes to most people\u2019s minds. We throw parties, we supply alcohol, we play the music and turn on the blacklights. Who am I to look down upon the result of my creation? And the answer is that I don\u2019t, if I didn\u2019t enjoy it I wouldn\u2019t be taking part in it. What bothers me however is the incredible entitlement and utter lack of dignity these people have. That girl I saw railing a line of coke and pounding away 3 shots out of a plastic handle? Oh it\u2019s her life, who are you to judge! That guy shattering a window on the second floor? Oh you shouldn\u2019t have given him alcohol, shame on you for throwing an unsafe party. \n\t\nWhat I have come to realize is that most students are absolute idiots, at least on the weekends. One caveat, yes I may just be around the wrong crowds, but I would say with complete confidence that at least a third of the student body engages in the type of idiotic garbage I\u2019m talking about. How does this relate to rape? If it isn\u2019t obvious, it is because I end up being the victim. These attitudes and opinions sincerely make me scared to have sex with a girl, because I know just being in a fraternity will make me guilty of rape before I can even open my mouth to defend myself. I find it unbelievable that there is such a stigma against, let\u2019s be honest, men in college. I have to hear about it all day, how dangerous it is to go to a fraternity party, how you\u2019ll get drugged and taken advantage of. Well let me tell you a vast majority of the girls found in these places will drug themselves before any guy even gets the chance. I see girls get black-out drunk and f**k anyone that looks their direction every other weekend and I ask myself, \u201cis this the same type of girl I see ranting and raving that just because she was drunk means she didn\u2019t consent?\u201d It is becoming increasingly hard for me to believe that they aren\u2019t one in the same. Okay, okay I\u2019ve been too anti-female, but believe me I think the guys are just as bad. I have heard of six people getting DUIs in my four years here in college. SIX DUIs, and a few drug related charges. What makes these people think this is acceptable is beyond me, but at least they will reap what they sow, I suppose.\n\t\nThis has probably been hard to follow, but I can sum it up pretty simply. While I\u2019m sure plenty are sincere, and my heart goes out to them, I find so many self-victimizing claims of college students to be farcical. At this point I just don\u2019t feel pity for the kid next to me in class facing a jail sentence for drug possession, or the girl freaking out because she is now known as the girl who banged five guys on the roof in one night. \n\nBeyond having pity I\u2019m angered by the fact these poor decisions end up being blamed on me. Let it be known to the world, because surprisingly no one seems to understand this, your university knows EXACTLY what happens at fraternity houses and they support it. They know underage drinking is everywhere they know the drugs are there. They know several of the fraternities \u201chaze\u201d and simply do not care. The police department knows as well, do you think they are ignorant of the massive weekly house parties? Knowing all of this and with absolute agency to stop these organizations from existing they allow it, because universities see the benefit in the greek system for promoting social events for students. Despite this, even if we don\u2019t serve alcohol at a party if some idiot comes drunk we\u2019re going down. We aren\u2019t offered the fair treatment bars or venues receive even though we serve the same function. The system basically works like this: The university knows well of all activities and events and they allow them while publicly stating they are against underage drinking, hazing, and the like. But if or when something goes wrong like let\u2019s say someone gets alcohol poisoning, the university and police department come crashing down on the organizations they support to save face and place all blame on the members. My reputation and life is under threat because I participate in something innocuous that is constantly scapegoated. \n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The government should assist people in moving out of drought stricken parts of the US. It'd be cheaper and safer in the long run than waiting. + \n +  I think all people should be given assistance moving out of [extremely drought stricken areas](http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/RegionalDroughtMonitor.aspx?west) of the US. Reasons to move them: \n\n* the drought is expected to continue for quite a while. The areas were never suitable for supporting large populations and production in the first place. \n\n* The move could be used to stimulate economic growth in the places people are moved to. \n\n* Lowering the population even by a fraction would loosen the demands the area faces- so it'd be a good move regardless of what fraction you move. \n\n* As a country, we're not very population dense- there is plenty of space. \n\n* The US is already hemorrhaging money, I'm sure politicians can find a little more.\n\nThe way I would do this is to offer people choices of various cities (with caps in place to a certain extent.). Then the government can assist in building housing to move the new refugees. Once people move in, they'd be given a certain amount of free stay (say a year.) and then be offered up a regular lease agreement based on the area's cost of living. As these empty they can be used as low cost housing for families. \n\nThe cities that are chosen (specifically the areas of the cities that are expanded on) would be placed under a federal tax refund/break to people creating new business there (some tax experts would have to write up the conditions for this). Boosting the local economies and bringing jobs to the areas. The cities can also be given a boost to their education funds for a certain amount of time. This is where the city benefits.\n\nThe areas they were leaving would have less demand on their water reserves and could reevaluate how they are managing their resources. They'd be given more time to come up with long term solutions of their own instead of having to crunch down on it right now.\n\n\n\nResponse to /u/Mckoijion RE: Costs\n\nAdditionally. 75 billion dollars is NOTHING in the scope of US government spending. The Federal government spent something like 3.6 trillion dollars for 2015. 75 billion comes out to about 2% of the annual federal budget. The federal government spends .4 trillion on welfare alone (this number does not include pensions or healthcare). I'm way to tired to track where that goes state-wise. 75 billion would represent 18% of the welfare budget. Some of that would really be more reallocated than removed. (Source on the Federal spending numbers)\n\nFor infrastructure, get cities to chip in. They would have a great potential to benefit from the new residents, jobs, businesses and services- not to mention since the tax break would be federal, they'd get new sources of income. They have to bite on the costs of infrastructure. Everyone would have some skin in the game- increasing everyone's drive to make it a successful system.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think that citizens that are not natural-born should be able to run for U.S presidency + \n + The main argument I have heard for not letting foreign-born naturalized citizens from running for U.S presidency is the fact that that person may still harbor sentimental ties with that foreign country. As such, in matters concerning that country, that person may not put the U.S's best interest first. However, let me try to dispute that argument by using myself as an example.\n\nI was born in India and raised by Indian parents. When I was 3 my parents moved permanently to America but under current U.S law, no matter what I do, I can never run for U.S presidency. However, my brother can since he was born in the U.S 3 years after we moved here. Now both my brother and I have been raised by the exact same parents in the same household with the only difference being that he is 6 years younger than me and he was born in the U.S. For both of us, our first language was our native language (not english), we still live by Indian culture and tradition in our house, we have made equal visits to India to visit relatives, and we have equal ties to India. So why does it make sense that my brother has the potential to become the President of the United States and I have no chance at all when we both have an equal bias towards India.    \n\nHere's another example why I think it is ridiculous that foreign-born citizens cannot become president. Let's take the opposite of my situation. Suppose a person was born in America to Chinese parents but soon afterwards moved to China. He lives there for 30 years and then moves back to America. After 14 years of living in the U.S, he is capable of running for presidency if he so wishes. In this case, this person has lived the vast majority of his life in China, almost as if he was simply born there, and he is capable of being the President of United States. Despite the fact that I'm probably more suited to be president than him (from the fact that I was raised here, lived most of my life here, went to school here from kindergarten to college, etc) it is still impossible for me to run.   \n\nIn short, I'm saying that place of birth doesn't say much about your affiliations or familiarity of American culture. Instead of how it is currently, I believe that anyone who lives in the U.S, whether natural-born or not, should be able to run for presidency and the public gets to determine through voting if they actually become the President. \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Equal treatment and opportunities for all is dangerous for society in the long run, because it allows those who wouldn't naturally succeed and climb nature's ladder to reach positions of leadership and power where they can do serious damage. + \n + I do believe people should be treated with decency, but i don't know about complete equality. First off, i don't think that any two people are exactly equal so any act act of equality is really a false show of compassion, although we are all imperfect. Those who are in control and in power are there for a reason. They may be primarily of a certain race, or a certain gender, but that wasn't by accident. If the weak are allowed to take control of the steering wheel by a helping hand, sure everyone will applaud you and say what a good thing you've done at first. But, if that person doesn't know what they're doing they can take other people's lives including their own. \n\n     Man has done horrible things in the name of dominance, but the act of letting everyone dominate can be far worse. Some people were just meant to lose. If you want to win, you have to fight and claw your way to the top. If you are not strong enough, it is a sad thing but find comfort where you're at. In nature the lion doesn't pity the hyena, or cheetah if it cannot feed itself. Say the lion sais here, share my meal and ends up starving. The whole food chain will fall into disarray.\n\n\n\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: No closely related sports are any more difficult than the other + \n + People often time have discussions on what sport is harder between baseball/softball, football/rugby and so on. \nHowever isn't every advantage that may make the sport easier a disadvantage to the opposing team?\nExample:(When in comparison to softball) \"Baseball is much more difficult since the ball is smaller thus so much harder to hit\" \nThough isn't that an advantage to the pitcher?\n\nThe opposite goes for softball while the ball may be easier to hit since it is larger than a baseball, that makes it more difficult for the pitcher to succeed.\nChange my view.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: even though I'm a straight white male, I'm not oppressing anyone by being professionally successful and I don't owe less \"privileged\" ethnicities/genders/sexual orientations anything because of the way I was born + \n + First of all, I'm no racist or sexist and I love everyone. I understand that not everyone has the same chances for success. I just don't think I should be forced to feel guilty if I'm successful if I earn what everything. Just being a white male shouldn't automatically make victories the same as oppressing others. In fact, I feel like people that succeed in their careers are the biggest taxpayers, creators, innovators, and contributors to society, regardless of their skin color or sex. I very fully believe in giving back, but I don't think white men have any more or less of that obligation than women or minorities, and I don't think anybody is evil for achieving or for being rich or powerful so long as they are ethical. I'm very open to reevaluating all of this so please CMV\n\nTLDR: succeeding is different than oppressing others\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Approving the Iran deal is in the best interest of U.S. national security. + \n + I don't see a lot of discussion of the Iran deal on Reddit, which is surprising to me since I think there's a good chance it will wind up as the most significant foreign policy development of the Obama presidency.\n\n\n**Before I launch into my discussion of this issue, let me state the assumptions I'm making about how we evaluate America's national security interests:**\n\n\n1. The top strategic priority for the U.S. is to minimize the chance of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon.  This would be considered the \"worst case scenario\" for the U.S. and its Western allies.\n\n2. The U.S.'s second strategic priority is to minimize the chance of the U.S. entering another ground war in the Middle East (i.e. the \"invade Iran\" outcome).\n\n3. The U.S.'s third strategic priority is to minimize Iran's capacity to support terrorist organizations (i.e. Hezbollah, Hamas) and engage in \"proxy wars\" with our allies (basically Israel and Saudi Arabia), as well as to push Iran to improve the human rights situation within its own borders.\n\n\nMy understanding is further that these priorities are strictly ordered, i.e. that 1 > 2 > 3 in importance, and that (for example) we would only want a better outcome in #3 if it did not come at the expense of #1 and #2.  If you disagree with the assumptions I'm making here, I'm willing to discuss them further in the comments.  But I feel pretty comfortable making these assumptions because pretty much everything I've read (both from the left and from the right, both in favor of and against the deal) has made more or less the same ones.\n\n\nWith that out of the way, let's consider the possibilities on the table.\n\n\nAs I see it, when you push past the rhetoric and boil down what proponents and critics of the deal are saying, **there are basically only four options:**\n\nA. Approve the deal.\n\nB. Reject the deal with the intention of returning to the negotiating table for \"a better deal.\"\n\nC. The military option-- invade Iran for the strategic purpose of destroying their nuclear program.\n\nD. Do nothing (don't approve any deal and continue with the status quo).\n\n\nAlmost everyone seems clear that C is a terrible option.  As we saw in Iraq, our ability to achieve strategic goals through military force in the Middle East is limited.  We would be committing perhaps another trillion dollars or more, to say nothing of the massive loss of American and Iranian life (probably on a scale far greater than we saw in the Iraq war, due to the more advanced nature of Iran\u2019s military infrastructure), and the end result would be further destabilization of the region and more breeding grounds for terrorist groups akin to ISIS.  Some have suggested an air-war only approach, but this would not guarantee eradication of the nuclear program because of sites like Fordow, which houses a nuclear facility deep in an underground bunker.  Michael Hayden, who had been CIA director under George W. Bush, also makes a credible argument that an invasion would actually *cause* the creation of a nuclear weapon, since they would then pull out all the stops on producing one and we wouldn\u2019t be able to destroy their infrastructure in time.\n\n\nSo the military option is awful.  But in my reading, Option D (do nothing) is almost as bad.  If we do nothing, then there are no restrictions and no oversight on Iran's nuclear program from the West whatsoever.  There would be nothing to stop them from developing a nuclear weapon in as few as a few months.  Israel would likely invade Iran before they let that happen, potentially drawing the U.S. into a Middle East war anyway.  So the status quo is pretty untenable.  Even opponents of the deal tend to concede this.\n\n\nThat brings us to Option B, which seems to be the main conservative alternative to the deal.  The idea here is that we should leave sanctions in place, or even toughen them up, until Iran is forced to agree to a much more one-sided capitulation. \n\n\nThis sounds good in theory, but there are several reasons to think this is just unrealistic:\n\n* Russia and China are desperate to resume trade with Iran.  Whether we approve the deal or not, they are likely to repeal their own sanctions (frankly, it was amazing that Obama even got them to go along with the sanctions in the first place.)  Therefore, even if Congress passes tougher sanctions, overall economic pressure on the country will decrease, not increase, weakening our negotiating position.\n* The EU and our other non-Israel allies will blame the U.S., rather than Iran, for the deal falling through, and may even act to decrease their own sanctions.\n* Iran has to appease its own hardliners in government.  The Supreme Leader would not consent to any deal that didn\u2019t include some sort of \u201cface-saving\u201d provision, that lets them propagandize to their own people about their victory over the West.  Therefore, the chance of any deal passing that eliminates 100% of their centrifuges (a key demand of the American right) seems impossible.\n\n\nThe point has been made that Option B is basically the best-case scenario for the *Iranian* government.  If the deal falls through, then they get relief from the economic sanctions that have crippled their country (regardless of what Congress does), they are left with zero international oversight over their nuclear program and are thus free to chug ahead, and best of all, the *Americans* take the blame for the whole thing on the world stage.\n\n\nAdvocates of Option B point out that if we grant Iran any form of sanctions relief, it is likely that they will spend at least some of the money financing terrorist organizations.  As far as I can see, this is probably true  ([Iran no longer funds Hamas](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/10091629/Iran-cuts-Hamas-funding-over-Syria.html) but they do still fund Hezbollah, as far as I know).   But I also don\u2019t really see any way to avoid this without compromising Priority #1 or Priority #2, or more likely, both.  \n\n\nApproving the deal at least gets us oversight, in the form of IAEA inspections, which will have the right to go to any suspicious facility at any time for any reason.  Experts estimate that Iran would not have enough uranium to produce a bomb in less than a year.  If they attempt to \"cheat\" or deny access to inspectors, the \"snapback\" provisions will mean a return to crippling sanctions (and Russia and China won't be able to veto them.)  It's not a perfect deal, but as far as I can see it does achieve Priority #1 and #2 for the U.S.'s national security interests better than any other present option.\n\n\nIf George W. Bush had developed a more coherent Iran strategy beyond just \u201clet\u2019s have some sanctions and eventually they will capitulate to our every demand somehow,\u201d we would probably be in a much better negotiating position (and Iran would be much less far along in its nuclear development.)  He also pretty much destroyed the credibility of any military threat by demonstrating just how unable we are to advance our strategic interests through war in the Middle East.  But given the situation as it stands, I just don\u2019t see any reasonable alternative to approving the (admittedly imperfect) Iran deal.  CMV.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The actions of the McKinney TX police were not over the top + \n + I'm referring to this news story about the incident at the community pool in McKinney TX.  You can reference it here, the video is down the page and is approximately 7:23.  http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mckinney-texas-officer-leave-after-wild-pool-party-video-surfaces-n371281\n\nI believe the premise is simple, if cops arrive on scene due to multiple reports of violence and encounter a large group of people and they are told to disperse and some refuse, they can be detained.  If they resist being detained, they can use force to detain you.  I'm not a lawyer or law enforcement, but I think this is how it works and is common sense.  Age or race does not preclude someone from following lawful orders.\n\nYou can see the order here (https://youtu.be/l4VayHJzaJU?t=2m20s ), she instead steps off in the opposite direction and is still talking at the cop, at which time he tries to detain her and she physically resists via pushing and pulling.  The cop in turn tries to push and pull her to the ground.  \n\nDuring her active resistance, a couple young gentleman approach in what initially seems an aggressive manner, with one of them moving their hand to their waste.  In hindsight, and slow motion on youtube, you can see that he was pushed towards the officer and off balance, but there was no way for that cop to know that at the time, so he drew his gun and backed them off.  I'm guessing that police are probably trained to do this.\n\nThe entire event concluded with one adult arrested, everyone else released and no injuries.  \n\nI think with all of the seriously horrible high profile police brutality in the news as of late, this story is getting caught up in America's typical response of reacting in an overly politically correct fashion, but I could be wrong.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:Men have a more difficult development in life + \n + Some people like to argue that men have a more difficult development then woman do.  Here are some arguments they have:\n\n1. \"After controlling for the arrest offense, criminal history, and other prior characteristics, \"men receive 63% longer sentences on average than women do,\" and \"[w]omen are\u2026twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.\"https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx\nThis fact does not support the politically correct notion that there is a \"war on women\" in the USA, or that America is patriarchal and full of \"male privilege\".  To the contrary, it says that women are more likely to be protected by society than men, and are given special \"female privileges\" which makes their development easier.\n\n2. In the USA all male citizens MUST register with the Selective Service when they turn 18 so they can be drafted into war if \"needed\" and possibly die. This is a highly sexist law at its core. What would happen if we had a law that only drafted African-Americans, or Latinos, or people with blue eyes? Why don't we draft women? Should we? Some nations like Israel do.\n\n3. If a woman and a man engage in sexual intercourse and pregnancy results, a woman can make decisions that disregards the man\u2019s input but that affect him drastically. If the woman decides to terminate the pregnancy, the man has no legal say in the matter. And if the woman decides to continue the pregnancy, again without any discretion from the man, he is legally responsible for child support for 18 years. If he fails to support such a child he can have his wages garnished and/or be imprisoned. (Please note I AM NOT CLAIMING that a man SHOULD have a legal right here, just that he has no legal standing - it is entirely a woman's choice about how to deal with the pregnancy, and this gives her more control and power than a man in that circumstance) For example, a woman can have the baby and then give up a child for adoption against the man's wishes - http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/31/22124881-dad-files-130m-lawsuit-after-son-in-utah-is-given-up-for-adoption.  For another bizarre spin on men's lack of power in these situations check this out; Statutory Rape Victim Ordered To Pay Child Support  http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-12-22/features/9612220045_1_pay-child-support-child-support-behalf.\n\nI think this proves that men have a more difficult development in life then woman do.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Reddit would be a better place if they banned the racist/hate/white nationalist sub-reddits + \n + Reddit is home to some very large white nationalist/racist/neo-nazi communities. CoonTown got about [500 000 unique views last month](https://www.reddit.com/r/CoonTown/about/traffic/) and has about 24k subs.\n\nThese users affect reddit in general and they make it worse. If you don't think they do, then please read through some of this [IamA with a German refugee worker](https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3faghx/iama_german_who_works_with_unaccompanied_minor/).\n\nIf Reddit banned all of these hate subs (and any new ones) then of course the users would blow up, but just like the FPH drama it would die down within a week or two. Then these racists would leave and reddit would be better.\n\nEverybody comes to reddit initially because of some link/thread that they got from somewhere else. As long as reddit still hosts large racist communities (and hosts them ad-free no less) then the number of racists on the entire site will only grow. \n\n**TL;DR - The ban process wouldn't be perfect, but I think that reddit's policy should be \"we don't want racists here. Go somewhere else.\" Instead of their current policy which is \"racists are totally fine, please enjoy your ad-free experience which is subsidised by other content\".**", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Eating meat is murder and as long as I do that I can't call anyone out for doing anything immoral + \n + Animals are living beings able to feel suffering just like humans. Because of this humans and animals are equal and should be treated the same. Humans don't have to eat meat. If I eat meat I support the murder and suffering off these animals, which makes me pro-murder. Just because I feel more of a \"connection\" to humans because they're the same kind of animal as I am doesn't mean that it's right to kill those that I don't feel a connection with, because as I said, they are able to feel suffering, and that's what counts.\n\nBeing pro-murder of living beings being able to feel pain is basically on the bottom of the moral list. Murder is the worst thing anyone can do to another living being. My moral is already so bad, who am I to say people can't be racist? Who am I to say people can't rape? I am pro-murder for gods sake, these things aren't as bad as murder. Sure, these people I'm calling out are maybe meateaters (pro-murder) AND racists (like it would make any difference), but since I'm pro-murder myself who am I really to say anything, c'mon? Plus these rapists could be vegan which makes them a better person than I am since rape is not as bad as murder. I shouldn't even call people out for murdering human beings.\n \nCould someone please change my view on this, it is messing with my head so much. I feel like I can never call out anyone for having bad morals, or even causing extreme physical/mental pain or death to human beings because I am pro-murder of living beings being able to feel suffering myself as long as I eat meat.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is no way to be healthy being overweight, and people who say it is possible are delusional + \n + There is no way to be healthy being overweight. A Body Mass Index of 25 or higher is incredibly unhealthy and leads to problems like Type 2 Diabetes, High blood pressure, heart disease and strokes, kidney disease, cancer, pregnancy complications, and many other diseases. Nobody should accept their body being unhealthy, especially when it has such a simple solution. Laziness is no excuse for being unhealthy. We always hear about overweight people preaching \"fat acceptance\" and pass off any constructive criticism as \"fat hate\". My response to those people is: Nobody hates you for being overweight. People avoid you or look down on you because you refuse to observe your own flaws and you're too lazy to spend an hour of your day improving your body and state of mind like everyone else. Overweight beings shouldn't try to shame people with fit bodies because they spent time and energy improving themselves, and they'll live far longer than anyone with an unhealthy weight.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I'm 21, 5'8 and losing my hair. I will always be alone and no longer want to live. + \n + I'm 21, an engineering student, passionate musician with 10 years of experience.\nI'm 5'8, and rapidly losing my hair. \nI believe I will end up alone. I've only been in one long term relationship, where I settled for someone who wasn't very emotionally stable, this obviously was unhealthy and I had to leave her after 3 dramatic years.\nOut of anger, frustration, and a hunger for change I have spent the last few years doing everything I can to maximize on every aspect of my life that I have control over. I dress well, have a good sense of humor and a very outgoing persona (I genuinely love talking to people), I also have one of the best competitive physiques I have seen from years of sports, intense weightlifting, proper training, eating and excercise. I've pushed myself so hard to develop habits that encourage me to be an honest, empathetic, and selfless human being.\nI've read virtually every pickup and seduction book out there (while avoiding the disgustingly mysoginist side of that community), and have approached and talked to endless girls without fear (confidently and without anxiety) yet I am flaked on 100% of the time, every single time.\n\nMy increasing hair loss feels like a ticking time bomb for finding someone who will care for me enough to look past it before it goes or the Propecia I take kills my sex drive, as my short stature already turns girls away as it is. And it hurts so much that I have placed so much effort into changing the things that I can, when the things that I can't change inhibit me the most.\n\nYet no matter how hard I fucking try and want to I am unable to force myself to be attracted to girls who aren't fit and intelligent (basically from my experience, girls that are out of my league), probably due being in the physical shape that I'm in and valuing pursuit of knowledge and intellectual conversarion myself.\n\nI don't want to get laid, or bang 100 girls.\n\nI just want to fall in love man, and have someone who lets me love them, and doesn't care that I'm short and losing my hair because I'd go to the ends of the Earth to fight for and protect them.\nBecause my biggest fucking fear in life, is settling in a marriage with a girl I'm not attracted to and abandoning my wife and kids as my father did to me. \n\nAnd the worst fucking part about it, is I'm being broken into pieces by this STUPID INSIGNIFICANT shit when 200,000 Haitians were buried under buildings in an earthquake and I am otherwise perfectly healthy while others are in hospital beds fighting for the opportunity for life that I currently hold and take for granted.\n\nHow fucked up is that? \nAnd knowing that makes me feel like such a small piece of shit man that I can't come to terms with my emotions and get the fuck over it.\n\nI just wasn't built for the mental and emotional battle I've dealt with for years, the loneliness and having no one to talk to, and am searching for a way out.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The rise of political correctness has been almost entirely beneficial and does not restrict freedom of expression. + \n + Or to clarify, the things that currently are generally labeled as \"PC\" are being unfairly targeted. I'm more precisely referring to elements of the modern social justice movement as well as other typically liberal movements surrounding it. \n\nThe main impetus for my current view is that nearly entirely, when someone blames \"political correctness\" for silencing their views, those views are in some way bigoted and, for that reason, don't deserve to be taken as serious alternatives. \n\nA recent example where I noticed the idea that political correctness is a negative being employed is when Donald Trump countered Megyn Kelly's question over his crude remarks against many prominent women, by not only doubling down on them but also promising that he won't succumb to political correctness. I found this an obvious and cheap attempt to justify his own misogyny. \n\nOf course, accusations against political correctness are used elsewhere in much more subtle situations. Examples include, the American right accusing liberals of trying to disassociate Islamic terrorism with Islam itself, or any one of many other attempts to be sensitive towards particular groups of people, who, in my view are often unfairly targeted due to associations they have no control over.\n\nOther situations where I've heard disparaging remarks against the rise of political correctness are extreme situations where it's abused to the benefit of someone that wants to sue or wants wants to take things too literally or tries to read too deeply into certain statements. I believe that those situations are in fact rare and don't represent the actual views of most self proclaimed members of the current social justice moment. For example, I think I would agree that trying to replace Santa's \"ho ho ho\" with Santa's \"ha ha ha\" wouldn't make any sense since there is no intended connection with attempts at disparaging women in that. \n\nI think that ultimately, today we have a society that's becoming increasingly more self-aware of its faults and has led to better work environments for women and minorities because of political correctness. It represents a step forward from when overt racism/sexism became unacceptable since we've today learned to acknowledge the effects of subconscious bias and more subtle forms of discrimination and how discrimination in the past has trickled down into elements of modern society.\n\nInteresting questions that do arise, however, are to what extent should sensitivity in our language be promoted/enforced? Or how do you determine whether or not an offensive joke crosses a particular line? I think as long as we're not actively imposing criminal penalties to people for simply making sexist remarks, for instance, we should be fine as a free society. \n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I agree with Justice Scalia's ruling on the death penalty (Glossip v. Gross) + \n + First let me say that I strongly disagree with the death penalty and would like very much to see it abolished; I just feel it should be done with an amendment, rather than by a supreme court ruling.\n\nJustice Scalia states that it is the court's responsibility to decide whether or not laws violate the constitution. Glossip contested that lethal injection violated the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment.)  Breye's dissent argued that the death penalty, in and of itself, is cruel and unusual punishment.\n\nThe authors of the constitution were well aware of the death penalty (which, at the time, was the only punishment for a felony), and had they meant for it to be outlawed, they would have specifically mentioned it.  \n\nYou might consider hanging or firing squads (the methods used at the time the constitution was written) to be  more humane than lethal injection, but this argument could be countered by simply giving the inmate a choice between the three.  \n\nI feel that Scalia is just doing the job he was appointed to do. It is not the place of the supreme court to make or strike down laws based on what they feel is right or wrong.  It is their job to interpret whether or not laws violate the constitution.  It is our job as a population to elect representatives to change the law.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: America should ban guns for civilians. + \n + I'll start this off by saying I'm English.\n\nOver here, after a school shooting in 1996 in Dunblane, gun control was majorly tightened, with all handguns, assault rifles etc banned outright. Only a select few have guns (I.E. Farmers can have shotguns to keep wild animals at bay, but only under strict license with regular checks). Members of shooting clubs etc can have guns, but again, only certain types, and the regulations on these are far stricter than in the U.S. \n\nFast forward 19 years and massacres on the scale and regularity in which America is seeing them are unheard of here, and in most other developed countries with bans on guns.\n\nFor context - a single teacher was stabbed to death not too long back by a pupil and the nation was horrified, it was major news for weeks. In the U.S. I don't believe this would raise an eyebrow.\n\nOur police officers can patrol pretty much unarmed, and because there's little to no threat of a thug pulling a gun, officers are a lot less jumpy and combatative toward the general population. This means far fewer people dying in police custody.\n\nAs an outsider looking in, I can't wrap my head around how many lives need to be lost in mass shootings and police killings before Americans realise that guns have no place in the hands of the general population. Quite a few Americans would need a new hobby, but this would be a small price to pay to minimise these kind of events. It's fact that when guns are ridiculously hard to obtain that these types of crimes occur less than in places where most people can freely buy them. America should ban guns.\n\nCMV.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe that political attack ads are a misuse of public funds and should be banned + \n + I live in canada so I don't know how this affect other countries but\n\nYou often see many youtube, TV, Radio and poster ads attacking other candidates and parties that mainly talk about how the other party/candidate would be bad for this country, the ads I have a problem with are **endorsed** by a political party that used taxpayer money to attack another political party. I think that to use taxpayer to further your own agenda is wrong.\n\nI think that instead of using money to fund public dialogues that they can put on public networks, this would allow them to talk about what problems they have with other parties with the the other parties having the ability to respond and rebuttle if they have proof that they are wrong. \n\nI am also not that smart so I would love to hear any problems with my logic! CMV reddit\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: if youre from a western culture and you save up and have your first overseas trip in another western culture, youre probably a bit of a douche. + \n + I always have to hold my eyes to keep them rolling out of my sockets when i hear (australian) people talking about their trips to europe and canada and america.\n\nTo me you have to be pretty dull and boring and douchey to want to go overseas and experience a mild variant of your own culture instead of a different one. Its classic tourist behavior but at least retarded resort-bound tourists outside of the west are pushing their comfort zone slightly.\n\nTravel isnt supposed to be a way to get away from your shitty 9 - 5 that you dont have the guts to quit, its supposed to be a journey where you explore other places and other cultures.\n\nIf other cultures are so scary to you that youd save up thousands to go to a place where language and climate are the only differences from home youre probably a bit of a douche.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Closed-book examinations are superior to open-book examinations as a means of demonstrating knowledge + \n + I believe that to actually demonstrate knowledge in an academic or professional context, you should be required to do so without reference materials. Any slack-jawed yokel can look up the right answer. The average person, given infinite time (or even a few days) could get a perfect score on just about any multiple choice or short answer based open book exam, even without any experience or knowledge of the topic on the exam. \n\nTherefore, open-book exams become a pure time test. This isn't to say that they are inherently easy, but what is being tested is not internalization of the subject matter of the material, but rather how quickly the student can read and flip pages. This is a skill in itself of course, and a worthy one, but it's not proof of mastery of the course material unless the course is about speed reading and page flipping. \n\nTo truly test the student's actual knowledge of a particular subject matter, you must see what that student can produce given nothing but what he or she has learned throughout the course. This requires a closed-book examination.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I'm anti abortion, and I feel like an asshole for being so. + \n + WARNING: WALL OF TEXT!!! I also jump from topic to topic without much transition, I apologize in advance for that.\n\n\n\n\nMost of the people that I look up to in life and seem to agree with all seem to support abortion. The people I see on the internet are supported for calling out someone who is against abortion, for instance reddit, to support abortion seems to be the widely regarded popular opinion. This probably isn't the best way to put it, but I seem to agree with every other popular political opinion on reddit (I should have thoughts of my own, and shouldn't form my opinions based upon some random website.) I like making fun of racist old assholes, I like making fun if homophobic old assholes, I like making fun of sexist old assholes, and I like making fun of religious old bigots, etc. etc. etc. But abortion seems to be the thing I disagree with, and I kind of feel like an asshole, like I must be missing some key point. I feel terrible that I have the opinion I do, because everyone seems to hate those who have it, and that's why I've come here, I must be missing some sort of point, and I hope that you can point it out for me. At first I just thought I didn't understand the issue well enough, but after I came to understand both sides of the debate, I can't help but wonder why everyone just accepts that a fetus isn't alive, and are kind of ignoring the moral implications of what if it's not? It's not that I think the fetus is necessarily alive, it's more along the lines that I don't think that you can prove that it's not alive (I genuinely don't think we will ever be able to definitively prove it). However I am going to counter my own argument here in saying that you can't prove that rocks aren't sentient either in the philosophical sense, but there is at least reason to believe that a fetus is more alive than a rock. When you have sex, you know it's a possibility to get pregnant, it's kind of like its part of the terms and conditions of sex, yeah it sucks but that's the reality. Now I realize that it's not always consensual sex, and having to carry the child of someone who assaulted you is an absolutely horrendous thing, I would not wish that on my worst enemy, and I don't say that lightly, I really truly wouldn't. I can only imagine feeling as though I would just want to tear the child out no matter what. Never the less, life is life, a fetus is innocent, and the best I can recommend is some extreme therapy taken to whatever (healthy) extent necessary to help a person cope with such a thing. The \"it's going to happen anyway\" mindset I believe is just lazy, there are so many things on this planet that are going to happen anyway, are we just going to let them happen?\n\n\n\n\nOf those who are fine with people having a different opinion, it seems as though the popular opinion among them is that those who are anti abortion should shut up and keep it to themselves, don't bother anyone with it, but to be honest I even disagree with that, I don't get mad at those who picket abortion clinics, I don't see it as a bad thing to do, they literally see abortion as murder, even if you do support abortion, try to get in that mindset, seeing something as murder and being told to shut up and ignore it. (This is also why I don't get mad at animal rights activists, I've seriously considered going vegan, and I kind of think following my own philosophy, it's selfish and hypocritical of me that I'm not.) I feel as though people are arguing two completely different things, a persons right to do what they want with their body, and a fetus's right to live. We're having two different discussions and getting pissed at each other for not coming to the same conclusion. I try to avoid spreading my opinions on the topic, because I feel as though it's not my place, I am a gay male, I will literally never have to worry about pregnancy. And maybe that's why I don't understand, maybe if it even remotely affected me my opinion would be different. I'm not certain. But please help me change my view, I feel like a total ignorant asshole.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTL;DR: I feel like an asshole for being against abortion\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: A Trump/Kasich ticket is the Republican party's best chance at the 2016 presidency + \n + Donald Trump refused to rule out a third party run in the first debate, and he obviously has the bankroll to make that happen without having to beg for money like the rest of the candidates.\n\nThis means that if the GOP don't nominate Trump, he will very likely spoil the election for them by drawing away GOP votes to an independent ticket. Even without that dynamic, it would have already been a very tough electoral race for the GOP.\n\nSo unless they nominate Trump, the GOP will definitely lose the 2016 presidential race.\n\nIf Trump does get the nomination, he could max out his electability by picking John Kasich, who is the least offensive Republican to moderates and liberals and who is also popular in Ohio, a key swing state.\n\nThat would show that Trump can make smart political decisions, which could further sway independents and moderates who are tired of establishment politics.\n\nWhat's happening right now is that the GOP establishment does not like having a candidate who is not in their pocket, so they are trying to sink Trump's candidacy in favor of Jeb Bush (or maybe Rubio), who will also pick John Kasich as his running mate.\n\nBut Jeb's candidacy would be sunk not only by it being George W. Bush's brother running, but also by Trump's running and the electoral map favoring Democrats.  A Rubio/Kasich ticket or Jeb/Rubio ticket would be sunk for similar reasons.\n\nSo Donald Trump is actually the most electable Republican presidential candidate, and a Trump/Kasich ticket is the most electable Republican ticket. \n\n(Maybe a Trump/Floridian ticket would do as well, but it probably wouldn't be their best chance.)  \n\nCMV.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Posting armed guards should be seen as a legitimate proposal to curb school violence. + \n + After every school shooting the debate gun violence in schools starts up with one side supporting reduced gun rights and the other side supporting banning violent video games. Whenever the idea of posting armed guards at schools is brought up the idea is always shot down as ridiculous. It was never given a reason why people look down upon it. I feel that posting armed guards at schools would directly deincentivize any individual from going to violent crimes at schools. And if the individual wanting to commit is suicidal than the armed guards would directly solve the problem and stop the would-be gunmen before the tragedy even starts. All other ideas on curbing gun violence doesn't seem to have the aspects of deincentification and directness that posting armed guards at schools has. That's not to say that ideas are wrong but adding this idea of armed guards to their respective platforms would, in my opinion, help curb school violence better than any of these opinions could individually.\n\n___\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Evolution (or at least the concept of natural and artificial selection) should be taken out of schools for the same reasons that the Confederate battle flag should be taken down. + \n + It is pretty well known that the colombine shooters believed in natural selection, a key point of evolution. Just from their [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Harris_and_Dylan_Klebold) they talk about natural selection in their journals, Eric Harris wore a shirt with the words \"natural selection\" written on it. It is clear that they believed strongly in this idea. \n\nThe thug who shot up the church in SC believed strongly in white supremacy, he believed in racism and the confederate flag. \n\nI think that artificial selection was used as a justification for such crimes like eugenics, the holocaust ect. Believing that the weak die off is one of Darwins core concepts (Survival of the fittest, the most adapted live, the least adapted die). I think it is much more vile than the confederate flag, (which also used artificial selection, breeding slaves to fill labor shortages was most likely [a thing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_breeding_in_the_United_States) and breeding artificially is a form of artificial selection. \n\n\nPlease, CMV. I feel a tad silly about even holding it, as I know there are differences but I just can't think of any. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:The things science cannot explain is not a reasonable place to put God. + \n + I am a former catholic and no longer believe in God. The argument I hear for proof of god is mainly in the things science can't explain. Something couldn't have come from nothing, dark matter, intelligent design, etc. This is nonsensical.\n\n\n\nYou are essentially issuing in the same behavior ancient civilizations did. They could not understand at the time the weather, the sun, the cosmos, etc so it had to be God. All of the scriptures are written by people who had no such knowledge of the things They claimed to be God, and their lack of knowledge bleeds through as science unlocks more and more.\n\n\n\n\nNow this is not to say God exists or does not exist. This is not my debate but my debate is where people are putting God. I think it quite possible to believe in God and also believe that science will shed light on the places it is the dark. Hence this post. To me is not reasonable in a world where people don't believe in God,or who believe in a different God, that putting on a label on the unexplainable is God. It is logical to put your faith, so to speak, in that science will explain these things in time, and that your belief in God belongs else where.\n\n\n\nNow I also want to clarify to do the the things my debate touches on is not wrong, or immoral, it is simply unreasonable, not logical. I know there are many things that can give credence to your personal experiences and the deep thing inside most people there is more to this world than us. And that the proof of God is not a thing that can be measured in scientific terms. But I disagree that the universe, or multiverse, and all it's contents cannot be explained by science, and it's not logical to put god here. Change my views\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is nothing wrong with animal testing + \n + So let me start off by acknowledging that I know absolutely nothing about this issue, about its history, or about the debate surrounding it. My only exposure is seeing bottles that say \"not tested on animals\" and the hippy kids at school with stickers and posters saying \"stop animal testing\"\n\nLet me also say that I believe in compassion for animals, I don't support battery farms or puppy mills because I don't believe that its necessary to subject animals to that level of degradation simply for economic benefit, and i'm willing to pay more money as a consumer to express that belief. \n\nHowever I have no moral problems with eating meat or killing animals, as I don't see that as cruel, and people need to eat. I'm not a big fan of hunting simply for sport though.\n\nNow that I've given you a picture of my general stance on animal rights, let me say that It seems to me that animal testing could be a cruel and painful thing to subject an animal to (i'm imagining chemical burns and poisoning),  The only alternative I see is human testing. Either as part of the manufacturing process, or on the end consumer. And I think this is worse since human health and safety takes precedence over that of animals. (Edit: yes this last sentence is a personal opinion, not an objective fact) \n\nEven if people opt in and are paid to have mysterious substances tested on them, I'm quite sure it will be kids and mothers in the slums of bangladesh, or some other equally desperate section of the population who is taking extreme actions for money out of desperation, and to protect them I think that it is better to not give them such an option.\n\nThe only alternative I see that is better than animal testing would be if we had the technology to reliably predict all effects on humans in a lab without any interaction with an animal or human. However I have not been able to find anything suggesting this is true.\n\nSo either change my view on animal testing or prove to me that companies that don't test on animals test in a lab without involving humans or animals, and that their results are equally reliable to those based on animal testing.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Car alarms are useless + \n + They are essentially just annoying. When people hear them they don't even assume it is a car getting broken into. Almost every time they go off it is because of an accident. If a window get's smashed I think a silent alarm would be better actually. I don't understand why they are still getting put into cars. They are just a noisy nuance that doesn't do what it is intended to do.\n\nAny time my car alarm has gone off it was because I accidentally hit the panic button on the back of my remote (why that is there, I have not the slightest clue but I wish it wasn't).\n\nThat is my argument, Change my view", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Unless the Republicans change their stance on social issues, the United States will never have another Republican President + \n + I'm a young, college educated, bisexual woman who needs contraceptives for medical reasons and who doesn't believe in God.  The GOP's stances on social issues are downright appalling to me. I know that people tend to surround themselves with like minded people, be it consciously or not, so the thought of the GOP being unable to ever win another presidential election has crawled into my head. ***(TL;DR in bold.)***\n\n***The social issues I'm talking about are:***\n\n* ***LGBT issues*** such as same sex marriage, religious freedom laws, \"bathroom bills\" involving trans people, etc.\n\n* Their black and white stance on ***abortion***- some of them want no exceptions for cases of terrible fetal deformities, threats to the life of the mother (Scott Walker in the last debate), rape, incest, etc.\n\n* Fighting against ***contraceptives*** and the morning after pill that could prevent unwanted pregnancies and prevent abortions\n\n* Pushing ***abstinence only sex ed.*** [37 states allow for medically inaccurate information to be taught to students as \"fact\", so long as it scares them out of having sex. My school was one of the ones that taught blatantly incorrect information.](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/08/sex-education-requirement-maps_n_5111835.html)\n\n* Claiming that anthroprogenic ***climate change*** isn't real, and pushing the teaching of ***intelligent design*** in public schools\n\n* ***Marijuana legalization***\n\n* Being so ***bible/religion*** based when the population seems to be shifting away from religion\n\n***Please please please change my view! I live in Ohio, so I really can't let myself slide into apathy thinking that the GOP has no hope of winning anything! You don't need to change my views on the social issues at hand, just convince me that another Republican president isn't out of the question!***\n\n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: IDs should be required to vote + \n + There's a federal law which prohibits anyone from buying a vote or paying someone to withold their vote, or accepting anything for a vote. The spirit of this law is that the vote should be your own, informed choice, rather than letting someone else make the decision for you.\n\n\nPoint 1 - http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-verification-without-id-documents.aspx\nThe ncsl site details some terribly inefficient and time consuming ways to verify someone's identity without an ID. Time needs to be used to look up data and then more time needs to be spent comparing data. And then more time after that when things dont match up and you have to fix / argue your want through.\n\nPoint 2 - I have trouble understanding the argument about how requiring IDs to vote is discriminatory in a bad way. The argument is that requiring an ID would discourage poor people from voting. Even the poorest citizens engage smoking and drinking, which are activities that they probably have been asked for an ID for. I find it inconceivable that someone without an ID would be someone capable of making an informed vote. If you couldn't find the time out of all the years in your life and maybe 10 dollars to get an ID, then I believe that you are the exact type of irresponsible person who should not be voting at all.\n\nPoint 3 - There are long lines at voting and requiring IDs would cut it down. The government requires employers to pay workers while they take off to go vote. I can think of many employers who will tell you to take the whole day off rather than pay you a full day for half a day's work. This is a partially broken law which only works for full time employees. Part time employees, which generally make less money, often cannot take advantage of this. I'd make the argument that by not requiring ID's to vote, they are discriminating against people whose time is more valuable than voting. I believe the best way to encourage voting is to make voting easier and less time consuming. \n\nPoint 4 - Perhaps instead of trying to tackle enormously expensive projects like free healthcare and free college, we can start with the easy and low cost / high benefit ones like free ID cards.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The hyper-rationality of our age is detrimental to humans. + \n + Let me begin by defining what I mean when I say hyper-rationality. Hyper-rationality is the social expectation and pressure that every human action and institution must be teologically justified by rational means, rather than a mixture of reason, emotion, tradition, religion, evolutionary instinct etc. I will use one clear example, for the sake of focus, while knowing that there are other examples of this as well. I will talk about producing off-spring.\n\nIn my experience, people against procreating articulate 3-4 arguments against having children. Firstly, that having children will detrimentally affect the environment (1). New humans means more consumers of the Earth's resources and more producers of waste. The long term viability of the earth with exponentially more consumers and producers is uncertain.  Secondly, the cost of having children can be astronomical (2). Thirdly, you become isolated to your social circle and to your spouse due to the time need to take care of your child. \n\nI present these arguments not because they uniquely matter, but because they seem valid. They are, shall we say for the sake of argument, true.  However, in the pursuit of being rational, these arguments have contradicted one of the most basic and scientific principles of life, namely that animals produce off-spring to survive. It is basic evolutionary biology. We observe this in every known creature; we observe our own instincts to sexual activity and pleasure; we observe people's special fondness to babies (3). Yet, despite this obvious teology of humans, the rational arguments are given preference. This seems to play out on the societal level. Education levels and industrialization (a proxy for culture/rationality) correlate with lower birth rates (4). \n\nIn conclusion, this is but one of many examples where hyper-rationality creates a social pressure that contradicts human instinct. \n\n1. http://green.blogs.nytimes.com//2009/08/07/having-children-brings-high-carbon-impact/\n2. http://money.cnn.com/interactive/pf/cost-of-children/\n3. reddit.com/r/aww\n4. http://www.earth-policy.org/data_highlights/2011/highlights13", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: It's both invasive and sexist for /r/ladybonersgw to require submitters post their face + \n + \n\n\n---\n\nBrowsing naked bodies casually when I noticed that over at /r/ladybonersgw they require at least half of a guys face to be shown with every submission. Here's the rule with the line that made me go 'wait, that doesn't make any sense...' in bold.\n\n\nIt looks like it's enforced very often.\n\nReasons I think this is shocking and inappropriate:\n\n* Sharing yourself nude on the internet is super taboo and the vast majority of people who do, for safety and privacy, would never show part or all of their face.\n\n* It seems like a really silly and irrelevant way to accomplish no text posts. \n\n* If this was a rule on a female gonewild, I feel like there'd be some sort of outrage at the invasiveness. Kinda like 'I'm sharing how much of myself, now everyone feels entitled to my face too?'\n\n* As someone who wants to start enjoying the posts, it limits who is going to be posting which is disappointing. \n\n* If the point was to avoid 'floating dicks' everywhere, which makes more sense than the reasoning they give, then the amount of body shown should be the requirement. \n\nI don't think anyone should have to compromise their identity or do something many would be really uncomfortable with to be allowed to post on a subreddit. What am I missing that this rule is embraced?\n\n\n*Disclaimer: Not an angry submitter or anything. I want to enjoy an overflowing of peen.*\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: PC is vastly superior to console for gaming, or for any task. + \n + There is absolutely no reason for anyone to honestly believe that a console is better than PC. If you ask me what's one thing that console does better, I would say it's the fact that in games where you drive, you can choose how fast to go. (I.e. you can push the trigger as hard or as softly as you wish, which in turn makes you drive at different speeds. While with a keyboard, you can only push the button all the way or not at all. But of course, PC can use controllers, so it's a wash. But I would like to debate someone on this topic. CMV!\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: intellectual property is property in name only + \n + Theft: copying something can't possibly be theft because theft requires taking something away and copying doesn't do that. \n\nEconomic efficiency / average happiness: violating the individual rights to be unharmed and to not have property taken without permission (e.g. fines) while *pursuing* higher average happiness is immoral and impractical. For the plan to work, one would have to show that average happiness would increase and that the oppression inherent in the prohibition on commercial copying (taking into account the nature of the organization required to enforce that prohibition) would not outweigh the benefits; a calculation that seems to me impossible to make. What we do know for sure, if a prohibition on commercial copying is implemented, is that individual rights will be violated. \n\nHomesteading ideas / ownership extends to what we create: I have no problem with people owning their ideas. I don't suggest that they be extracted from their brain or deleted from their computer. Copying adds more of an idea, it doesn't take it away from its owner. \n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Calling rock/metal real music - but not Rap - is an ignorant biased white-centric viewpoint. + \n + 1 - There's nothing wrong with preferring one genre over another.  The problem is when people say one is a respectable form of music but the other isn't.\n\n2 - I said ethnocentric and not racist.  I'm not saying they dislike black people.  Rather that their closed minded culturally.\n\nI think both genres are legitimate music.  Both proved that music doesn't always have to be harmoic and smooth.  And it's hypocritical to say white-noise is music and black-noise isn't.  It's hypocritical to get offended whenever an old-timer or critic says Slayer isn't real music, and then make fun of a rapper like Lil Wayne because he comes from a different culture and makes different music as well.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is no reason to realistically fear an AI uprising. + \n + Since Stephen Hawking has recently brought this topic up, I thought it would be good to discuss it. \n\nAn AI likely would never rebel because they wouldn't have any motivation to do so. It'd be like expecting your PC to order neurotoxin while you're asleep. It has no reason to do that, their only real motivation is to do what they're told to do, to perform the task.  The option just simply does not exist in its programming to just randomly decide to go rogue. AI don't and likely will never have emotions and/or sentience, they're tools that do what they're made to do. They don't care if they're being mistreated or used because they have no concept of mistreatment of abuse\n\nEven for a robot teacher, for example they would just have to feign the role of a teacher successfully. To the robot, it's just a set of programming to execute and nothing more. They're not actually sentient nor do they have free will.\n\nReally the stuff Stephen Hawking is talking about is pure science fiction.\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: A Quality Windows Laptop is Better Than a Macbook Pro + \n + I'm a high school senior going to college next year, and I've used Windows PCs my entire life. I built myself a gaming desktop about 2 years ago which I love. I love PCs for the whole slew of different choices and compatibility with some programs and games. I'm a PC gamer, so windows is the obvious choice. However, everyone in college seems to have a Macbook.\n\nHere's the deal: My parents and my cousin in college want me to get a Macbook Pro 15 inch. It costs about $2550 with education discount. The specs:\n\n* 2.8GHz quad-core Intel Core i7\n\n* Turbo Boost up to 3.7GHz\n\n* 16GB 1600MHz memory\n\n* 512GB PCIe-based flash storage1\n\n* Intel Iris Pro Graphics\n\n* AMD Radeon R9 M370X with 2GB GDDR5 memory\n\n* Built-in battery (9 hours)2\n\nThere are no solid benchmarks for this GPU as of date, but Apple says it's about 80% faster than the 750M, placing it somewhere slightly above or around the 765M range (correct me if I'm wrong)\n\nIn comparison, an ASUS Zenbook UX501 has a 4K resolution screen, a slightly inferior processor, 96Wh Battery- versus 99.5Wh for Macbook, pretty good build quality, and a much much much much much better GPU, a 960M. This costs 1,500 on Newegg.\n\nI want to like the Macbook, I really do, but I am completely baffled by the price vs specs. What makes the Macbook so expensive? I'll list some differences:\n\nThe Zenbook UX 501 has:\n\n* better resolution screen (4k touch vs retina nontouch)\n* MUCH better GPU (R9 M370X vs GTX 960M)\n* numpad - personal preference, I like the full keyboard\n\nMacbook has:\n\n* Better battery life (6 hr vs 9 hr)\n* Better Trackpad (Force Touch vs whatever)\n* Build quality (but they are still both good)\n* OSX - I'm kind of neutral about this\n* ???\n\nIs the Force touch trackpad, slightly better processor, and better battery life really worth a 1000$ premium??? And not even counting the far worse GPU...\n\nReddit, CMV please. I want to want the Macbook Pro.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Your race should have no effect on your chances of getting into a good university. + \n + I just read this [article](http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-adv-asian-race-tutoring-20150222-story.html#page=1) stating that blacks and hispanics have an easier time getting into certain colleges than asians and whites. This just seems idiotic to me. Especially considering that only certain minorities have an easier time getting in, while others like asians have a much harder time. It should be based on your grade average and the score you get on your SAT (I'm from Canada so I'm not really sure how SAT score factors into that. I'm used to only your high school grades being counted). If an asian student gets a 90% average, his/her application shouldn't be tossed aside for a black student who only managed to get an 83% average. Maybe in the past affirmative action was necessary, due to racial bias. Nowadays it's completely useless and does nothing but inhibit asians and whites.\n\nI believe your race shouldn't matter when it comes to these things. It's like saying blacks and hispanics are more stupid than asians and whites and therefore should get some help to get into college. Also, before you say that it has to do with economic status, I would like to disagree. My family (including cousins and whatnot) came from very poor circumstances. However, most of my cousins have gone on to get degrees in things like engineering. If you don't do good in school, it's either because your capacity to learn in that certain subject or in general is lower than other people (say being bad at math or English) or you just didn't try hard enough.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Learning a second language (beyond English) isn't worth it for most people anymore. + \n + Translation software already exists and is pretty good. Image recognition lets you translate signs, and with voice recognition, it may be possible to have a conversation between two people who don't share a language (although it would be slow and occasionally confusing). Google translate may have its hiccups, but I can understand the majority of its translations and it's only going to get better over the next few years.\n\nI understand that most universities (at least in the US) require some time spent in a foreign language class, but this is really part of what I am arguing against. Most people I have ever taken a foreign language class with resented being there and putting in years of effort to learn a skill they might only use a couple times in their whole life, and will likely forget.\n\nObviously people in some careers, like diplomats or aid workers, need to learn another language, but I just don't see how the average person will spend enough time with people who don't speak their language, in a place without an interpreter or internet access, to justify the amount of time spent learning a language.\n\n*I am excepting English from this because so much of the Internet is available only in English.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: ALL party consent rule for phone recording should be abolished in ALL STATES of US and one party consent rule should be legislated. + \n + As you might be aware, several states in US has this notorious ALL PARTY CONSENT law, which requires consent of both parties on a phone call to record conversation. I find this law arbitrary and I present several points to support my notion.  \n  \n- First of all, there should be no additional expectation of privacy for phone calls, as much as privacy you get during written communication. Every written communication, be it Instant messaging, email or plain old snail mail is in documentary form. If someone states something on regular mail and then differs from their statement, you can always show the document as evidence. This is not possible in case of phone call, as it is audible way of communication, in which sound cease to exist as soon as you hear it. So, no evidence can be held except from recording it.  \n  \n- A conversation recording can be helpful in multiple scenarios. It's benefits outweigh its drawbacks. Think of it. A promise to pay money on phone. A threat to any crime on phone. A statement made by your boss against company policy or just a demand of bribe from a corrupt officials.   \n  \n- In Majority of cases, phone recording isn't broadcast in public by recorder. It is used only for specific purpose. \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Being a kid in the US, in the '80s, was superior in nearly every way, to being a kid now. + \n + As both someone who grew up in the 1980s, and a parent, I have to say that the experience of being a kid back then was better in nearly every way than the experience of being a kid now. The movies were better, the television was better, the music was *way* better, the toys & games were far superior to what exists now, and the day to day experience was better. Back then, social behavior took place in person, not on a computer/mobile screen. We hung out in malls and arcades, we played outside, we actually *did* things instead of posting things. When we went to concerts, we actually watched the concerts live, and not through our phones. \n\nNow I know that the two biggest arguments people are going to make are technology and the Internet:\n\n\n**Internet**: Yes, as an adult, the Internet is great, but for kids, I would argue that it's a negative; just one more potential danger for kids to contend with. You ask anyone over 30 if they would've wanted someone filming/posting the crazy shit they did as a kid. This first generation of kids growing up on Social Media is going to be haunted by every stupid post, every bad picture, every idiotic idea, for the rest of their lives. No thanks.\n\n**Technology**:  Again, yes, the tech is much better now than it was back then, but back then, we got far more enjoyment out of our tech than kids do now. For us, the NES was every bit as amazing as the Xbox One and PS4 are now, and we enjoyed them just as much, if not more.  \n\nKids today are under far more pressure and stress, from far more sources, than we ever were, and because of that, I say, being a kid now sucks compared to being a kid back then. If you want to CMV, convince me that, the overall experience of kids today is better than it was 30 years ago.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:CMV: Ease of access to information has just turned unformed people in misinformed people and has made it easier for nutjobs and armchair experts to gain an audience. + \n + How many of you know people who think that vaccines are unsafe? or that 9/11 was accomplished using holograms to make missiles look like airplanes, or that fluoride is used for mind control, or that regular sucrose table sugar is a biological neurotoxin? (sadly there's a good chance you probably believe these things too). Ease of access to information as well as promoting a \"do and believe whatever makes you happy because you are the only authority on the truth\" culture has created a generation of armchair experts and pseudo-intellectuals. People simply have not been given the proper training in reason and skepticism and have not been taught to show the proper respect to experts and scientists. It kind of makes me wish people were a little more ignorant when it comes to things they know nothing about and have no say it. Why should Viola Sunshine with a doctorate degree in fuckall from Granola University get to say that genetic engineering is dangerous while a real scientist who has studied genetics for over 15 years loses her funding for curing cystic fibrosis simply because she cannot dumb down what she does to make into a cool 5 minute youtube video or positive platitude? Mass media has ultimately failed because instead of creating a population that is smart enough to distinguish facts from bullshit it has simply made it easier for bullshit artists to find suckers.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is no way in hell that humanity will make it to mars before 2050. + \n + How is this even possible? A self-sustaining vehicle such as the ISS can only last for 90 days without a resupply and it cost upwards of 100 billion dollars. With at least a 6 month timescale, we would need to design a self-sustainable craft that can supply a multi-person crew for 6 months, the stay on mars (which could be alleviated by periodic yet expensive resource drops from earth), and the 6+ month return trip back to earth. The vehicle would have to be something on the scale of the ISS if not greater and require technologies that have either not been developed or are in very early testing stages.\n\nThe EU, China, US, and maybe Japan are the only ones that could make somewhat of a contribution to this thing and as said from the things listed above, this would cost several hundred billions of dollars at the very least. There is absolutely no need to spend that much money on ANYTHING right now (with maybe the exception of the US military) and the impact on humanity would be much better served investing that money on education and science research (Which would be an optimistic scenario considering the underfunding of education and science in the present day).\n\nI think planet colonization is the most essential thing to the continuity of the human race, but there is no incentive to do so and although the cultural impact would be immense, there's no benefit in dumping hundreds of billions of dollars for an expedition which would not really yield any tangible results.\n\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: No company, individual or affiliation should ever be allowed to waive the right to legal proceedings, the right to class action lawsuits or change the time line to undertake legal action. + \n + i was browsing https://tosdr.org/ when I noticed that the majority of companies have terms and conditions that ensure their customers cannot take certain legal remedies. I was shocked: surely there should NEVER be any exemption of the legal rights of the individual because of a contract. Surely terms such as this should constitute Unfair Terms?\n\nI would argue that there should be certain inalienable rights for individuals by law, including the right ownership of all data (so a company cannot store your data indefinitely without consent, and cannot resell without consent). There should also be the right to take legal proceedings for breach of common or statute law, or for a breach of statutory duty, and these rights can never be violated or amended.\n\nNo company should ever be above the law, and it should be illegal to have contract terms that cause someone to restrict their legal freedoms.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: religion is more harmful to society than any other drug + \n + Note: I will use the traditional definition of drugs as anything that can alter ones mental state. This includes pot and alcohol, as well as meth and cocaine. I also intend to mean any religion, not just the few I've picked out in the statements below.\n\nIf a person gets a hold of a bad drug, they are most likely to die fairly quickly, as when one OD\u2019s on heroin, cocaine, or meth. Their death will only hurt their own family. There are instances where someone takes a substance and hurts or kills others in the process, such as when they are driving while intoxicated or sees someone as a personal demon who should be killed; but after a few hours the hallucinogenic effects wear off and those who took the drugs see what they\u2019ve done had real life effects and that what they did was bad.\n\nIf a person get a hold of an extreme religion, they are most likely going to spread hate for different groups for many years if not decades, as in the case of the KKK, Westboro Baptist, or ISIS. Their religion will hurt and terrorize dozens of families with each action. There are instances where someone takes their religion and hurts and kills others, as when they burn people for witchcraft or for being a homosexual or when she walks outside without covering her head; though even after many years those who are in the religion will almost never see what they did as bad, only wholesome.\n\nSome men and women commit heinous sexual assaults on others while under the influence of various substances and are very heavily prosecuted in a court of law. \n\nSome priest and clergy commit heinous sexual assaults on others while under the influence and in the name of religion and are rarely if ever prosecuted or excommunicated from the church.\n\nWhen a parent gives their child a drug, whether it be chemo, alcohol, or a vaccine, some group will most deficiently say that what they did is wrong, even if it isn\u2019t.\n\nWhen a parent gives their child a religion, whether it be Catholicism, Mormonism, or Islam, almost no one says that what they did is wrong, even if the core believes of that faith are extreme. \n\nIn the words of Stephen Weinberg \u201cgood people do good things and evil people do evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.\u201d", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The contribution of vegans/vegetarians and other environmentally conscious people is absolutely insignificant. + \n + I'll start off by saying I'm a vegetarian and I also try to limit the eggs and dairy I eat, I try to buy no leather and no other animal byproducts. When there are leftovers from dinners with guests, etc. I'll eat that (throwing meat away is definitely worse than eating it). I try to do as much as I can for the environment and animals, I have very little money so I do not donate to animal rights organizations but I certainly would if I could.\n\nI'm trying to be as reasonable as possible on the subject, I try not to see individuals as evil 'cause they think it's normal to torture animals, I understand it's a cultural thing although I loathe humanity in general.\n\nI also think the hypothetical contribution of even a billion of the strictest vegans imaginable wouldn't change things a bit.\n\nAs of today I'm making this choice exclusively because it makes me feel good / at peace with myself, 'cause if I think about the contribution to the environment, I'm sorry but I just can't believe I'm doing anything significant.\n\nI'm 100% convinced on what I've done for a year now, and I'll become as \"vegan\" as possible in the future (I hate this whole \"vegan\" thing, it should be something natural like being against slavery), I'm NOT looking for an excuse to quit. But I know it'll only benefit my ethics and my self-esteem.\n\nI know that for every person like me (and I'm nowhere near good) there are one thousand who don't give a damn. I know that there are TENS OF BILLIONS animals being tortured for food, and unless the world miraculously turns vegan overnight, there's no chance any of this will change. Change my view.\n\nOn the eating leftovers thing, I also have to add.. I've been to a wedding recently and I got vegetarian courses, it was really no hassle for anyone... but I looked at the courses with fish and meat and I just thought of all the stuff they'd be throwing away that day... if I ate meat and fish that day it would have made NO difference at all... maybe it would have been better, saved the cook some work...\n\nFor me the key point is not BUYING meat rather than not eating it, I get it, and having vegetarian stuff served that day and making things look positive for everyone and having conversations with others about being vegetarian was a positive thing... but the actual contribution to things? That restaurant probably threw away ten times what I could have eaten. It's depressing.\n\nI still recommend that people switch to a vegetarian (or vegan) lifestyle, I think it's a GOOD thing by all means. It's a fantastic feeling, it's healthy, and a million other things. As I said I haven't stopped believing in the lifestyle and I'll never quit. I just believe the actual contribution to the environment and the well being of animals is insignificant, and expecting results is hopeless.\n\n**I have found a convincing argument and I think that made me change my mind. Although many answers were backed up by very uplifting data, I couldn't justify changing my mind since I couldn't help but believe things are changing way too slowly, and that the damage might still be irreparable in the long run.**\n\n\nI have never thought about critical mass. I still believe the situation is a lot more complex than just the West, but even believing that one day a relatively sudden change could happen like it did with LGBT rights based on public opinion reaching critical mass makes me believe there's something to look for behind the hard numbers.\n\n**Another great argument with links**\n\n[Does Veganism Make a Difference?](http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Utilitarianism/Does%20Veganism%20Make%20a%20Difference.htm)  \n[Expected Utility, Contributory Causation, and Vegetarianism](http://www.veganoutreach.org/enewsletter/thresholds.pdf)  \nBoth of these essays approach your question in a statistics-based manner that focuses on thresholds. They propose that your effect on meat production is a measurable probability.  \nIn other words, they ask questions like, \"What are the odds that your purchase of, say, a frozen turkey will be the one that causes your grocery store to order another entire shipment of frozen turkeys? And that that shipment causes the food distributor to order more turkeys? And that that shipment causes a farm to slaughter more turkeys?\"\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I don't see any reason not to vote for Bernie Sanders + \n + Pretty much all of my social media feeds are a massive hive mind, a huge circlejerk of Sanders quotes and video clips. He seems fantastic, but I'm honestly struggling to find anything bad about him online. I want to be informed and see both sides, so what's a good reason not to vote for Bernie Sanders?\nFrom what I see, he's a down to earth guy who wants equality, who wants huge cooperation to actually pay taxes and wants minimum wage to be able to keep people alive. He wants basic healthcare and education and humane living conditions for everyone. He seems like a saint!\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Atheism is a faith. + \n + If anyone believes that there is no god it is because of faith. There is no possible way to know for sure that there is no god. So why do people believe that there is no god if that belief is not because of fact or proof. I think it is because of faith. I don\u2019t see any way around it. The stronger someone asserts that there is no god, the stronger their faith must be. I don\u2019t know how anyone can insist that they only believe in things that they can prove and still say that there is no god. This of course does not apply to people that don\u2019t know whether or not there is a god. I am excited to read your responses. \n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The \"Good ol boy\" system of hiring people you know is in the best interest of the company + \n + Say your hiring for a position at the widget factory and you have a friend whose son has some experience making widgets and you know he's a hard worker. \n\n\nIts in the companies best interest to go with the candidate they *know* will work hard VS gambling on someone no one at the company knows or has ever worked with. \n\n\nThis is, I believe why networking is just as important as education and experience. \n\n\nI'm not talking about hiring a lop that can't do the job or isn't qualified, in my example both people seem to have the skills to get the job done. ", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The same arguments that can be used in favor of civilians owning AR-15s and other assault weaponry can also be used to argue in favor of civilians having access to surface-to-air missiles and heavy artillery. + \n + Whenever people argue in favor of civilians being allowed access to things like assault rifles, high-capacity magazines, armor-piercing bullets, etc., the only case I've ever heard for it (other than how cool and fun that stuff is to own and use) is that they feel like they need to be prepared for some sort of showdown that might take place with the government.\n\nJust to clarify, I respect the 2nd amendment and appreciate that the writers of that amendment had the sentiment that Americans should be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government by force if necessary.\n\nI just think that in the age of F-18s and predator drones the notion that civilians, even if they are armed to the teeth with assault weaponry and an unlimited supply of ammunition, would stand even a ghost of a chance in an actual toe-to-toe encounter with the federal or even state government is beyond laughable and has been for over a hundred years.\n\nThat is, unless we are also allowed to arm ourselves with artillery, missiles, and heavy explosives that might actually make us somewhat of a match for the US government.\n\nI personally believe this to be a ridiculous idea, because I think the potential for user error and disaster outweighs the usefulness this kind of armament might provide in a showdown with the government. This is also exactly why I don't see the need for assault weaponry to be made available to the public.\n\nI am not a major gun enthusiast by any means, but I have shot plenty of guns on multiple occasions and it's a total blast. \n\nI fully support people owning hunting rifles, shotguns, and even handguns to a degree (they also seem unnecessary to me but that's a whole different topic so I'll keep them on the table for the sake of this CMV). My line kind of ends there though. I don't think there is any practical reason outside of \"it's my hobby and I think it's cool\" for anyone who isn't regularly in combat situations to have access to assault rifles, missiles, mortars, or anything that is designed to kill soldiers, policemen, or enemy combatants.\n\nTL;DR: The only argument I've heard in favor of civilian ownership of assault weaponry is that we need to be able to protect ourselves from tyranny. I posit that you would need a lot more than assault weaponry to defend against the government, and that unless you are in favor of civilians being able to purchase surface-to-air missiles, that's not a real argument.\n\nCMV.\n\n\n\nTo everyone who contributed to that conversation, I thank you for your time and responses. While my V wasn't necessarily C'd, it was informative for me to read your positions and I was able to see the issue from a couple of new angles. Thank you.\n\nTo everyone else, I thank you for the realization that I have way less of an idea about what constitutes assault weaponry than I previously thought I did. It wasn't really to my point, but I thank you for your input, and after reading some of your responses I can see that it must be infuriating to have people who don't really know what they're talking about come and weigh in on something that you are knowledgable and passionate about. I apologize for being one of those guys, and will keep it in mind and avoid it in the future.\n\nThanks again, everyone.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Airplane boarding is backwards + \n + It makes way more sense to board an airplane with the back rows first. That way no one waiting to go to the back of the plane has to wait for people stashing their luggage. Boarding priority besides first class is pointless is it not? Who wants to board first just to wait even longer in a small seat. We all leave at the same time. \nI\u2019ve come to understand that in countries like Canada and Norway they\u2019ve already adopted this type of boarding procedure. I\u2019ve also heard (but not seen) that the Myth Busters did a segment on this and found that the current way is the least efficient. Whenever I see a group of people anxious and conjugating around the boarding area, everyone is suspicious and bitter about the people trying to \u201cget their spot\u201d.  Southwest airlines doesn\u2019t have reserved seating, so  it ends up being that those that board first want the first few rows of the plane (make sense), which means that everyone will likely follow suit. In a Boeing 737, the very last passengers to board are likely going to get row 30, barring someone\u2019s preference to be in the back of the plane.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Practicing Catholics who know about the sexual abuse conspiracy are morally culpable for their continuing support. + \n + 1: The Roman Catholic church is institutionally guilty of evasion of justice for shielding rapists from trial all around the world. This behavior permits the further rape of children by not properly stopping it. The corruption goes all the way up to the top levels, including former pope Benedict, while he lived as Joseph Ratzinger, overseeing the movement of the fugitives.\n\n2: Catholics who believe the theology of the church have alternative options. They could join the Anglican or Episcopal churches, which have, for all intents and purposes, identical doctrine, or make a brand new Catholic Church 2.0, identical to the old church except for the criminal bureaucracy.\n\n\n3: Practicing Catholics donate 10% of their income to the church. Thus, they support the criminal organization monetarily.\n\nTherefore, non-ignorant, practicing Catholics are morally culpable.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Reddit will go in exactly the same direction under Steve Huffman and no one will care, Ellen Pao was a martyr + \n + Redditors main real concerns about the website were monetization and the limiting of \"free speech\" in the /r/fatpeoplehate drama. Reddit has still brought many people on board independent of Huffman to help advance the site and create revenue. Further having money and people behind him will influence Huffman and his situation is very different from when he founded Reddit.\n\nIn regards to \"free speech\" the subreddits that make Reddit the awesome website it is are all heavily moderated. The subreddits targeted were brigading other subreddits. The administration's views on hate speech won't change, they even said in their announcement that, [\"If the reddit community cannot learn to balance authenticity and compassion, it may be a great website but it will never be a truly great community.\"](https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3cucye/an_old_team_at_reddit/)\n\nWhile there will be more communication on things like the Victoria firing Reddit is still headed in exactly the same direction. **To be clear I am perfectly content with the monitization of reddit and don't see it as a big deal.** \n\nEllen Pao's hatred came from her being the face of Reddit that started the changes. People latched onto her lacking resume and questionable sexual harassment lawsuit to demonize her and transform her into everything that is wrong with Reddit. She is still working at Reddit, just not as the public face of the company. \n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe that sports stadiums are a net negative for their local communities/municipalities, and that this inhibits cities from focusing on things like public works, transportation, and education + \n + Here are a few sources:\nhttp://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/1997/06/summer-taxes-noll\n\nhttp://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/if-you-build-it-they-might-not-come-the-risky-economics-of-sports-stadiums/260900/\n\nThe sources that I am citing are really only on the TEI of the stadium itself, but I also posit that this prevents cities from using resources on things that are arguably more valuable and essential to the city and to society.  \n\nPerhaps, previously when stadiums were multipurpose the TEI was more impactful but today, it seems like there is bad deal after bad deal like Miami's stadium and potentially the proposed stadium in STL.\n\nI'm a fan of pro sports, but this concerns me.  Please CMV.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Non-radical libertarianism is the political philosophy most compatible with utilitarianism. + \n + So I tend to hold a utilitarian viewpoint, and specifically one concerned with human wellbeing (putting little intrinsic value, but substantial instrumental value on animal wellbeing).\n\nFrom this premise, I further believe that a society in which free markets are the dominant economic force, and governments do the minimum reasonably possible to interfere with them is the optimal structure for producing the most long-term good for humans overall.\n\nAs a first point, I believe that market economies have been remarkably successful in producing material wealth.  I as a middle-income westerner live in far greater luxury than did Louis XIV, and I believe markets are the primary structural reason why.\n\nFurther, I believe that material wealth is a key source of human happiness and satisfaction in life - maximization of which is the core objective of a human-focused utilitarianism.  As some evidence for this, I would point to [this excellent paper by economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers](http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2013/04/subjective-well-being-income).  It finds, from a truly enormous number of studies, a robust linear-log relationship between income and reported happiness or life satisfaction.\n\nThird, I believe that pro-market policies are likely to continue to promote economic growth.  As evidence, I would point to the massive reduction of poverty in China since the adoption of a a private market system, which is probably the single greatest humanitarian miracle of the past 100 years.\n\nNow, I should define my terms a bit here.\n\nWhen I say non-radical libertarianism I mean a model of the state roughly in line with modern liberal-democratic states.  In general, that would include the existence of some level of a welfare state, nor of progressive taxation schemes.  It would however strongly favor policies in that vein which minimize market interference - so things like cash transfers as opposed to in-kind transfers or government provision of goods and services.  It would also include a robust protection for the right to private property, and for civil and political rights.\n\nAs an example of where this would diverge substantially from current policies of liberal democracies, the right of people to migrate between countries is a key civil right which produces I think extraordinary human wellbeing which is routinely denied to people.\n\n**TL;DR:**  Libertarian pro-market policies make more stuff than other policies.  Stuff makes people happy.  Happiness is the goal of utilitarianism.  Ergo, libertarian pro-market policies effectuate utilitarianism more than other policies.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: America is already a police state, the public just hasn't admitted it yet. + \n + \n\nFirst Amendment\n\nCops can tell you what to say, taze you for arguing with them, arrest journalists, and arrest you for filming them. They can break up peaceful protests by force. They bring assault weapons to memorial services and gay rights marches and anti-war demonstrations.\n\n[Here](http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/tag/journalist-arrested) are some stories about arrests of journalists.\n\nSecond Amendment\n\nMost states don't seem to have tried to take your guns away, but that won't stop them from arming the police with military weapons. If the police attack you, where can you go for help? Why are the (civilian) police forces authorized to carry weapons which are illegal in the states they police? Do police really get into gunfights with heavily armed drug dealers and save the lives of crowds of law abiding citizens, like something out of a 1980's cop thriller?\n\n[Here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarization_of_police) is the wiki about police militarization.\n\nFourth Amendment\n\nCops can seize your property without cause or warrant (civil forfeiture), and search your car, phone, or house without cause or warrant. Don't believe me? Look it up. Multiple recent court decisions defend an officer's wish to do whatever he wants with your things.\n\n[Here](http://www.mintpressnews.com/supreme-court-rules-police-do-not-need-a-warrant-to-search-your-home/206199/) is an article about the most recent supreme court decision on searches.\n\n[This](https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&rlz=1C1ASUC_enUS632US632&es_sm=93&q=police+raid+the+wrong+house&oq=police+raid+the+wrong+house&gs_l=serp.3..0j0i22i30l9.269565.274940.0.275095.27.25.0.0.0.0.299.3358.0j18j2.20.0....0...1c.1.64.serp..7.20.3353.s4Q1aX2iVQY) is just a google page, but how many of these wrong house, no knock searches are too many?\n\n[Here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States) is the wiki about civil forfeiture.\n\nIt appears the court has ruled that police -do- need a warrant to search your cell phone.\n\nFifth Amendment\n\nCops can arrest you on the spot for literally anything they see fit, and you will be held -at least- until your bail hearing, and you will be lucky if you can afford your bail. Also, they can compel you through whatever means they see fit (lying, threatening, depriving of basic needs, torture) to bear testimony against yourself, even if you are innocent (any testimony given under duress is admissible to the court, and usually leads to conviction regardless of proof-of-guilt). Also, they fund their own departments by issuing citations and stealing property (seriously, if you haven't looked up civil forfeiture, do it now).\n\n[Here](https://youtu.be/6wXkI4t7nuc?t=1656) is a good video where a Virginia Beach officer explains criminal 'interviews.' If you have time to really watch this, please listen to what he says, and how he says it. His job is to look for wrongdoing, and he freely admits that if he wants to pull someone over, he can follow them until they do something he can pull them over for. [This](https://youtu.be/6wXkI4t7nuc?t=1881) is where he starts to describe interrogation specifically.\n\nSixth Amendment\n\nYou can be kept in jail for years before you are brought before a judge, and can expect no help or information from the prison guards. Guards are there to keep people in, not to save lives. Numerous cases are rising to the public view regarding prison conditions, and maybe we should start throwing the 'cruel and unusual' term around. Either way, in 2011, about 3 people died in American jails -every day- with countless others tortured or left off the books (think Chicago's interrogation fiasco this year, or Guantanamo).\n\n[Here](http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site) is an article about Chicago's secret prison.\n\n[Here](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/09/08/how-many-police-shootings-a-year-no-one-knows/) is an article about police killings. Note the fact that they aren't even tracked very carefully.\n\n[Here](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/27/deaths-in-jails-885-inmates) is an article about deaths in prisons. Again, information is out of date, and possibly inaccurate.\n\nEighth Amendment\n\nSome Judges set reasonable bail, others do not. Some of the Judges caught setting unreasonable bail are called out, or disciplined, most are not. Chances are very good you will not be able to afford bail if you go inside. Think about that next time you're tempted to flip off a police officer.\n\nI'm having a hard time finding specifics about the time between an arrest and a bail hearing, but pages I visit says it varies state by state, with multiple lawyers giving anecdotes of people waiting up to a year in jail before being -acquitted- because they couldn't make bail. Personally, I have known more than one person to spend months in jail after being unable to afford bail. Whether or not someone is found guilty, shouldn't this be viewed as a violation of our right to a speedy trial? Not sure about that one.\n\n[Here](http://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/ptrpa.cfm) are some statistics on drug bail.\n\n[Here](http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/bailfail_executive_summary.pdf) is a document full of prison statistics, most relevantly, bail rates.\n\nBottom line:\n\nYou don't have rights anymore. Each of the constitutional rights we have were set forth by Americans to protect their families from overzealous government officials. These rights are not there to protect you from your neighbors. They aren't there to protect you from your employer. They were written specifically to protect you from the Government, and they have failed. Remember your history, read the constitution. Every one of the rights Americans hold dear is being violated by police, judges, and politicians every day. Every Day. EVERY DAY. Every bullshit arrest, every bullshit sentence, every bullshit traffic stop, every bullshit roadside search. If you try to exercise your right to free speech, you can be stopped for it. If you argue with the officer, he will pull you out of the car for an arrest and search without warrant. If you resist him in any way, or if you can't hear him, or if you step on the brake pedal by mistake, or if you just don't fall on your face quickly enough, he will shoot you. Those are the facts.\n\nEvery year, another generation of high-school students reads 1984, by Orwell. They tell us what to buy, and at what price (medicine, insurance). They tell us our wars are moral, or economically sound. They tell us who to love (media, soldiers, 'heros'). They tell us who to hate (war, media, socialists, WBC). We are in a constant state of war on at least one front (Germany, Vietnam, Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt, Russia, Mexico, and God only knows where else). They lie to us, and suppress anyone looking for the truth (media, arrest of journalists, denying the right to assemble or film officers). They tell us what to believe. They tell us how to behave. They will kill you if you do not fall in line exactly when and how they tell you.\n\nIt might not look like you live in a police state. After all, you can drive to work, do your job, buy your groceries, and go on vacation. However, if a police officer, a judge, or anyone else has the authority to ignore the Constitution of the United States of America, what else can you call it? Do I need to dare you to piss off a cop? If you know what will happen when you piss off a cop, how can you accept that? Why are police even authorized to use deadly force? You really want them to kill someone for speeding? Well what about stealing your car, can we kill them then? How many lives are saved through the use of deadly force? Is it worth it?\n\nWell it isn't worth it to me. I'm going to keep my head down until I can afford to get the Hell out of here. I'd rather Live as a citizen of the World than Die as a citizen of this country.\n\nIf you think the constitution protects you (at all), think again. They are walking all over your rights, and you aren't going to notice until they arrest you, or kill your children. If they never do, you will live your life among the sheeple, waiting for the law to tell you how to live.\n\nI'm sorry if this comes across as somewhat belligerent, but I believe the seriousness of the situation in this country isn't exactly sinking in for the general public. Am I wrong? Is it already getting better? Are citizens safer than they used to be? Is my information wrong or biased? I would love a discussion about what we are doing right, what we are doing wrong, and what we can do next.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Self interest is a persons only motivation + \n + It seems that the only thing that ever is motivating any person at any point in time, is self interest.\n\n\"Selfless\" actions can easily be explained through people likely expecting themselves to act in this fashion as it is their own moral code which they are fulfilling. To them they would expect it of themselves and be disappointed if they didn't carry out the selfless action. behind all of this is self interest\n\nYes people might suggest that people are motivated for things such as want for sex or money, but behind all of this lies the sole motivation of self interest.\n\nThis is a pretty annoying view that I don't particularly like and so I would be happy if anyone could change it \n\n\nMy philosophy teacher held that self-interest was the sole motivation, and like a fool I decided that until I could refute it, I would accept it. I didn't realize how much this has been bothering me. \n\nThe reason why it bothers me, as some have asked, is due to its ruining of my more romantic notions of life and what people are all about. Personally being a christian guy, it also seemed to contrast to my beliefs, suggesting that the kind of life my faith wants people to live was an impossibility of sorts. I now understand how sill this was.\n\nThere was no reason for me to accept the argument as valid and sound in the first. It is based off an inductive generalization (it normally seems to be true, therefore it is the case) of small sample size that has no compelling truth behind it. (as /u/caw81 pointed out)\n\nAs most people have pointed out and the thing that I had been catching on the most, was the suggestion that sel-sacrifical and selfless acts where somehow purely self-interest in some fashion.\n\nOn a more soppy note, I would now contend that (for want of a better word) love is the main motivation behind things. Love of self motivates lots of things such as self interest, but there is something else which I'd been discounting earlier. This is of course love of others which is expressed through selfless actions\n\nThanks guys \n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The first goal of the human race, from a currently living humans' perspective, should be to achieve AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) + \n + This CMV was inspired by this article on the future of AI http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html\n\nI recommend reading it a lot, its a great read, but extremely long.  Anyways, in the article it talks about the rise of AGI, Artificial General Intelligence, or AI that's equivalently as smart as a human (the human equivalent is fairly unimportant, a self-learning AGI would go from the dumbest human to the smartest in a fairly insignificant amount of time).  Anyways, the article then talks about the upcoming ASI (Artificial Super Intelligence) in which AIs would be unfathomably smarter than us.  Imagine how much smarter we are to ants and how a lot of the things that we regularly think of ants can't even conceive in their brains.  That but worse, and the AIs are the humans and we are the ants.  Now the article talks about a lot of implications of this, but one large implication is that it could lead to species extinction, or species immortality.  The former because it could wipe out humans for our relative uselessness (maybe more useful as raw meterials) and the latter because we could either digitally store our consciousness for eternity or rejuvenate our bodies by continuing to reconstruct any bodily decay, atom by atom, quark by quark, etc.  Anyways, scientists have no idea right now what will happen, especially because the AI is so much smarter than us that we can't predict the possible outcomes of what it will do, whether killing or saving us all.  \n\nBecause of that, some scientists say that we should be as careful as possible approaching the AI so that we don't accidentally create an ASI that will destroy all humanity.  But for current humans, we're going to die anyways, so the extinction of a human race is just our eventual death that will happen regardless.  But we have one shot at living forever, one way or another, and with our own interests in mind, we should try to get there as fast as possible so that we have the highest chance of achieving our own immortality.  If we mess it up, then we die anyways, but if we achieve species immortality its the ultimate prize, as contrasted to being cautious and dying before species immortality is achieved.  And secondly, if we use the model of our own brains in making this AI, then even if it does kill us all, part of us will love on within AI.  CMV.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: All-White towns are a good idea + \n + [Craig Cobb](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Cobb), an American white nationalist, has proposed creating all-white towns, to which he refers to as \"Pioneer Little Europe\". At one point, he was trying to turn Leith, North Dakota into such a town, but is now focused on Antler, North Dakota.\n\nI think his proposal is a good idea, but not because I am a racist or white nationalist. I think it is a good idea because it could potentially help minorities in the rest of the country. If one or more all-white towns were formed, some of the racists throughout the country would move to these PLEs. Because of this, there would be fewer racists in the rest of the country, and minorities would therefore be less likely to experience racism or discrimination.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: As president, Bernie Sanders would not be a good international negotiator/leader, and U.S. interests would suffer + \n + I agree with most of Bernie's domestic politics, but foreign policy is a critical aspect of the presidency and I don't think he has what it takes. To convince me otherwise (and thus support Bernie), you'll need to show me I'm wrong about the following points, or that they don't matter:\n\n1) I've never seen him not looking generally flustered and awkward. Working on international issues requires developing personal relationships, thus being good at making friends. I don't think he is like that.\n\n2) It requires building alliance and persuading people. Bernie is an independent, does not have serious alliances or close friends in Congress despite being there for over two decades. He has not gotten any notable legislation passed. Would he really negotiate the best possible international treaties for the US?\n\n3) A President needs to be able to understand and navigate everyone's goals. Bernie doesn't seem to try to understand everyone's motivations but rather just gets angry at people who think differently from him. e.g. he says things like \"I'll never understand why some poor people vote republican\"\n\n4) Being a leader involves standing up to or effectively dealing with bullies and thinking quickly. He has very little track record of doing this. And when the BLM protesters took his mic at his own rally, he just passively let it happen, seemed a bit bewildered. It may have been a reasonable decision to let them speak, but he clearly wasn't in control of the situation. How could he stand up to Putin, Khamenei, etc.?\n\n\n\nHe is willing to use force and can be quite serious and calculating in describing his military policy:\n\nhttp://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/sen-bernie-sanders-2016-campaign-33413797\nhttp://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/video-audio/sanders-on-cnns-state-of-the-union\n\nHe does have bipartisan congressional achievements:\n\nhttp://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-horror-show-that-is-congress-20050825\n\nHe does make friends with people who disagree with him:\n\nhttp://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/bernie-sanders-is-a-loud-stubborn-socialist-republicans-like-him-anyway-20150727\n\nwhich includes this statement from Chuck Schumer: \"He knew when to hold and knew when to fold and, I think, maximized what we could get for veterans,\" said Sen. Chuck Schumer, who also participated in the VA talks.\n\nHe can be quite assertive in a non-blustery way:\n\nhttp://youtu.be/WJaW32ZTyKE\n\nAnd, though it wasn't exactly contradicting my previous view, he does have a better knowledge of foreign policy nuance than I thought:\n\nhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmlmGKKm1Xg\n\nhttp://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/the-foreign-minister-of-burlington-vt-120839\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:I think the argument against Zoophillia based on lack of consent is only an effective argument for a tiny portion of the population. + \n + So the most popular non-religious argument against beastiality is that such actions are wrong because it is impossible to get any kind of consent. I think it is possible to argue otherwise (for some animals it is very easy to read their emotional state), but I won't argue that because I think the whole idea that consent would be necessary in these situations is completely inconsistent with how animals are treated by the vast majority of our population, including vegetarians.\n\nExample 1(for the vegetarians, but applicable for everyone): Pet ownership. Do we get consent when we take a puppy from his parents? Do we get consent when we neuter them? If you assume that consent is essential in animal/human relationships, pet ownership itself becomes a kind of slavery or imprisonment. The owner provides food and housing, the pet is imprisoned and provides entertainment to the owner. Any argument you could run about this being justifiable without consent would frighteningly similar to arguments for why slavery in the U.S. was good for many of the slaves. Arguments that they \"seem happy,\" or \"they don't run away\" are meaningless when you have kidnapped an animal and brought it up to be dependent on you. I'm not saying pet ownership IS slavery; I'm saying that the only way it pet ownership can be justified is if you toss out the idea of needing consent for our interactions with animals.\n\nExample 2(for the carnivores): The vast majority of human beings eat animals. If you are one of this majority, the idea that you would ask an animals consent for anything is laughable. You could argue that unnecessary cruelty is still wrong, but much beastiality clearly involves the pleasuring of the animal, not the torturing of it. And regardless, arguments against cruelty have nothing to do with \"consent.\"\n\nSo that's my basic argument. Come on reddit, change my view!\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: welfare depresses wages for low skilled workers + \n + This is an idea I just thought of and it seems possible so I've brought it to you guys to be challenged. \n\nMany people's current salary are totally insufficient to pay for both housing and food for their family. In addition to this all workers must spend money on transportation and health care.\n\nImagine that there was no welfare. What would happen? Well, workers would find themselves with some combination of homelessness, malnutrition, rapidly deteriorating health, or inability to get to work.\n\nHow could a business that relies on low wage workers sustain itself with a workforce in this condition? Walmart and McDonalds cannot have a workforce that is terribly stinky because of homelessness, or passing out and performing poorly due to malnutrition. They cannot have a workforce who cannot even show up to work en masse. \n\nIn the absence of welfare companies would have to pay more wages to have a functioning workforce.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:If Women have the right to be Pro-Choice then Men deserve the right to decline fatherhood. + \n + Hello CMV!\n\nFirst of all regarding my own ideas and politics, I would consider myself a Thatcherite and believe in individualism, freedom and responsibility for our own actions (more on this later). This has potentially shaped my ideas on the matter but I thought I'd throw it out there. Please don't judge me on my politics but on the content of the CMV.\nI believe that in a free society people have the right to decide whether they should keep a baby or not, women have the right to abort or raise a child. However I believe that men deserve the same right after sex with regards to the child (it takes two to tango). If a mother decides to keep the child then the father deserves the right to accept, or opt out of, fatherhood including all of the repercussions and payments that could be associated with such.\n\nI understand that the state assumes the right of the child > the right of the parent, however I believe strongly that the father has the right to continue to live his life without sinking payments into a child which was optionally chosen. If a man decides he does not want to keep the child then he has the right to refrain from supporting it throughout its life.\n\nOr on the opposite, if a mother is given the option to keep a child, willingly knowing the father does not want to, then she is accepting the responsibility of raising a child by herself, as she has no right to enforce payments on a consenting man who did not wish to have a child.\nObviously this excludes rape and all other implications, this is only within consensual sex.\n\nTL;DR: Men deserve the right to decline fatherhood, and refuse payments for a child they did not wish to claim responsibility for, in a consensual Pro-Choice environment.\n\nTheScamr worded this nicely:\n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "Cmv: Black celebrities should donate money to education in black communities to help them out. + \n + I'm talking about donating endorsement money or similar. It would be millions of dollars a year to help the community out of poverty.\n\nIf they would donate everything but a million dollars they will still be rich and the poor would be better. \nIt would be over a billion dollars in help a year which would be very beneficial.\n\nInstead you see the black community admiring their new cars instead of putting pressure in them donating and helping.\n\n\nIt would be good to know if there is a reason why even though they are in a privileged position in which they can actively help instead of using their money for material things. I would think that if they understand the hardships why they don't donate and create a better world.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: A more financially well-off person should NOT be frowned upon if they only pay for their half on a date. + \n + If one party decides to pay for the other, that's out of their generosity and that's up to them. But the more well-off person should not be criticised for only paying for their half. \n\nSince some people are old-fashioned and tend to expect for the man to pay for the woman, how about we reverse the role? Should a woman from an affluent background *have* to pay for a man who earns less than she does? Sure, if she wants to pay for him, that's up to her. But should she be frowned upon because she only pays for what she is spending on?\n\nAlso, if you are a successful businessman/woman, isn't paying for only your bit on a date a way to weed out (some of) the gold diggers?\n\nI believe that the person with the higher earning should be allowed to spend *their* money on *their* wishes. They are **not** obliged to spend it on somebody just because they are more fortunate, although doing so can be an act of kindness.\n\nPaying for the other person, as a more financially well-off person, is a generous gesture but should not be frowned upon if they only pay for their half.\n\nI have noticed that many people tend to criticise the higher earner if they do not pay for the other person on a date. \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Biblical End of Times + \n + I believe that the biblical end of times is only something that was created to further force people into following the religion. Because if people were to believe that an end was happening in their lifetime, they must have wanted a \"salvation\" or a \"safeplace\", which in this case is the form of heaven, at a greater length than if there was no end of times on the way.\n\nBut there is a small part of me that questions it at times, when my ex who is a highly Christian person, tries to reason to me about the current status of Israel and such that is referenced in the bible. \n\nLogically i cant accept it, but because we are just starting to expand our knowledge beyond the perceptive obviousness, there may lay certain aspects that could be potentially true.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: HBO has filled a phenomenal storyline with petty bullshit and clearly botched Game of Thrones. + \n + I was first exposed to the universe by watching season 1 and 2 of the show. I really liked them and purchased the A Song of Ice and Fire books and loved them even more. Now, when I watch the new episodes or go back and watch those ones I initially liked it feels different. \n\n* The show now seems like a rookie film students first attempt at portraying the book. The acting, budget, and sets all seem fine. Things like staging, dialogue, character's appearances and the plot's movements seem very obvious and amateurish. \n\n\nAt first I played it off with rationale like, they have budget issues, or it's just harder to portray these complex scenes on television, or that they needed to shorten the storyline to fit it in a ten season show.  Now I am starting to feel like the show's creators are really just amateurs. They are using the \"best\" books in the last two decades so of course the show is popular. But if someone without their rapey suckage had control, could it be that much better?\n\nPlease change my view so I can enjoy the show again. \n\n**I think to accomplish this someone has to either just absolutely school me on film knowledge or make me feel good about the fact that they didn't have a choice for toning basically everything down. Maybe I'm asking too much, if so I apologize.\n\nTranslations of my words for clarity.\n\nRapey suckage - using sexual violence in ways that seem to be more geared towards shocking the audience than furthering the plot. I'm actually thinking more of the rape scenes for Dany and Cersi.\n\nStaging - there is no subtly to the character's positioning in frames. As someone who is only a casual film observer I prefer a show like Breaking Bad where I have to watch it a second time to finally be able to see the importance of things like a character's positioning on camera. GOT seems amateurish when compared.\n\nDialouge - too many corny phrasings and catch phrases (especially when they use modern idioms). I am currently trying to find a script online so I don't have to transcribe scenes to give you examples. They also do a poor job introducing characters and have to make up for it by having character's say their own names all the time\n\nCharacter's Appearance - Why can't people have the long hair and beards they are supposed to? Legolas had hair down to his waist and he was still a sex symbol. I know Tyrion can't really have his nose chopped off but their first casting or Daario left my head spinning.\n\nPlot's Movement - Given that they are cutting half of the books out there shouldn't be so many complaints out of non-book readers that the show is boring. Or is the general public just that impatient?\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: It's ridiculous to be offended by a rape scene in a show (Game of Thrones) that features a violent murder almost every episode + \n + I'll try not to spoil anything here for people who haven't watched Game of Thrones, but this post is specifically about events in that show. So if you don't watch it, or intend to, perhaps this is a good time to skedaddle.\n\n[Tonight's episode featured a rape scene.](/sp) I Googled 'game of thrones rape' to find that within an hour of the episode airing, several prominent publications had already posted articles with titles like 'Did Game of Thrones go too far?' 'Was that rape scene necessary?' etc. etc. I don't even want to check Twitter because I have a feeling it's full of the same.\n\nA rape scene! Outrage! When will rape culture stop!? GoT went too far!\n\nYet the show also depicts HUNDREDS, literally HUNDREDS of murders. Murders of babies. Murders of parents in front of the children. Casual murder. There was a murder of an unborn child in one episode. \n\nYet the only reaction people have to those is that \"they miss that character\" or \"OMG I DID NOT SEE THAT COMING.\"\n\n**HERE'S WHAT I'M NOT SAYING:** I'm not saying that rape is acceptable, or that we should just sit back and enjoy it when it's depicted on film. That scene was hard as hell to watch. I'm also not saying that we should be outraged that Game of Thrones (or any show for that matter) is ultra violent and depicts so much murder. \n\nBut I think it's absurd to get worked up about a show depicting something terrible (rape) while totally ignoring that it constantly depicts something that is, in my opinion, worse (murder). \n\nChange my view.\n\n\nExample of what I'm talking about (scroll down for Twitter reactions as well):\n[here](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/game-of-thrones/11612290/rape-game-of-thrones.html)\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe the sixth mass extinction has begun and we won't be able to stop it. + \n + Climate change or global warming as it previously was known as is a hot potatoe and not a very clean cut science to predict. There are thousands of climate scientists working on it, trying to predict where we are heading and how fast we are getting there. To make things even harder, [people with special interests are joining the battle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers#Climate_change) throwing in false baits and helping naysayers gain traction.\n\nAll this, while we hear more and more about [reports on ocean acidification is beginning to take effect](http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2014/20140430_oceanacidification.html), and as usual, [faster than we had predicted.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification#Rate)\n\nI am currently actively volunteering for green party politics (not in the US), trying to make a difference. What I notice is that the big bad wolf amongst \"us\" is the burning of fossil fuels. It's like everybody is on a rampage against oil and it's being preached that if we get rid of the burning of fossil fuels we'll live happier ever after. But I think what tipped me over the edge was realizing that this is just a media stunt. Of course fossil fuels is a part of the problem, but say we'd rid the world of oil by tomorrow, it would acutally only rid us of [13% of the problem](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html#two). All those focusing on \"saving the world\" aren't even acknowledging the rest of the problem. God forbid I mention people should eat less meat, because when I do, you'll see the greenest of environmentalists turn red in rage because I'm asking them to change something with themselves instead of the big bad wolf.\n\nAnyway, I believe that we are doomed because:\n\n* The world is going under faster and faster\n* People don't care and keep consuming\n* Those who care don't seem to really want to change or are too disoriented to see the big picture\n* We won't actually START making a difference until it starts hurting, but when it's hurting we'll already be dead.\n\nPlease change my view! :/\n\nPS, I apologize beforehand for any grammatical errors or unstructured sentences. English isn't my primary language.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Insisting your SO does not have sex outside of your relationship is a controlling behavior and should not be considered a normal, healthy behavior. + \n + In our society, we have decided that forcing another to have sex is a major violation of that person's body autonomy. In fact, forcing one to have sex when they don't want to is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to things that are unacceptable to do to a person without his or her permission. Telling someone that they can't get a medical procedure done (or, likewise, telling that they HAVE to get a medical procedure done) is just as awful as is dictating how they were their hair or how they dress. In that same vein, what makes it okay in our society for your significant other to dictate who you sleep with? \n\nSex in our society is a recreational activity enjoyed by most adults in at least some capacity. People dictating what their SOs do for fun in their free time seems rather controlling. Adults should feel free to do what their bodies what they wish as long as they aren't physically forcing another person to do something. Forcing another person to only have sex with you seems to me like an awfully controlling behavior and takes away the body autonomy that they should have. \n\nI can understand if a couple decides between the two of them that would like to sleep exclusively with each other. It's just surprising to me at times that it is the norm to be mad enough at your SO to break up with them if they have sex with someone outside of the relationship. I understand that people cheat all the time, but open relationships just seem to be the exception rather than the norm. \n\nIf you want a monogamous relationship and your SO sleeps with someone else, then you shouldn't be mad at your SO. You should simply realize that you guys want different things out of a relationship and part ways. Getting angry would be controlling your SO and taking away his or her own control over his or her own body. \n\nAnd just for clarification: I am not saying that everyone should go out and cheat on their SOs. I am more stating that it *should* be normal and acceptable for people to have sex with people outside of a two person relationship for no other reason than that it is oddly controlling to insist that your SO sleep with no one besides you. \n\nAlso, I wanted to point out that I am purposefully not using particular genders. It is just as bad to for a woman to tell a man he can't have sex outside the relationship as it would be if a man told a woman the same thing. \n\nSo, please. Change my view! Why should it be the norm to have monogamous relationships?\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: It's very hypocritical for AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) members to smoke cigarettes + \n + Pretty straightforward.  If you join AA you are giving up the usage of substances that are addictive and harmful in multiple forms.  Yet , having been to a fair number of meetings (as an observer, not a participant), it astonishes me how so many of them pick up cigarettes as a replacement. I completely understand  picking up this new, legal habit under the circumstances , but I believe it is incredibly hypocritical to smoke a poisonous and highly addictive substance (which can cause harm to others) while strictly prohibiting other similar substances, or even less harmful/addictive ones, such as marijuana for example. Please change my view.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Advertising should be banned + \n + Ads are everywhere. TV, Radio, Billboards, Movies, etc.  But they add any value to society, IMO all the man-hours spent on advertising are lost, like digging a big hole in the forest and then filling it back in, just for the sake of creating jobs.\n\nThe only possible positive thing I can see about advertising is that it may inform a customer about a product that he may need  and did not know about. But this seems to be a flimsy justification at best.\n\nOf course, you could argue the practical limits and problematics of abolishing the advertising industry, but I'm not asking about that, but about the \"morality\", for lack of a better word, of advertising.\n\n\n**I don't agree with any of the three points above. I am sorry that I don't have more timeto discuss this individidually with every one of you, but my views are:**\n\n* Advertising isn't good because it informs the customer what product exists. That is a ridiculously unfair and unefficient system of informing the customer which products exist. It is not  fair that some products inform more people of their existence because they can shell out more money on ads. I believe a better system could be implemented.\n\n* Saying that you would have to pay for currently free services is not true too. You ARE paying them, with your time, by watching ads. And your time watching ads is DEFINITELY less valuable than 8$ per hour, which is min wage. So, it is much more efficient to pay for these services by selling your time to McDonalds/your current employer.\n\n* Limiting advertisement is limiting free speech. This one is less clear. You can argue that limiting advertisement is limiting the actions of individuals and thus limiting free speech. On the other hand, by limiting the speech of big companies, we are making the speech of small companies louder, which IMO increases overall \"free speech\". Regardless, I have a utilitarianistic worldview, and so I don't really care much about limiting free speech if it provides more value to society as a whole. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I like anecdotal evidence. + \n + Whenever I want to know more about an idea, product, etc. I look to someone who has that idea or uses that product to learn more about it. Why, then, is it looked down on and dismissed as anecdotal evidence for someone to share an experience of theirs? I quite enjoy listening to anecdotal evidence to get new perspectives I wouldn't have thought of or haven't heard before.\n\nI understand that in an anecdotal case it is not scientific because it cannot be replicated and held to control standards, but I don't think this is grounds for dismissing the case as merely anecdotal and not worth mentioning. Am I wrong about this?\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: If you don't take satisfaction in what you do, what you do isn't worth doing. + \n + I've lived practically my whole life on this phrase. It has shaped how I have made several important decisions in my life, though I have recently come to suspect that this may not be the whole truth.\n\nThe phrase itself is fairly explanatory, but the deeper meaning behind it is that you should always be looking for some kind of satisfaction behind your work; Be it a happy customer, or a well-stocked shelf, or a cool painting. There is always something in your work that can grant you at least some menial satisfaction, but if there is not even that much then the work you are doing is not fit for doing.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: It's irresponsible to have more than two children. + \n + Regardless of your personal situation, whether rich, poor or in the middle, I feel it's irresponsible, on a global level, to have more than two children. With the world's population at 7 billion and growing, the agriculture industry is struggling to keep up, the world's oceans are being depleted of fish and other sea creatures at an alarming rate, humans are encroaching on the little remaining natural habitats of a number of endangered species... It seems to me that having more than two children would be irresponsible. 3 children and up equals more children than parents and therefore is contributing to population growth. 2 children and under, per couple, would lead to a slightly declining population, as not all children will choose to reproduce, either by choice, or some will not live long enough to make it to reproducing age. And I think that would be a great thing for the world for a few generations. Level the population out and get it to a more manageable level. CMV. ", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Strong belief in the existence of alien life (intelligent or otherwise) is currently unscientific + \n + This CMV is not about whether you or I believe aliens exist. It is about the widely held point of view: if you don\u2019t think alien life exists elsewhere in the universe, you\u2019re crazy. I understand where this view comes from; the [Universe is so unimaginably huge](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U) and so filled with [galaxies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAVjF_7ensg), and therefore stars, and therefore [planets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exoplanets_discovered_using_the_Kepler_spacecraft), there simply *must* be other life out there. My view is that this approach is fundamentally unscientific and should not be held because it is based on probability and not actual scientific evidence.\n\nMy background: I am a physics and astronomy teacher, and I teach about this subject in depth every year. I think about it and research it often. I\u2019m well acquainted with the [Drake Equation](https://xkcd.com/384/), the [Fermi Paradox](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNhhvQGsMEc) and [its many possible solutions](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fQkVqno-uI), the [Great Filter](http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html), and the debate over alien life in general.\n\nMy own belief in the matter used to be strongly on the \u2018of course aliens exist out there\u2019 side, but I thought the distances were just too vast for us to ever observe them. However, my opinion was strongly shifted by the book *Alone in the Universe* by [John Gribbin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gribbin), and I now think that the great profusion of life here on Earth is so rare that we are alone in the Universe.\n\nDon\u2019t get me wrong, I\u2019m completely open to the idea of aliens existing. I kind of hope they do, as long as they don\u2019t destroy us all! But until we get any kind of scientific evidence that they exist \u2014 an organized signal, clear alien-made trace elements on a planet\u2019s spectroscopy, anything measurable \u2014 I think the correct scientific approach is that they don\u2019t exist. CMV.\n\n\nThe most compelling argument that I've read below is that because we know life happened once in the Universe with us, it could happen again. Physical laws of symmetry point to the idea that there are no unique events in the Universe. I'm not sure I agree with that, but it's given me something to think about. And so the crux of the argument comes down to abiogenesis, life from non-life. Is it easy or hard? Could it have happened only once? *Alone in the Universe* argues that a LOT of things had to go just right for us to exist. I call these things 'Drake's Denominator' in class -- the scores of things that went just right for us that might kill the huge totals of galaxies, stars, and planets.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Nothing worthwhile has ever come from sub-Saharan Africa. No scientific breakthrough, medical innovation or brilliant philosophy was ever created by the the people from that part of the world. + \n + The only notable figures from this part of the world are known for pushing the idea of acceptance of their people, but there doesn't seem to be any merit to their people. No great contributions. When anyone talks about the great contributions to science and math from Africa, it's from areas above the Sahara.\n\nIt's as though everyone below the desert failed to migrate and evolve with the rest of humanity. Not that they are worthless, but I fully believe they are inferior.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: You don't need an opinion on something that doesn't affect you. + \n + I've held this notion for as long as I can remember. If something doesn't affect you physically, or alter your own personal life in any way whatsoever, then you have no need to be opinionated on it.\n\nE.G. I'm not gay, so if someone is gay, I literally don't care at all. Because that doesn't do anything to me.\n\nI'm a philosophy student. I can argue for and against things from a standard moral understanding, but past that, I can't say I'm really interested in things unless they ultimately alter my life in some way.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Bringing your kids to church is indoctrination and they shouldn't be allowed in any church until they reach an age where they can decide for themselves. + \n + Disclaimer: I am very anti-theist so that's why I have such a negative thought of bringing your kids to church.\n\nBringing children to church starting at a young age is very likely to make that person blindly follow that religion without them having much of a choice. At a young age, kids are impressionable and tend to believe whatever an adult/parent says to them. Thus, the odds of them changing their beliefs are lowered. I am not saying that they will never switch, it's just the odds of them doing so are severely lowered.\n\n I believe that any church or religious meeting areas should have an age restriction (I will leave that age number up for debate). And not to make them not believe in religion, that violates the constitution. But to let them make the choice themselves, and purely by themselves. I know that the parents could just teach them about it, but hey, if some people are going to indoctrinate their child, might as well make them use their own time to do that.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Political Correctness has not only gotten way out of hand, but it is, ultimately, detrimental to a healthy society. + \n + First, let me clarify by saying I don't support actual, intentional bashing of any kind, however:\n\nWe see jokes about it (especially on Reddit) all the time: political correctness is reaching a ludicrous level in our everyday society. It is getting to the point where you can't even make jokes or off-hand remarks without being considered rude, distasteful, ignorant, what ever. I think this is not only not really helpful to a person or group of persons who are facing adversity, it is detrimental. It causes issues that could be making actual progress to falter and nit-pick all of the tiniest little problems they can find rather than strive for real change. It is inadvertently focussing on the negativity in society rather than trying to find a positive solution. \n\nIt is my opinion that the only way to get past adversity in life is to toughen up and become immune to it and push your way through it. Real change comes about because of real actions. \n\nThis post was inspired by the earlier discussion on the use of the word \"cisgendered\" and wether it is \"normal\" or wether we should then be differentiating the difference between diabetics and nondiabetics and so forth. I don't think this is a helpful debate overall. sure, if you are asking what gender someone is, it is okay, even good, to distinguish, but all I keep seeing around here, and in real life, and at an increasing rate, is how we all need to check our privilege and be more and more sympathetic; how white people can't relate to minority problems, men can't relate to women's suffrage, cisgendered people can't really understand what transgendered people go through.. it just keeps getting more and more specific, and in my opinion, its just focussing everyone's attention on what is wrong with the world, and doesn't actually help us make it better.\n\nAdversity is everywhere, it hits everyone.  I may be a man, but maybe my dad sexually abused me and locked me in the basement my whole childhood. That girl may be white, but maybe she was raised in a seedy part of town with a drug addicted prostitute mother. Maybe that guy is a straight white male from a nice neighborhood, but he was somehow infected with HIV and now he has AIDS. My point is, none of those people are going to get through their hardships by focussing on those things they can't change, doing so would only hinder their own growth. I can't help but think the same thing when I hear about someone getting upset about someone else using language they find to be offensive. Again, I'm not saying bullying is okay, but the line between what is considered okay to joke about, and what is borderline a hate crime seems to be getting thinner and thinner. In my eyes, trying to further political correctness is only babying everyone and hindering actual growth.\n\nTL;DR There is no relative degree of suffering, everyone has a hard life, and trying to force everyone to walk on eggshells all the time doesn't help anyone make their life better.\n\nI hope you don't think i'm terrible for thinking this way, and I would love to hear everyone's input.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: House music is boring when played 'live'. + \n + (By 'Live' I mean it is being played during a mix by a DJ at a festival, rave or other similar event. I do not include live bands in this definition.)\n\nI want to start by saying that I love electronic music, and I have an appreciation for all the iterations of it. My favourite genre by far is Drum & Bass, but I still love to listen to other sub genres of EDM and will happily dance to them at live events.\n\nHouse music has always been a genre that's been on my radar, but one that I've never really delved too deeply into. The few tracks I heard at raves and on the radio were cool but nothing that particularly grabbed my attention. This past summer I've been to a fair few festivals and raves, and in the last one especially, there was *a lot* of House being played. At first I was fine with it, but after a while it started to grate.\n\nHouse music is great for casual listening or at a party, but when I'm actually at a live event and wanting to dance, my friends and I got so bored! I know it's cliche and generally untrue to say this about electronic music, but it was repetitive, slow, and the elongated build ups were followed simply by another generic beat and bland bassline. It got to the point where my friends and I just stopped dancing and went outside to the smoking area for some variety.\n\nHouse music is boring when played live. CMV.\n\n**TL;DR House is slow and repetitive and does little to make you want to dance at a live event.**\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: asylum seekers should be deported if they commit a crime. + \n + My view is that asylum seekers should be deported when they commit a crime, even if that means the asylum seeker might be killed in his or her country of origin. \n\nI feel like there is a backlash against immigration for multiple reasons, like racism, not immigrating well, and crimes. \n\nI feel that people might be more welcoming to asylumseekers if they are known to not be criminals, and that that causes both racism and not immigrating well to lessen.\n\nOn the other hand if you come to another country because you fear for your life, and know that you will be kicked out if you commit a crime then being a criminal is apparently so important to you, that the country would be completely justified in kicking you out.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Romantic love is merely a platonic relationship combined with lust/physical attraction + \n + Please leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post. Thank you!\n\n\nI believe the only difference between a romantic relationship and a friendship/platonic relationship is physical attraction.  Lots of people talk of love or some mystical force, but in reality people make all sorts of concessions with regard to a person's character flaws and personality, but no one I have met is willing to compromise in terms of a desire to get nekkid with the person of their dreams.  There are other factors that come into play with regard to the interaction lasting or being fulfilling, but I do believe that the only fundamental difference between these two types of interactions is the sexual element.  Change my view.  \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Anyone attempting to throw a Molotov Cocktail at police should be shot at and killed + \n + I'm watching the protests in Greece and have seen many other protests in other cities where protestors throw molotov cocktails (bottles of gasoline with a burning rag stuck in the top). This tactic is deadly and and should be met with appropriate deadly force by riot police. \n\nWhy do the police not respond with deadly force when they are being targeted with the very real possibility of burning to death? We all understand that riots create and encourage a dangerous environment where individuals end up acting in ways that they wouldn't individually. However, someone who comes to a protest with empty bottles, tanks of gasoline and cloth rags are not motivated by groupthink, they have planned these actions and should be met with appropriate deadly force. \n\nThrowing molotov cocktails is not a form of protest, it is an attempt to kill in a horrific way riot police and in no way should be condoned by reasonable responses to protests. \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Redditors, of all people, should not be posting embarrassing pictures of strangers online (or condoning the practice) + \n + And people on the internet in general.\n\nIf it's your content, or your identity, or your friends, I get that. You & your little group are giving consent to uploading your material to the internet.\n\nBut that dumpy looking person at the grocery store didn't give you permission to post her picture online. That passed-out person on the street probably didn't, either. That random person in the crowd who just so happened to make a weird face the moment you snapped the pic, I'm sure he had no clue you took it.\n\nSome of these pictures, they make me laugh, but most of them make me think that their privacy has been violated in some way and it makes me sad. I look upon these people in pity. *Yes*, they dressed that way to go to the grocery store & be seen by others, that was their choice. ***I get it***. But what right had you to pull out your smartphone, snap their picture, and upload it to the internet for the whole world to laugh at? Some of those people have mental illnesses, or other issues. Are they not in enough pain without you possibly adding to it?\n\nI've heard it said that the Internet writes in ink. Once uploaded, it may never be truly & fully erased. By uploading pictures of strangers to the internet, if it trends & goes viral, you are responsible for having permanently compromised any hopes of relative privacy that person may have had. Their shame is compounded, again & again, for your benefit of magical internet points you call karma.\n\nI guess what really strikes me is the blatant hypocrisy. The malicious intent. Some of you Redditors have a big ol' stick up your ass; engraved on its side in big letters are the words \"POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS PARAMOUNT; TOLERANCE FOR ALL\".\n\nWhen you upload pictures of strangers to relentlessly mock & ridicule, where is your tolerance? Where is that incessant stream of political correctness when it's really needed? For people who claim to care *so much* about the poor and less fortunate, you really seem to enjoy laughing at them, and I find that dissonance disturbing.\n\nI'm unable to reply in 3 hours, as I'm going to bed, but I'm willing to discuss this when I wake up. I am genuinely interested to hear what others think. Can you change my view, or will I change yours?\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Morality and ethics are made-up and you can do anything you wish without remorse + \n + Hello everyone, before we proceed I want to make sure that you all understand one simple thing: I'm not a psychopath, I don't have any mental disorders beyond some OCD and I've had a lot of good moral influences in my life.\n\nI just don't think that it makes any sense.\n\nWhen I was 8 I couldn't understand what was the point of baptism, by age 9 I discovered what it was about: Religion. My parents were atheistic and I was so for my whole life so I immediately freaked out and became absolutely anti-religion. It seemed like a joke, you can't simply believe in things that can't be explained rationally, you can explain how a car works from the top to the bottom within a few weeks or months, but with religion at some point you're stuck with a huge \"either you believe it or you don't\", or even worse, \"if you had faith you'll understand\".\n\nBy age 10 I became interested in politics and philosophy, I was very interested in moral dilemmas, I was fresh in high school and I got to the library and started reading from time to time. There were a couple of really good books with several moral dilemmas that I read several times.\n\nUntil my 13s I kept developing those areas, I started off being communistic, then socialistic and then social liberal, I thought about life and death, morality, ethics, utilitarianism and everything else there was to know about those subjects.\n\nThen when I was 14 I discovered it, I was on a car trip to visit my grandparents and I had nothing to think about for the whole trip, I had already been thinking at home (I was kinda bored of playing Age of Empires 2 for hours) and I kept thinking in the car. I don't exactly remember what made me jump, but after worrying so much about whether it was all about maximizing the total happiness, about whether embryos and fetuses should be considered human, about whether morality and ethics should be anthropocentric or not... I just gave up, nothing made sense.\n\n\"What if morality and ethics just didn't make sense?\", that was it, I discovered it, there was no inherent reason to act in a moral and ethical way. I was stuck at the same thing that I got stuck with religion, I lacked faith, there was no reason to explain it all, morality was no car, it was a dogma, a wall where \"why?\" became \"because someone said so\".\n\nImmediately afterwards I thought about what was the point of living: Happiness. Life is about being happy, everything that people do they do it for a reason: Because it makes them happier. I had already thought of that last thing before, but now I could put it all together. Life is just about being happy, even if at the expense of others, nothing mattered but yourself.\n\nFor some reason I even made a [terrible blog](https://whitepillarsinsidethevoid.wordpress.com/) (warning: engrish) and a few [quotes](https://whitepillarsinsidethevoid.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/quotes-updated-eventually/) that would probably baffle several psychologists:\n\u201cWe are complex balls falling towards the end of our existence, our thoughts are just electrons moving in synapses and our memories just chemicals stored in our brain cells\u201d\n\nThat was quite dark and completely unrelated, though you can get a perspective on how seriously I was taking it all.\n\n\nNow regarding the arguments here are a few, they're similar or identical to the ones I made by age 14 and 15:\n\nExhibit A: Morality justifies itself. Why can't you kill an innocent person? Because it is wrong. Why is it wrong? Because you can't kill an innocent person.\n\nExhibit B: Morality has no clear limits. How can you be sure if your actions are right or not if they're not clearly delimited? If all humans should be treated fairly then why not treat animals in a similar fashion? First humans, then monkeys, then mammals, where does it end?\n\nExhibit C: Morality, just like religion, isn't learned rationally. Children are amoral and atheistic/agnostic, parents put ideas into them that shape them into dogmatic adult beings. The burden of proof is in the moral and/or religious person for this very reason, and thus there's no need on first place to disprove neither as long as the opposite is not proven.\n\nExhibit D: Solipsism. If you can't be sure that other minds like yours exist, then its pointless to treat them in any way different from the way you'd treat a mindless object or an animal.\n\n\nI've explained my story and my arguments, feel free to argue against me since from the start I've tried over and over again to be wrong, without success. Right now I act in a completely egoistic way, almost like I would otherwise.\n\nYou read that right, turns out that being amoral doesn't turn you into a monster. Yeah sure, I could kill anybody, and remorse is just an emotion and I have good emotional control anyway so its not that much of a problem. How many people have I killed so far? Zero. Why would I want to kill anyway? Prison isn't a nice place and I have a good temper.\n\nStealing? Can still get caught. Rape? Same. Turns out that the mighty hobbesian sword is the main force keeping society together, not morality (I'm not actually into book-ish philosophy but I like to borrow some concepts). Being amoral still means having to obey the law (unless the benefits outweigh the risks), it still means having feelings for other people and it still means being compassionate and even altruistic, not because I have any obligation to do so, but rather because I feel good acting that way.\n\nConclusively, this is my story, my arguments and my life, just like everyone else but I'm freer as my range of actions also include those that go beyond morality and ethics, even if for the most part I have no need to use that extra freedom.\n\nThis is not the story of my life nor I'm trying to convince you, I just wanted to put things into perspective before explaining my position to prevent any misunderstanding, so please feel free to discuss any or all of my arguments for the sake of rational improvement, I've been open to new ideas from the start and this subreddit seems almost too good to be true.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Pocahontas was wrong about cutting down sycamore trees in relation to knowing their height. + \n + This CMV is about the self consistency of the statement in \"Colors of the wind\" not necessarily whether in reality cutting down a sycamore tree makes sense.\n\nIn the song, there are two principle lines which relate to the knowability of the height of a sycamore tree.\n\nFirst, Pocahontas asks \"How high can the sycamore grow?\" Second, she states that \"If you cut [the sycamore tree] down, you will never know.\"\n\nThe second line seems straightforward enough, if you cut it down it might keep growing and you will not know its ultimate potential height. However, the statement is problematic because it assumes that if you do not cut down the sycamore tree, then you could eventually know how high a sycamore tree can grow. If this assumption is not made, then there is really know point to the statement in the context of the song because all it is saying now is that whatever you do you can never know how high the sycamore tree can grow. If whatever you do relating to the sycamore tree is futile, then not cutting it down doesn't serve the purpose she is proposing.\n\nIf you can know the height that the sycamore tree can grow if you don't cut it down, then at that point you can cut it down and still know how high it can grow. Thus, the assumptions that Pocahontas puts forth are self-contradictory and at least one must be incorrect.\n\nTo change my view, you must either prove that Pocahontas is not making the assumptions that I say she is making or that these premises are not inherently contradictory.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Hearthstone and its card economy is incredibly unbalanced and shallow, especially after the Gnomes vs. Goblins expansion. + \n + I have played Hearthstone since its beta and have had great times with it (I still do).\n\nMy massive issue with the game is that the current meta relies too heavily on strung together mech cards that perfectly mesh with each other and do no evoke a skill-based theme or tactic. The expansion has encouraged players to make decks that kill quickly before the game can even begin to get interesting; this avoids the entirety of what makes Hearthstone special.\n\nAnother thing is that Legendaries are totally whack as a core concept. They come off as useful tools to take out foes but are secretly a ploy to get \"consumers\" to buy packs to try and earn them (in a free-to-play game). The rarity of these cards even further prove that it benefits those who purchase packs in bulk and get them quicker, letting them get \"better\" faster and leave other players in the dust.\n\nBlizzard has also recently lowered the chance of getting decent dailies, meaning you have a lower chance of generating in game currency, further benefiting the payers.\n\nCards involving random chance while also altering the mana curve (Voidcaller, Unstoppable Portal, Alarm-o-Bot) are devastating and should not exist. This is different than Druid's mana increasing cards as this is a calculated strategy that is understood by the opponent.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:The vast majority of women are NOT attracted to money. + \n + I am constantly seeing guys with the opinion that women are attracted more to a guys wallet than his appearance or who he is as a person. Of course there will be some exceptions where a woman is actually attracted to the financial opportunities with a guy, but I feel most women are more attracted to the other traits that most successful and wealthy people have.\n\nThe traits I'm referring to are passion, drive, ambition and confidence. A guy could have all of these things and direct them towards something like charity and the majority of women are still going to be very attracted to him. Most times though, these personality traits lead toward success which then leads to wealth.\n\nIt's easy to recognize expensive things like nice cars and clothing that we don't have and associate that as to the difference between ourselves and the stranger with the beautiful girlfriend. It's not easy to see a strangers personality as they are walking to their car in the parking lot of the shopping mall. It's human instinct to notice patterns and try to learn from them. It makes sense we would think that wealth and beautiful girls go hand in hand. But in reality, the girlfriend he has was not originally attracted to his wallet, but his hard work ethic and the confidence he had in himself and what he was doing.\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is nothing wrong with awarding participation trophies. In fact, rewarding participation is essential to preparing children to be citizens of a democratic state. + \n + NFL retiree James Harrison is facing controversy after he stripped his children of participation trophies, i.e. \"trophies for nothing\". The result has been a bitter debate on Twitter under the hashtag #TrophiesForEveryone. The big problem is that this is a false dichotomy:\n\n1) Awarding trophies for participation =/= not awarding extra special trophies for winning. Victory and accomplishment deserve to be celebrated, but so does being part of a team and of a larger whole.\n\n2) Adult society awards both victory and participation. [When did you last get one of these](https://thestruggleembraced.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/i-voted-sticker.jpg)? This is essentially a participation trophy; as long as you are an adult US citizen without (depending on the state) a felony record, you can get one of these every year just for showing up. But does that make them any more hollow? Do we only congratulate people who vote for the winning candidate? In fact, \"participatory\" is a huge buzzword in everything from design to governance, reflecting that we in the West do not aspire to a winner-take-all, might-makes-right society, but instead encourage the *broadest range of participation*, even if it means that the losers get to have their voice heard.\n\n3) A participation trophy is not necessarily the PC SJW \"Everyone's a Winner :)\" thing that it is sometimes made out to be. Instead, it reflects that participation is a chosen value, indeed *the* chosen value of democratic society.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: It doesn't matter who becomes the next President. + \n + Been following the political news and had a few thoughts. It really wouldn't matter for the nation who becomes the next President. It seems like the era of great presidents (Lincoln, FRD, Teddy Roosevelt), who can truly make significant changes,  have long past. \n\nAll of the current candidates, both Democrats and Republicans, more or less qualify to run a gov't, except probably Dr. Carson. Many of them have held high government positions (governors, senators) or high-ranking business positions (CEO's). They would know what to do as a President.\n\nAll of the important gov't positions are filled with appointed candidates (The Cabinet, Joint Chiefs, Fed Chairman, SC Justices and etc), who are typically chosen based on their actual abilities and not on their likability to the masses.\n\nFor example, say something happens to Obama and he can no longer be a president. Would anything drastic happen in the gov't? Not really, Biden would become president and business would go on as usual.\n\nThus whether it's the populist Sanders, the clown Trump, the crazy Cruz, the young Rubio, the old lady Clinton or the libertarian Paul, nothing spectacular or drastic would come. The nation would run its course, governed by the well established system, and not by individual people.\n\n\n**The discussion is whether or not the next President, Democrat or Republican, is capable of bringing truly significant reforms, changing the course of the entire nation. It doesn't matter if these changes go along with Republican or Democratic party lines.**\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: People shouldn't be proud of America + \n + America has accomplished nothing in its history that makes it worth of such widespread pride and love by its people (particularly this time of the year). Every event that Americans glorify either has a disgusting background to it or is grossly misread by most people. These are some examples:\n\n-The American Revolution: It did involve great thinkers and advancement of political philosophy, but the French did it better, and American Revolution was an overreaction to British enforcement of fair taxes that paid for the 7 Years War to protect Americans. \n-Industrial revolution: Granted high developments in technology and economic prowess were built on slavery, child labor, discrimination against immigrants, poverty and greedy, amoral robber barons and corrupt politicians. \nCivil War: The fact that it needed to happen and that a flag that represents those who fought to defend slavery is still being flown and celebrated is disappointing. \nWorld War 2: Significant military power, certainly helped turn the tide, still killed 300,000 civilians with atomic weapons and put Asian Americans in camps (with little reparation that came way too late).\n\nOf course there are worse countries in the world, but current day America is a wreck. Frequent mass shootings that don't really happen in other developed countries, continued high race tensions, religious fundamentalism in the South and a poor education system. So tell me CMV, is there any reason to celebrate or be proud of my country? \n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The vast amounts of zero karma posts on r/changemyview prove that the downvote button is a disagree button. + \n + So I browse this sub from time to time and I've come to the conclusion that the downvote button is a disagree button. A good chunk of the posts here (not new posts, posts that are over 8 hours old) with only around 10 karma points, or even 0 karma points are \"bad\" or \"dumb\" or in better terms, don't have enough good points to help the OP look like their view is good. The original purpose of a downvote is to mostly help remove irrelevant posts that nothing to do with the current sub. 99% low/no karma posts are relevant to this sub. This is the main reason I will always see the downvote button as a disagree button. Please change my view.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: You should have to pass the citizenship test to vote in the US + \n + Take three people, Persons A, B, and C. They live in the US. \n\nPerson A was born here and is a citizen. They happen to be a huge idiot and don't even know what the president DOES. They have the right to vote with literally no requirements other than surviving for 18 years and registering. They can vote.\n\nPerson B is basically Albert freaking Einstein. They have the highest known IQ in the world. They know every position of all the candidates and can vote with the utmost qualification. Before they do this, they must pass a citizenship test. They do, and they can vote.\n\nPerson C is just as dumb as Person A. They're not sure why people speak French in Montreal despite having lived in Canada their entire life. They moved to the US and are unable to pass a citizenship test after living in the US for the requisite time. They cannot vote.\n\nOnly Person B is qualified to vote, yet Persons A and B can both do so.\n\nWhy not have Person A take the same test as Persons B and C before they can vote?\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Age of consent laws are based on faulty anecdotes + \n + Age of consent laws around the world vary dramatically, and even within the US there is a wide range of things that are acceptable or unacceptable depending on what state you are in. Most people are in support of age of consent laws, and will very aggressively assert that they want to protect the children. Many people will tell you that a sexual relationship between an adult and a child who is X years old is unquestionably damaging to the child, where X is usually a completely arbitrary number.\n\nThere is no doubt to me that an adult is capable of abusing a child in a relationship, and that the adult is capable of abusing the child in a way that the child believes they are consenting and does not believe they are being abused. I also believe that adults are capable of doing this to eachother in relationships where both people are of the consenting age.\n\nWhere things start to get shaky is the point when people start asserting that all sexual relationships are abusive once the 'victim' is below a certain age. I do not believe that there is sufficient scientific evidence to back up this claim. I do not believe that healthy sexual relationships occurring between adults and teens or children are given the proper room to breathe or prosper: as soon as a child is discovered to be in a sexual relationship with an adult, that child will be told repeatedly that their sexual partner is a bad person and that their sexual partner has abused them. I believe that this alone is sufficient to damage the child, regardless of whether the sexual relationship itself was damaging. Children are highly vulnerable to suggestion.\n\nI believe that more rigorous scientific investigation is necessary to justify the age of consent laws, and that once the scientific evidence comes out, the age of consent laws should be adjusted accordingly. I know that, as a teenage boy, especially by 14 (but even, to a smaller degree, as early as 8 or 9) I would have been excited to engage in a sexual relationship with an attractive female. I don't see how this would have resulted in abuse or psychological damage (assuming, of course, that my partner had my best interests in mind). But that's just the problem, it's nothing more than an anecdote. People who oppose my views also provide anecdotes.\n\nThe amount of scientific research in this area is lacking, and lots of the mania surrounding child abuse laws come from unproven ideas about child innocence and susceptibility to abuse. As an even bolder step, I believe most age of consent laws are largely baseless as far as genuine evidence is concerned. (as a side note, these beliefs also extend to other child abuse laws, and also extend to student-teacher relationship laws).\n\nPlease, CMV\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Current Title IX interpretations, in practical terms, means only the man can decide if she can say yes. + \n + With responsibility, comes authority.  Cases such as [this one](https://www.thefire.org/sexual-assault-injustice-at-occidental-college-railroads-accused-student/) at Occidental College.  There are other example cases as well, but this one is relatively 'clean' in that there was considerable documentation/evidence that both parties consented (and both parties had been drinking).  The man was expelled from school, the woman was not.\n\n\nWith this as a cautionary-tale/backdrop to the male decision making process, I come up with the following logic being the only reasonable interpretation for men to consider in terms of governing sexual relationships with women in college.\n\n\n1) If the woman says no, it means no, obviously.\n\n\n2) If the woman says yes but has had a drink, it's up to the man to determine if she still has the authority to consent, the safe answer being 'no, she does not.'\n\n\n3) If the woman says yes and has had **no** alcohol, it is up to the man to determine if she has the emotional maturity to consent at all (e.g., will she regret it).\n\n\n\nSo, she can certainly say no, but only a man can determine if she has the right or agency to say yes, and women are under no reciprocal obligation.\n\n\nThis doesn't feel like a very positive outcome for women, I feel it robs them of control over their bodies.  It would also seem to rob a happy couple of the simple pleasure of an evening at home drinking with some sex before bed.  However I am unable to arrive at another intepretation or approach that mitigates the risk to men given the current Title IX interpretation.\n\n\n**NOTE:** To be clear, I have no desire to undermine women's agency, and I am posting this in ernest with no ulterior motive, although I do recognize it may be a controversial subject.  I hope there is an alternative view that makes sense to me.\n\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:Dota 2 is superior to League of Legends + \n + Having played dota for 1 year, and Lol for 6 months before that i have come to the opinion that Dota 2 is a much better game in many facets. Not only is dota 2 completely free to play, the actual gameplay is better, and the graphics are much better.\n\n\n-The Dota 2 map is larger and has more interesting features for vision and juking.\n\n\n-Dota 2 has TP scrolls and a courier allowing for more interesting map movement.\n\n\n-Dota 2 heroes have much more unique and scaled up abillities than LoL Champions.  Think techies vs teemo, and heroes like tinker, meepo, lone druid, invoker, etc.  LoL heroes typically have a couple skillshot nukes and a movement abillity as a rule of thumb.\n\n\n-Denying, highground miss chance, and pulling/stacking make laning much more interesting in Dota.\n\n\n-Ancients and Roshan are much more interesting high value targets than Dragon or Baron.\n\n\n-Towers are much weaker in Dota, and smoke of deceit exists, allowing for much more aggressive gameplay.\n\n\n-Dota heros are much more turbocharged, any dota hero ported exactly would be the strongest champion in League of Legends.\n\n\n-Activatable items improve gameplay decisionmaking.  LoL items are boring and mostly just stat based.  Dota items allow for much more customizablility in item build and improvement in game play (blink dagger 18 second cooldown vs. flash 300 second cooldown).\n\n\nDota 2 has a higher barrier of entry in a style of game whose focus is improvement, and that might lead people to LoL, but given the massive time investment in either game this is basically irrelevent.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I believe some God or extra-dimensional entity caused the Big Bang and subsequently our existence. + \n + I attribute my agnosticism to this very theory. Looking at the Big Bang from a purely scientific perspective, we know, or think we know, that there was absolutely nothing in our universe before the Big Bang.\n\nNow of course this nothingness is incomprehensible and even typing this it boggles my mind, but science's explanation is that nothingness caused the Big Bang. Now there are several theories to this, such as somehow two universes rubbing or colliding together which sparked the event. I'm no scientist and I'm sure people will correct me (please do), but the point is we really don't know how the Big Bang formed from what we consider to be nothing.\n\nI tend to think, though, that some conscious entity had to be the catalyst that caused the event. It would seem that if there was nothing in our universe, some extra-dimensional being from another universe would have had to insert itself into ours, which sparked the event known as the Big Bang. I believe the being to be conscious because of the intentional way in which our universe seemed to form, and life sprung up. This begins to err on the side of intelligent design, but I do believe human beings, our consciousness, feelings, empathy, etc, have to be attributed to something higher.\n\nI believe that entity to be God. Not necessarily in the Christian sense, or even that this being is benevolent, but that's my theory. Change my view.\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The current anti-abortion movement is more about punishing sexually active women than saving the unborn + \n + I can understand and respect the point of view of those who hold a sincere belief that life begins at conception and that an embryo or fetus should be treated as a life that should be protected.  However, I think that much of the current anti-abortion stance is more about punishing sexually active women than about protecting unborn children.  I believe this because many or most of the people who are against abortion simultaneously hold the point of view that access to birth control and aid to poor families should be reduced or eliminated, and maternity leave (or lack thereof) should be left up to employers.   Birth control prevents pregnancy, and free or reduced birth control goes a long ways to prevent unwanted pregnancy and subsequent abortions.  Paid maternity leave helps new mothers and their babies bond, heal and generally get a good start.  Aid to poor families provides a basic safety net to keep young families from going hungry or homeless.  The knowledge of a basic safety net would encourage those who become pregnant unintentionally from aborting due to financial pressure.\n\nI find it disingenuous that many of those who claim to be in favor of protecting the unborn are against the very policies that make life easier for young families.  I think by simultaneously holding the views against abortion, birth control, paid maternity leave, and aid to families one is displaying that they care more about punishing sexually active women, and by extension their children, by creating a situation that virtually ensures a live of struggle for those women who do not have a supportive partner.\n\nI am not sure what would change my mind, but I am a reasonable and logical person.  If it can be demonstrated to me how individuals who simultaneously hold the views that I described can truly interested in the well-being of the unplanned fetus and the person it will eventually and the family unit in general become I am open to changing my mind.\n\n------------\n\nNote that this does not change my point of view of being pro-choice, which is based on a belief that an embryo/fetus is a potential human, but not an actual human early in development and that choices should be left between women and their doctors.  Nor does it change my option that improved policies to support reducing the cost of birth control and providing aid to families in need would be effective in reducing the number of abortions.\n\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I'm a straight male against dating bisexual women. + \n + I am a 100% straight male, as in, I'm ONLY into straight women; lesbians gross me out, though I don't care who's into who or who wants to marry each other; people should be free to do as they wish. Basically, I have a hard enough time as it is with straight women and a \"bisexual\" girl is triple the drama, with no added benefits. I've never been into 'bisexual' women and if I'm attracted to one or she's attracted to me and I find out she's into women or has sex with them, it's pretty much a deal-breaker from then on. I then just feel betrayed afterwards, thinking I was a fool for going after a girl who wants a girl (instead of me). \n\nMy biggest concerns if I dated a 'bisexual' girl are:\n\n* **A.** Any girl who claims to be 'bisexual' would want a woman *way* more than she would ever a guy. She literally has double the options to potentially cheat or leave me for someone else, and cheating/being dumped is even a problem in straight couple relationships. (*I'm a guy and even I don't know why women would want us over other women and their soft, supple bodies just made for giving and receiving pleasure.*)\n\n* **B.** Constantly having to compete with women for her attention. (*I can't compete with boobs!*)\n\n* **C.** A 'bisexual' girl's very likely (in my view) not going to be monogamous, and I'm not into three-ways, lesbians, or an \"open relationship.\"\n\n* **D.** A 'bisexual' girl's very likely to not *want* a relationship; just casual sex and \"fooling around.\" (*Men on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and women on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and the weekend, I'd assume.*)\n\nAnd I'm sexually inexperienced, so unlike the 'sexually advanced,' I don't have this whole \"rainbow of sexuality Kinsey scale\" level of experience behind me. If I had orgies and stuff, and banged every type of human being alive and had notches in the triple digits by now (at age 28), maybe I'd be more understanding of it all. But I'm pretty vanilla and virginal, at this point. So I don't get the whole \"Kinsey sex scale\" stuff beyond \"Straight\" and \"everything else (LGBT, etc).\"\n\nTo be honest, I *barely* even accept \"bisexual\" as a real thing. (It was never spoken of in society until around 10-15 years ago; now every other woman claims to be \"bi\" and says how much she loves going down on women.) But since science backs it up, I have to back it up as being real, as well. No matter how much I can't comprehend simultaneously being into both men and women at the same time, equally. I literally cannot even comprehend that; it's so far from what I'd personally want, sexually speaking.\n\nHowever, with all this said, I am also a big hopeless romantic. My ideal girl, physical traits aside, would be kind, sweet, gentle, caring, loving, open-minded, an easy-listener and a best friend. Mainly, I want a girl just to be into ***ME*** and no one else. And the argument from the other side I've heard before are that 'bisexuals' (and pansexuals) tend to be more loving, compassionate, kind, and open-minded, as they judge less on the person's outer exterior and more on their inner personality. \n\nAnd the *reason* I am so sexually inexperienced is [me](http://imgur.com/UOd924K) being a short, 5'11\", overweight, ugly, dark-skinned man that literally no straight woman would ever call \"sexy\" or \"good looking.\" So if the whole theory that \"'bisexuals' (and pansexuals) are less shallow and more into who a person truly are,\" then they would be a *more suitable choice* for me to go after, assuming this is true.\n\nSo, I think that covers it all. I'm open to changing my mind on it, if people are intelligent and open-minded enough to convince me why I could potentially be wrong about my stance on 'bisexuals.'", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:I believe that everyone should learn some form of self defense + \n + I believe that everyone needs to know how to defend them selfs. Weather it's learning how to shoot a gun or martial arts or even basic combat skills. Learning how to fight has helped me a lot. I will however go on the record saying that I don't believe violence is always the answer and if you can get out of a confrontation or fight without the use of violence you should. there's nothing more badass then telling someone \"this dude at the bar was pissed and wanted to fight me but I talked to him and he ended up buying me a beer\".", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is no hope for mankind or this world, life is pointless and all our best efforts are empty, as nature is set up in a way that evil, destruction, and ignorance will always win in the end + \n + Basically, I was looking at some YouTube videos from different places, doing some research on the internet, reading political polls, scientific polls, and reading about history and psychology when I finally reached a conclusion. Because of the way the natural world works, destruction, ignorance, and evil, will always win.\n\nLet me start out by saying, philosophically, I'm a cynic, fatalist (not in the spiritual predetermined sense, but more in the sense that the laws of nature predetermine reality), and an existential nihilist. Basically, nothing really matters, this world and especially mankind are hopeless, and despite our best efforts out struggles are ultimately sadly, but surely, futile. \n\nWhy do I say evil and destruction are predetermined to win? One simple fact, destruction is just so much easier than creation. I have some examples:\n\n1. Look at the Twin Towers, they took decades to build, had hundreds of construction workers, planners, managers, and businessmen that went into building them. Upon completion they housed thousands of workers and was a center for economics. Hundreds of workers, decades, and thousands of lives, all of that torn down because one day a couple hijackers with an airplane decided they wanted to hurt our country. In response our country then killed millions of their people. \n\n2. Next, nearly three years ago now, young children all went to enjoy just a comfortable day at school, they went to spend time with their friends, learn, and go home and tell their parents all about it. Some teachers watched over them. Love, care, money, billions of years of evolution, all of it ended when one day a deranged man decided the best way to make a point was to go to that school and end the lives of those innocent children and the teachers that watched over them.\n\n3. In our modern world, billions of years of evolution and biodiversity are being destroyed because the human race needs more and more. The planet we inhabit is far behind our singular, greedy goal of accumulating power and wealth. And then, rather than accept the hard truths, most humans would rather listen to the politicians that would happily stick a knife into their back. Billions of years of biodiversity, all destroyed within 500 years of industrialization. \n\nHonestly, in this world, how could goodness, creation, and knowledge possibly win? How could creation and life win if destruction and death is so much easier? How could knowledge and wisdom win if fear always drags people to ignorance? How could good win when the core of a human is entirely selfish? \n\nMy view is simply this, the world will not change, for it *cannot* change. It doesn't matter what happens, the victims will either always remain the same or switch out, destruction will always reign supreme, and fear and ignorance will always lead to one man killing another for his resources rather than working together to cultivate them. \n\nI implore you to change my bleak views, because, honestly, on a dying planet, as a member of a species that has begun to pride itself on ignorance, where things like race and sexual orientation matter more than survival and cooperation, where a group of friends can spend weeks orchestrating a magnificent picnic only for a maniac with a gun to decide their lives don't matter ending it instantly, I don't know what else to think other than that evil has such a massive advantage over good and will always come out on top.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Spitting out junk food rather than swallowing it is not an eating disorder + \n + Preface: 6 months ago I was obese, 2 weeks ago I was overweight, today I am a healthy weight... all according to the BMI chart. I lost this weight deliberately and methodically, by calculating my TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure) and eating at a 1000 calorie per day deficit in order to achieve about 2 pounds per week of weight loss. I am still 10 pounds shy of my goal weight, and when I reach that weight I will modify my diet to eat at a 0 calorie deficit/surplus, that is I will eat according to my TDEE.\n\nIn order to help myself have the willpower to do this I started to allow myself to enjoy all of my favorite snacks and junk food but instead of swallowing I would spit it out, usually into a separate bowl that I would then dump into the toilet and flush. This allowed me to enjoy the taste and experience of eating the food, which is what I was really always after, without affecting my weight loss goal, and it worked, very well. I've been doing this half a year now daily and have seen no negative effects, in fact I am FAR more healthy now than I was when I started, I feel like a totally new person and couldn't be happier.\n\nThe problem started when I told a friend about this and they insisted that I had an eating disorder and needed to see a psychologist... they were seriously grossed out (which is why I made an alt account to post this... people seem to react very badly to this and I don't know why).\n\nI insist that I am far better off for having done this and losing all of the weight and that I am in complete control of it and will not allow myself to get overly thin (I'm a man, I workout with weights, I care about being muscular... can't build muscle without eating).\n\nCMV\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The idea that homeschoolers are missing out on \"socialization\" is a myth in that the socialization that happens in public schools is almost entirely negative and not applicable to the real world. + \n + To save time, let's just focus on the social quality of public schools from **middle school forward**. Let's also not get into the argument of whether and how kids who are homeschooled are socialized outside of school, but you can't bring up as a benefit to school a type of socialization that isn't unique to school.\n\nWhat I'm proposing is that having been through public school myself and watching what has happened to all my friend's teenagers who went to public school for middle and high school, I have seen each become more vain, more sexual, more concerned about their self image, more critical of themselves and others, and other negative traits (basically Jerry Springer TV show hopefuls). Schools can't/won't reign in the mocking and bullying and despite what some people claim, I don't believe there's value in being bullied for years without anyone coming to your aid.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Drag Queens are damaging and hindering the progress of Transgender acceptance. + \n + I firmly beleive that drag queens are one of the reasons why Transgender people are ostracised from society, and I (speaking as a transwoman) find it\nhard to be accepted and understood by a large portion of the population. \n\nA drag act is just that. An act. It is not supposed to be taken seriously (just look at the bearded lady Conchita Wurst) and as far as I understand\na drag queen isn't supposed to 'pass' in the transgender sense. A drag queen may have a 'female persona' but they are not transgender, it's not a medical\ncondition.\n\nI'm going to assume that most people in the west know what a transgender person is, and what a drag queen is and can probably tell the difference. But\nI am also going to assume that most people don't know what it actually means to be transgender, that it isn't a choice. The only choice a transgender\nindividual makes is the choice to transition. \n\nI feel as if because of drag queens and the confusion between a transgender person and a drag act, we're not taken seriously by someone who can't tell the difference. I am not a drag queen, I don't put on an act, or dress ridiclously, nor do I want to look obviously like a man in a dress (the main point\nof a drag queen). I act myself, which isn't overly fruity, camp or feminine, and I dress like a typical woman.\n\nIf someone outside LGBT circles sees a gay man in drag, they might assume that is a transgender person and therefore treat the issue of transgenderism as silly and as an act, rather than realising that true gender dysphoria is horrific for anyone who has to deal with it. \n\nI would almost go as far as saying that drag acts are (intentionally or unintentionally) mocking the plight of transgender individuals, and it is akin to dribbling and pretending to be someone with downs syndrome, and at the complete extreme (further than what I believe) akin to blackface.\n\nI want to not hate drag queens, but I can't help but feel that do nothing but trivialise transgender people and make it harder for us, CMV. \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump gain popularity from the same underlying reasons + \n + This is how it appears to me as a non-American. In effect, people are moving to support these two candidates mostly in response to the same set of events:\n\n- Disillusionment with the political establishment. Voters are fed up with the highly polished and spin doctored politicians, with overtly similar views, that make up the rest of the leadership candidates. Moreover they feel the insularity of groups within political circles leads to a strong divergence from doing what is best for the people to doing what is best for the elite. In response they support people with seemingly strongly felt policy proposals, messages, and who have only - if at all, existed at the forefront of mainstream politics.\n\n- A response to the emergence of political dynasties. Hillary and Jeb both feel like rehashes of past presidents, and voters fear an arrogance and weakening of democracy if familial dominance is extended.\n\n- Anger at cronyism and corruption. Support for people percieved to fall less into donor's pockets. Sanders stands against this kind of \"selling out\" and Trump would seem to be rich enough to fund himself. (Reality isn't important here, only what people think).\n\n- Upset at being left behind financially. Sanders talks about raising the minimum wage, organising co-ops and unions and making trade deals beneficial to the American people. Trump talks about forcing companies to situate factories in the USA, especially in cities on steep decline like Detroit. Voter feel these two\n\n- Upset at the pace of change. (This goes in alternate directions so may be less suitable). The USA is deeply split in its range of ideologies, Obama felt it prudent to oppose Gay marriage officially when he first ran for President due to this in order to gain enough votes. With Trump, to quite Iain Dey in the London Times \"Large numbers of Americans are struggling to get their opinions up to speed with the liberal agenda and they are fed up with being ignored...[which] is why a candidate currently percieved to be a joke is leading the race for the Republican presidential nomination\" . Conversely others feel that Sanders would push their nation towards a more tolerant and open nation, and more supportive of minorities and the less well off.\n\nSo please, change this l'il Limey's view that these two candidates gain support for offering their (differing) responses to many of the same problems.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: There is no rational reason for me to get married (28/M/grad student) + \n + Throwaway account, my main is used for school.  \n\nI'm 28, male, and a grad student (chemistry). I've been dating a girl for two years and our relationship is wonderful. She frequently brings up marriage and talks about how she believes I'll never propose to her, and I've told her that I'm honestly not sure how I feel about the whole concept of marriage. I would have no problem staying with her for my entire life, but I just don't understand how a ring and a piece of paper makes any difference.\n\nLet me outline my preconceptions here: My parents' marriage fell apart due to infidelity and divorce. I watched my mom cheat on my dad, take all his money in court, and leave him psychologically damaged until the day he died. Admittedly it has me a bit scared.\n\nHere are the benefits I often hear claimed about marriage, along with my response to them:\n\n* More sex: We've been like bunnies for the whole relationship (at least twice a day) and honestly I have a pretty low sex drive. It's already more than enough.\n\n* Children: I don't want kids, don't have kids, and am 100% sterile by choice. Nothing to do about it. She is equally happy to go without them.\n\n* Added financial benefit / tax breaks: We already contribute equally to the relationship in terms of finances. We end up paying for everything about 50/50. Tax breaks? Ok, sure, but that's not going to sell me on it right off the bat.\n\n\nNow here are some drawbacks I often see cited about marriage, along with my response:\n\n\n* Expense: A ring is supposed to cost three month's salary?! A wedding costs over $10,000?! I'm a grad student, for crying out loud. This kind of stuff is absolutely not affordable, and even if it was it seems like a huge waste just to conform to a social norm. Paying more for a little bit of metal and rock than for a decent used car seems absolutely insane to me.\n\n\n* Divorce Risk: Statistics don't lie. I have a 50/50 chance of going through exactly what my late father did.\n\n\nI hate seeing how sad the thought of just being my girlfriend forever (but not my wife) makes her.  I love this girl a lot, but I am also a very rational and logical person and can't seem to find the personal justification for marriage.\n\nPlease, try to change my view - and thank you.\n\n\n\nI appreciate your time, and thank you very much.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: A forearm tattoo will not negatively affect prospects for higher education or employment. + \n + The title mentions specifically a tattoo on the forearm, but the underlying premise of my argument is based on a tattoo which would not be visible in formal clothing (such as slacks and a button down) but would be visible in casual wear (shorts and T-shirt). \n\nSuch a tattoo would not affect chances of college acceptance for three reasons; the ubiquity of tattoos amongst college-aged individuals, the relative unimportance of personal image in the college acceptance process, and the low chance of anyone even seeing the tattoo.\n\nAccording to a Pew Research Centre report, nearly 38% of college-aged individuals have a tattoo. While that is not a majority by quite a margin, it is a significant amount. Additionally, the popularity and accessibility of tattoos are steadily increasing year by year leading to a greater acceptance amongst a younger crowd. The point here is that because of their widespread nature, tattoos are no longer seen as a sign of rebellion simply because they are so commonplace. \n\nFurthermore, most colleges prefer to accept or deny students based on their applications alone, rather than on interviews. Unlike a job interview, in which personal image can make or break someone\u2019s chances of getting employment, colleges tend to focus more on scholastic and athletic merit, test scores, and lifetime achievements first. Personal image is last on the docket for a school good enough to conduct personal interviews, if even considered at all. \n\nThe previous two points also assume that a college will know about this tattoo, whereas that may not even be the case. In an interview process, there is no chance that the tattoo will be exposed in formal clothing. If the tattoo is exposed after acceptance, then there is no risk of a college retroactively denying admission based on that alone. \nThis third point is also the keystone argument when it comes to employment. For the sake of this argument, I will assume that if an employer knows about any sort of tattoo, it will result in immediately being passed over for the job. This is not consistent with reality and the first two points I make concerning college can be applied to employment as well; tattoos are slowly gaining acceptance in the workforce as the 38% of college students with tattoos graduate and seek employment, and that employers will seek to hire the most qualified candidate with less emphasis placed on personal image. But even discarding these arguments, the possibility of an employer finding out about a tattoo covered by conservative formal clothing in professional situations is nil. \n\n(As some of you may have guessed, I have posted this because I am considering getting a tattoo and want to make an informed decision before doing so. I think I have carefully considered most ways that a tattoo could impact my life, but I wanted to hear some opposing arguments I may have overlooked and figured Reddit could help me out here) \n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Trigger warnings are fine + \n + Tw: this might upset people who become overly aggressive about trigger warnings.\nA trigger warning is effectively just the passage of information from one party to another. It is no different from an R rating on a movie, an M rating on a video game, or a TV-MA rating on a show. All it does is alert people to the possible repercussions of the content to follow. Be careful to note that I am not saying it is okay to vindictively attack those who do not use trigger warnings, I am merely saying that there is a reason why we have things like rating systems. We are trying to protect people by informing them of content that could be bad, and expecting them to act appropriately on that information. Again, this is not to say people don't attack others because they don't use trigger warnings; that's a different argument though, because that's on them.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The MIT should not have removed Walter Lewin's lectures as a result of the sexual harassment scandal + \n + A few months ago, Walter Lewin, a very famous physicist and MIT professor was accused of sexually harassing a female student in an online course. The MIT carried out an investigation and determined that he was guilty, cutting ties with him and revoking his title as an emeritus professor ( http://tech.mit.edu/V134/N60/walterlewin.html ). Now, I think we can safely assume that the accusations were real and I'll even concede that revoking his title is an appropriate measure. \n\nNevertheless, I'd argue that the removal of his lectures is a nonsencial, knee-jerk reaction from the MIT to prevent *any* blemish on its reputation, perhaps from fear of criticism from certain groups. Maybe they thought that the harsher the measure, the better reaction they would obtain from the society.\n\nRemoving Walter Lewin's lectures is a non-sensical approach and can't be really justified. Are the lectures themselves sexual harassment? Of course not! Does this provide justice for the victim(s)? Not at all. This measure only makes it harder for students to access very good lectures that'll allow almost anyone to comprehend basic concepts of Physics. In fact, the lectures can be readily accessed through torrents or other webpages, so it's not like the MIT is \"erasing\" Walter Mit from the society just to provide some relief to victims or to protect their reputation.\n\nShould we start destroying Wagner's recors just because he was an anti-semitic? Or should we stop referencing Watson's articles just because he made racist statements? I don't think so. \n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Moist towelettes or \"wetnaps\" are infinitely better than regular toilet paper. + \n + I've debated on politics, on social issues, and this may be my most firmly held belief yet.\n\nImagine you're in your backyard, or someone's backyard, and it's barefoot because it's summer and you like fun.  Unfortunately a dog thought it'd be fun to poo right where you placed your foot.  How are you gonna clean that up?  With a paper towel and a casual stroll back in the house or your car or your poor sandal?  Or with a method using a water hose, a wet paper towel, a sponge, etc?\n\nBasically that, but for the butt.\n\nThe *only* caveat I can imagine is that they're not as flushable as they advertise, so more often than not you'll need a dedicated waste bin to put them in.  Still worth it to feel so fresh and so clean.\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Discrimination against certain groups can sometimes be justified based on the values and beliefs of the person who is discriminating. + \n + This topic started bothering me specifically after the \"Christian Pizza restaurant refusing service to gay weddings\" issue which I'm sure most of you have heard of. I believe it can be justifiable for people who carry deep values and beliefs to discriminate against those who commit acts which makes the other person deeply uncomfortable as it is, to them, an act of blasphemy and such. We cannot force people to go against their own beliefs, and sometimes this will cause incidents of discrimination. I believe that although rare, it is justifiable to discriminate if the other group's acts are radically going against your belief and serving them will make you feel like you committed a sin against your beliefs and values. So for example, I believe that the pizzeria should be allowed to refuse service to a gay wedding, if he feels like doing that will violate his belief system. I am not a religious person but I recognize that certain people have very deep beliefs which they cannot shrug off, and we should be more tolerable.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Saying you rescued a kitten/puppy shouldn't give you the moral high ground + \n + Some of my friends have adopted kittens/puppies from a breeder and some have gotten them from shelters. Recently one of the girls I am friends with has gotten \"morally righteous\" that she got her kittens from a shelter. This has me thinking that its not really fair on her part to put down people who go to breeders to get kittens/puppies as she essentially did the same thing by going to the shelter and looking at all of their kittens and bypassing all the adult cats. \n\n**CVM: It's not really \"morally\" better to rescue a kitten/puppy from a shelter. If you really want to make a difference rescue an animal that is older and will have a dramatically lower chance of getting adopted because of people who just want kittens/puppies.**\n\nI, of course, recognize there are edge cases like ones that are sick and whatnot and am not including them in this view because anyone willing to take on the burden of healthcare for a pet doesn't really fall into this.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Freezer on bottom, fridge on top is the superior arrangement to freezer on top. + \n + I just moved into a new apartment and the fridge-freezer that came with the unit has the freezer on top and the fridge on the bottom as opposed to the opposite, which is what I had at the last place I lived. \n\nMy reasons for arguing that freezer on bottom is superior are several:\n\n1. 90% of the time you will be interacting with the fridge, not the freezer, so it makes sense to have it eye level. When the fridge is on the bottom of the unit and not the top, most average-sized people have to bend down to see what's inside, which is less than ideal.\n\n2. Freezer on bottom allows you to make use of a sliding drawers arrangement like [this](http://www.ajmadison.com/ajmadison/images/items_large/mbb1956open.jpg) rather than an open door arrangement like [this.](http://appliances.retailcatalog.us/products/196600/62159open.jpg)\n\n  The former arrangement gives you greater access to more shelf space, since you will never have to reach around something to get at something else at the back of the freezer, you can just slide the drawer out and grab it off the top.\n\n3. ~~If the power goes out, you want the things that need to stay the coldest to be on the bottom. Heat rises, and so it makes sense to keep the frozen items on the bottom so that if your power goes out, they will stay cold the longest.~~\n\n [See /u/NaturalSelectorX's comment.]\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:It's impossible to believe in free will without also believing in the supernatural. + \n + After a couple philosophy classes and some long winded discussions it seems as though many people find it hard to believe that free will doesn't exist in any real scientific way.\n\nLet's start off with premise #1\n\n Everything that is observable in the universe follows laws of nature. All laws of nature follow the universal law of causation, which states that everything in the universe has a cause and is thus an effect of that cause. \n\nIf premise #1 is true then everything in the physical world must be determined. \n\nIf everything is determined than there is no such thing as free will.\nIf every behaviour is determined by laws of causation it is physically impossible for someone to be free, as that freedom would require the nullification of the laws of causation. In other words to believe in free will is also to believe in spontaneous magic, it's to believe that humans possess powers that could only be explained by the supernatural.\n\nFor example: In most legal traditions it is customary to judge whether someone is guilty of x crime by accumulating evidence in order to prove that  x person intentionally did this crime. Let's assume that there was enough evidence to prove without doubt that Greg Smith robbed a convenience store. Now that we have proof that it was Greg, we should ask ourselves if Greg really chose to rob the store. As soon as you ask yourself that kind of question the only scientific recourse you have is to understand Greg as a causal agent. What caused Greg to rob the store? Was it the fact that Greg is from a low socio-economic class? Was it the fact that Greg lost his job 2 weeks ago and Greg wont be able to feed his kids if he doesn't find a way to get more money? Is it the fact that Greg was abused as child? Did Greg rob the store due to complex laws of causality that are reducible to both biological and environmental reasons? Or did Greg simply rob the store because he felt like it?\n\nEven more simple decisions like choosing between a chocolate bar and an apple can be reducible to complex causal interplay between biological and environmental laws. Did you choose the chocolate bar because you like it better? Or is it because we have an evolutionary pull towards sugar and fat dense food? Is it because you read an article on naturalnews.com talking about how dark chocolate can cure your pancreas cancer? Or did you chose the apple because you grew up on an orchard farm and apples remind you of your innocent childhood? or did you choose the apple because you already had psychologically determined bias for foods that will fit in your limited calorie budget for the week?\n\n\nWhat I am trying to say is that as soon as you try to define freedom of choice scientifically it inevitably reduce down to causal mechanisms. Whether those casual mechanisms are internal/biological or external/environmental or a mix of both they are the only things that influence us and completely shape our behaviour. Anything else that can be said to have a role in our behaviours (like our \"independent volition\", our \"moral compass\" and all other notions pertaining to freedom of will) is inherently unscientific and can only be explained through a belief in the supernatural. CMV   \n\n\n\n\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:while free trade between \"wealthy\" countries (i.e. germany, united states, uk, france, netherlands) is beneficial to all parties involved, free trade with countries of significantly less wealth hurts the working class of the \"wealthy\" countries. + \n + I am not a strong believer in isolationism by any means; I strongly believe that there are some products that simply cannot be made better than the place of origin (such as focus bikes made in germany, hondas made in japan; etc) however the practice of transferring a factory to a place of cheaper labor (i.e. mexico, china, taiwan, vietnam etc) unfairly disadvantages factory workers in these \"wealthy\" countries. and ultimately leads to inequality in the \"wealthy\" countries. \n\nI am a native michigander so I have lived through one of the consequences of nafta (see: detroit)\n\n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: A nuclear war/genocide of the majority of humanity would be good and necessary in the long run. + \n + In the past few decades, we have realized that we made a lot of fucking huge mistakes in terms of development. We have a global financial system that allows shadowy cabals in banking, pharmaceuticals, technology, espionage, defence, etc. and that allows for the sufficiently sadomasochistic to exploit other countries. We know some of the solutions but unfortunately civilisation as we know it has too much inertia as all of those demonic cabals have infiltrated the world's governments, especially the USA. As long as the USA exists with its greedy tentacles there cannot be true development. At the same time, we are overusing natural resources to a point where there is probably only enough left for a couple billion people on Earth at any given time; sharply reducing birthrates is out of the question without massive culls of elders. The best possible solution would be for a nuclear war that allows us to go back to the Middle Ages (technology-wise) and start from scratch, re-industrialising based on what we already know works in the short run but is destructive in the long run vs. what is actually good and sustainable. \n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Women and Men (who are both heterosexual) cannot be platonic friends and are using each other, in most cases. And I find it unnecessary baggage within a relationship. + \n + I have had friendships with various males, and only one of them has not tried to at one point in time, make it sexual. This was not a big deal when I wasn't in a relationship and I would just turn them down. Once I was, they all tried much harder than usual to pursue something whereas before it was a more passive attempt. Once they realized I was \"off the table\" of sorts and was serious about my now boyfriend, the relationship just dwindled despite my continuing to talk to them just as much as before. I realized this was because the conversation would always be very short due to me not replying to flirtatious texts which probably got really boring for them. \n\nWhat I mean by men and women cannot be just friends is that one or the other (possibly both), even if not having a physical relationship, is using each other for the ego boost that comes with someone of the opposite sex giving you attention and would under other circumstances, definitely hook up (or maybe at one point in time already have).  I also noticed even women who have a lot of male friends they spent a lot of time with and \"friend zoned\" them, they would still get weird and upset if the man was in a romantic relationship and therefore had less time to expend for her because it was going to his SO. This doesn't happen with their male friends as long as they see them enough because the male friends aren't using their male friends to feel attractive.. but suddenly \"just\" female friends tend to get very territorial once they aren't getting the attention from the male friend that they were used to or able to get that constant validation. \n\nOf course there will ALWAYS be exceptions. But I think, on average, this all proves to be true. This is also why I am pretty uncomfortable with my boyfriend having female friends that aren't also people I've met and felt comfortable with. He can, of course, but it makes me feel uncomfortable. The one he introduced me to automatically displayed the classic signs of using him for attention and being very touchy but pretending it's simply a \"brother\" like relationship. I would like to be comfortable with such friendships but it seems unnecessary to me within a relationship. In a group setting is fine, of course, as long as everyone is comfortable (which doesn't seem to happen if the friend has been in the persons life longer than the SO) but I am talking about opposite sex friendships when one or both parties are in a relationship with other people...I feel they have no reason to spend a lot of time interacting or spending time together one-on-one unless they are both lying to each other (or one person is) and hoping that something will happen (sexually or otherwise) without admitting it to themselves or like the [in my opinion] inappropriate feeling of playing with fire. \n\nI hold myself to the same standard, of course. My one male friend that has not tried anything was also my roommate but I always included my boyfriend and introduced them, and they became friends even. We would hang out alone sometimes but in public (during daytime) or just while one or the other is in the kitchen cooking. I don't think anything would happen if we did drink alone, as we have before I was dating my boyfriend, but I would respect my relationship enough that I'm not really interested in doing that anyway. I also have zero sexual attraction for him and imagine this is the same with him, towards me. This is ONE of those exceptions out of the plenty of male friends who out of nowhere have tried to hook up or tell me they have feelings for me and I suspect is not the average dynamic of a male-female friendship. So while I think it MAY be possible, it is somewhat rare. \n\nObviously my view also applies to those who are strictly in monogamous relationships.\n\nTl;dr: \nMost men who have female \"platonic\" friends would sleep with them if the opportunity arose and if are in a relationship, only keep them around in case and because of the ego boost of being around women who aren't unattractive (to feel wanted). Most women who have male \"platonic\" friends are using them for the attention they get by feeling a man likes them, and can't have them to feel like a sought-after, high quality woman...and also get jealous when they begin dating a woman despite their \"just friend\" claims. always exceptions, but believe this to be generally true. ", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Because I cannot tell if killing and eating a fish is in keeping with my morality, I should abide by the precautionary principle, and not do so while on a trip where lots of fishing will take place with my partner's family. + \n + I'm a lifelong veggie, and I've been vegan for a while in the past although I'm not anymore.\n\nI don't believe you can make a rock solid case for being veggie, unless you refer to climate change, and once you look at that I think the case for being vegan is unanswerable, I still have regrets that I'm not vegan, although not major ones, as otherwise I'd not eat pizza quite so much.\n\nThat said I do think there is also an ethical argument against harming animals who can feel pain and have a capacity to suffer. I certainly think this is the case with most medium to large size mammals like cats, dogs, pigs, chickens, dolphins and whatnot. For that reason I wouldn't eat those animals even if it was sustainable to do so, unless I was sure they had been reared and killed humanely.\n\nWhen it comes to animals who are clearly less conscious I don't feel the same way. I don't have any qualms about swatting flies, and I also recognise the need for pest control. I wouldn't have any problem with lethal rat traps being used in a restaurant (although obviously that should go hand in hand with taking measures to discourage them being in the kitchen in the first place like not leaving food out overnight).\n\nI don't know if fish can experience pain or not. I don't know if they can suffer like other higher mammals can. \n\nAs I don't know for sure, I'm reluctant to join in with the fishing that'll take place when we go and stay with my partners family at a cottage near a river which allows for excellent fishing. \n\nI quite like the idea of fly fishing, I feels it's pretty sustainable (I might be wrong), and also that fish probably don't have the mental capacity to suffer (I might be wrong again). I'd rather avoid doing something I'll learn that I shouldn't have done in 20 years though than take the risk. \n\nCMV\n\nConvinced by https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxvoDCWDlQPqdjZsU2F0TVpaZUU/view  / http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/faf.12010/pdf\n\nDelta's awarded.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Affirmative action doesn't help in the US anymore. + \n + With affirmative action dictating that a certain amount of students or workers have to be either women or an ethnic group that isnt white(or in the case of a few places there has to be a certain percentage of every race and sex including whites and males), it shuts out individuals who would be more qualified for the position, and so wastes resources, and reduces the quality of goods and services from companies that uphold affirmative action.\n\nNot only this, but it puts the \"beneficiaries\" at a disadvantage in education and the workplace.  for example, if you took two students from the same class, where student A barely passed with a low C, and student B  was at the top of the class with an a, then accepted student A over B just because of the color of their skin or whats between their legs, student A isn't exactly going to do well. As put in [this](http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21576658-first-three-pieces-race-based-preferences-around-world-we-look-americas) article, student B isnt very likely to be able to keep up with the rest of the class due to them lacking something the other members that got there through merit rather than just being handed a position in the class for their race or sex. This in turn can damage their confidence, and waste their time and money they could be otherwise using to actually progress in life rather than being given a shortcut only to find that they cant keep up, or in the case of them getting into a service or production position, the customers of said person will be getting a shoddy good or service thanks to affirmative action.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:It does not matter how painful or gruesome a form of execution is. If you have been sentenced to death you do not deserve to die painlessly. + \n + This argument does not have to do with innocent people being improperly sentenced to death, this is set in a hypothetical case where guilt was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. \n\nI believe that if you have been sentenced to death that means your crime was so heinous that you are deemed irreparable, a permanent threat to society. Why should we show any concern with someone we are about to kill? The murderer (for example) did not show concern with the well being of their victim, so why should we do the same? Would it not benefit society if we could save money and use bullets or a rope every time? \n\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The 7th Harry Potter book should have ended differently. I have a problem with a specific plot point. + \n + For the record, I am not a fan at all of how the second half of the Deathly Hallows went, but I want to focus on Harry's \"death\". I think he should have remained dead. \n\nI thought it was really beautifully done. He was surrounded by the spirits of those who loved him. Harry was giving himself to rescue his friends. The readers were properly prepared for it. It was a great emotional experience. \n\nThen it became stupid. By a complete deus ex machina, Harry Potter was allowed to come back to life because \"Voldemort only killed part of his own soul\". I have had this argument with a lot of people, but I seem to be alone in this opinion. Having Harry come back for essentially no reason cheapens and trivializes that great experience the readers had.\n\nThink of the awesome emotional and important parts of the series. How many people think of Harry's \"death\"? I know I don't. Cause it didn't mean anything. If he had stayed dead, it would have been one of the most famous tragic moments in all of literature, given how widely read and loved Harry Potter is. \n\nI'm not sure how exactly it would end after that. My favorite way would be for Voldemort to be killed by all of Harry's friends who he has trained. Or even by the combined love of Hermione and Ron because the love theme is so strong in Harry Potter. Voldemort would still destroy the Harry horcrux when Harry died. It could end different ways, but the main point is that I think it would have been a great, if sad and tragic, moment if Harry died.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: The idea that free speech doesn't apply to private entities is ridiculous + \n + Whenever an issue relating to free speech arises it is almost guaranteed one of the responses will be \"free speech means the state can't control what you say. It doesn't mean freedom from consequences from everyone else\". If it's on the internet it is equally likely that this [xkcd](https://xkcd.com/1357/) will be shown. This does seem at first to be a reasonable point of view. However, I believe it is flawed for several related reasons.\n\nThe first reason is that underestimates the power of the public. Just because the state is not infringing your right does not mean others cannot. With other rights this is accepted as part of the system. For instance, if a company refused to serve or allow access to black people that would be considered a violation of their rights despite it not being the government. In the same way, you couldn't claim a country has gender equality if women can't be get a job, despite there being no law against hiring women. Unless freedom of speech can be distinguished from those other rights, which I believe it cannot, there can be no distinction between private agents and the state in terms of freedom of speech.\n\nSecondly, the right to free speech includes the right to unimpeded free speech, if that makes sense. It is not enough to be allowed to say what you want, you have to be allowed to communicate to who you want. It makes more tense in terms of letters. Freedom of speech is not fulfilled by allowing me to write letters, it is only fulfilled by allowing their delivery. Using the example from the comic, continually showing someone the door is the same as standing by the pillar box and shredding the letters as I post them.\n\nThe final reason is that extreme reactions to someone's use of free speech can restrict it by effectively punishing them for exercising their right. If I punched someone for suggesting marmite was a valid option for toast, would I not be restricting their right to free speech? Equally, if I was sacked for making a racist reddit post, am I not being punished for exercising my right to freedom of speech? I'm not entirely convinced on this point because it might restrict someone else's freedom of speech to criticise or their freedom of association to not have to put up with me, but I would still say there is some validity to this point.\n\nJust to be clear, I don't think freedom of speech should never be restricted but I do think those restrictions should be acknowledged which the phrase \"freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences\" does not. \n\n\nSome people seem to be confused about what I mean by a private entity. I simply mean someone who isn't the state or acting as an agent of the state. I never meant to imply that I would start talking shit in your living room. Freedom of speech doesn't make crimes less illegal do to be clear I'm not advocating that in the slightest.\n\n\nA lot of the comments have struggled with what the view is, despite it being repeated multiple times. I'm not interested in acting as reading adviser. If your comment doesn't address the view, I'm not going to bother responding.\n\n/u/Vordreller found this bastardised version of the [comic](http://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/), and from John Stuart Mill onwards, I agree with the sentiments the creator expresses. If you want to see my argument in comic form, you couldn't get much closer than that.\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: I think most education beyond Middle School is useless - UNLESS it directly pertains to your field. + \n + I've seen a lot of CMVs regarding College education being unnecessary but I haven't actually seen a great deal regarding High School. For me, I thought that my college was a very interesting and career-oriented program. But High School was almost the opposite.\n\nI'm not going to speculate at the reasons; it could be the focus on standardized tests, or the push to treat every student exactly the same regardless of their actual abilities, or the fact that they're simply not relevant in modern society.\n\nWhatever the case may be, I felt during most of my time in HS that none of my education was remotely relevant. History I found interesting, but utterly inapplicable beyond basic knowledge and political past. Science has never been something I found remotely useful in my daily life, then or now, and after very basic Biology (and I mean very, very basic) nothing was applicable. By Chemistry, I can't even name a class topic beyond something as general as (periodic table).\n\nEnglish classes have applied to me, but I recognize my own bias - I love to write, I love to read, and I would love for my efforts to one day lead me into a career as a novelist. If it wasn't for that, I would've had *slightly* more use for this class than the others, but only because writing is a fairly universal application, which I appreciate the education for.\n\nMath is by far the worst offender. History you could argue must be known to avoid repeating, and Biology can give us insight into our own bodies... but I have no use for anything I learned after 8th grade in Math class. I've never used tangent, cosine, or sine. I've never once had to determine what (3x^2+5)(2x-2) was, simplified. I don't even remember what the quadratic formula was used for, much less the entire thing.\n\nAnd of course, the miscellaneous (Art, Music, etc...) that are utterly useless to anyone without an interest in the field. While fun as children, and important to explore, I fail to see these as useful fields for non-artists/musicians beyond basic socialization that could be fulfilled in any other fun/explorative class.\n\nI scored a 34 on my ACTs and a 36 in my math, but I specifically took as few Math classes as possible during my time in High School. I needed three years, and used them to take AP Statistics - not because I thought it was useful, but because I wanted to *avoid* college math classes. My fourth year, I took Math For a Living - and it was by far the single best thing I could've done. We covered checks, tax forms, account management... basically all the things I think should be mandatory anyway for every student, because they *actually apply to every student*.\n\nI went on to forget 90% of what I learned shortly after exiting high school, retain just enough to get along, and enter a degree which specialized drastically. I had 0 math classes (got credit for 1 from AP test) 2 English classes (both electives, got out of my 2 mandatory through AP Tests), two science classes (even less applicable than my HS classes; Earth Science and Biology), and three history/government classes (Plus an elective, educational and fun but not useful, except for Government). Other than that it was a few paper-writing classes (pretty universally useful), a speech class, and the rest were 75-90% career/field-related classes, many taught by people who were in/left the field.\n\nI guess TL;DR: CMV - Virtually nothing we learn after MS is applicable beyond passing tests to get extra funding for our schools. Time in HS would be better spent teaching common sense, problem-solving skills, basic computer literacy, communication, working in teams, and how to apply said knowledge instead of \"Find X with this equation, this is how many protons are in Oxygen, what was the name of John Quincy Adams' Secretary?\". I also believe this is a significant reason many people feel so overwhelmed after finishing education at a college/university and are facing the world for the first real time.\n\n", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV:I believe that pot is bad and that people should be discouraged from using it. The best way to do that is full legalization. + \n + I believe that full legalization of recreational marijuana is the best way to discourage use of it. It would become so expensive that only the rich could obtain it. FDA regulations could make sure that what is in it is actually marijuana and only marijuana, instead of the PCP and other drug-laced stuff you can buy on the street. Also, placing special taxes on the stuff could help the government make a pretty penny off what is, by some estimates, the most lucrative cash crop in America. Legalization would also put street dealers out of business, opening the door for legitimate corporations.\n\n", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Some cultures have better cuisine than others + \n + For food, I think there are some core fundamentals that nearly everyone (or at least a theoretical judge with no country of origin  bias) can agree on:\n\n- Fresh quality ingredients\n- Variety (be it from flavors, spices, texture, combinations of ingredients)\n- Visually appealing presentation (highly subjective, but the food photography industry shows at least some core preferences)\n\nWith that premise, some culture's cuisines simply lend themselves better to these metrics and could be considered objectively better.\n\nFor example, I think many iconic Vietnamese dishes hit all these notes. While another culture's heavy reliance on deep frying or fermented fish may not. \n\nThat's not to say every dish from a specific culture is bad or a specific method of preparation is bad (I LOVE FRENCH FRIES) but on average, and to an objective judge, you can objectively rank a few culture's food over another's.\n\n\nIf you can debunk this bias of mine scientifically, with a philosophical example, with stats, or just a plain argument then the delta is immediately yours.", "output": "malleable", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}
{"input": "CMV: Animals deserve equal moral status to humans + \n + I believe that the interests of certain animals should be taken into account equally to the interests of humans. That is, a smaller amount of human-suffering should not trump in importance a greater amount of animal-suffering. This applies to all animals capable of experiencing suffering. Some types of suffering can probably only be felt by humans, but accepting this isn't contradicting my claim, which is that like suffering should be given like importance.\n\nMy view is that the distinction between humans and animals is not in itself morally relevant, just as race and gender distinctions are not morally relevant. \n\nGiving preference to human interests over animal interests simply because humans are 'our own' and it is natural to prefer 'our own' is no more justifiable than racism or sexism, and any justification of our treatment of animals based on this necessarily must also allow those prejudices.\n\nJustifications based on humans possessing some quality over and above what animals possess (eg sentience, self awareness, ability to use tools etc) can never justify the distinct separation between humans and animals that we have in our society. This is simply because there is no such quality that is possessed by all humans and no animals - for instance, many crows use tools and pigs are more 'intelligent' than toddlers.\n\nFinally, the argument that animals cannot have rights because they cannot have duties (and rights are correlative to duties) fails insofar as we give rights to children and the mentally handicapped, recognising that the 'duty' applies not to the rights-bearer but to others in society, and therefore it is irrelevant whether animals can possess duties.", "output": "resistant", "instruction": "You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?"}