I keep seeing people mention Best Essay Writing Service Reddit discussions whenever someone’s overwhelmed, and I finally went down that rabbit hole last night. The problem is the advice feels wildly inconsistent - half of it sounds genuinely helpful, and the other half feels like ads pretending to be “real students.” I’m not trying to cheat my way through school, I’m just trying to stop the constant deadline panic.

What I actually need is clarity on what people mean when they say a service “worked.” Did it help with outlining, editing, citations, or did they really submit a full draft? I’m also nervous about the basics: tone mismatch, missing rubric requirements, and getting something that looks polished but doesn’t answer the prompt the way my professor expects.

For anyone who’s spent time reading those Best Essay Writing Service Reddit posts (or has real experience), what should I look for to separate real recommendations from fake ones? And if you’ve tried anything, what’s the one thing you wish you knew before you started?

Human beings treat people based on what they think that person deserves.

If a person makes a bad choice, no matter how small, there will be people there to make sure that person suffers the consequences of their actions.

If a person shows weakness of any kind. That person is labellled as inferior. And then use that as a reason to treat that person less than human.

If a person makes a mistake, other people will be there to make sure they never forget that mistake.

But if you tell the truth about how humans really believe, they get upset. People dont like to be reminded of how they really are. But they will continue being this evil as long as they can.

I mean apart from few intellectual content, the internet is full of shit. Moreover, most people are consuming this shitty content rather than using it for improvement.

The situation was bad in the past, but it seems that now everyone is doing dumb 80 IQ shit and no one even cares.

The distinction between those who rule the world and those who are being rules is becoming clearer day by day.

Consider a scenario: There are three terrorist organizations that are harassing innocent people ask over the world. Your country decides they're going to be the ones who put an end to the three of them, but before you have a chance, a fourth terrorist organization takes them all out so they can plunder the resources and be the only bully on the block. Was their killing of the other three a "good" act, as both your country and they wanted the other three dead?

tl;dr: If a bad guy kills other bad guys, is it a good act?

I want to know your thoughts regarding which one you prefer. In my honest opinion I live in a country which the system is a republic however I tend to like more the monarchy system in a way because the country doesn’t get very political or polarized in my point of view and in a way you kind of have a referee in the middles of the fights.... A republic has become a ldeql for this modern time due to the principles but in the practice it can be more harmful

Fucking in the talk about how fucking job takes away all the fucking shit that the government provides us. You signed that shit off, are you trying to make everybody fucking homeless to a fucking country, the only reason that he's fucking doing this shit, because he's a fucking power. Now he's in fucking power. It's fucking stupid to. Now I hope your fucking family is gonna fucking struggle. How about I wanna talk about how he promised to lower the gas price and the food price, where the fuck is at that, she's not coming you fucking all talked on a Trump, you don't fucking do shit, you fucking ruined this fucking country fucking dumbass is he trying to make everything fucking leave this country depend, NI alright, not going to talk about how the fucking ice put the nave American in this fuck and take, and thought Native American was the Mexican left them in them, sitting, they're sitting down, do you not know, wonder fucking understand, look, I won't listen to that , Native American, you know what the other thing is, you can't deport Native Americans, you know, why? Because they're fucking here before all of us, y'all white people, I'm not trying to go out, but y'all fucking immigrants, either you're fucking ancestors are immigrants. Fucking countries going to his fucking shame

Popular app, TikTok is just small version of Youtube. People create videos of something that usually someone else did. People doing often times getting paid for having followers which means people are getting paid for doing stupid stunts like eating Tidpods just being a example. I dislike TikTok for attempting to replace youtube and has even gone far enough to replace youtube as some users post their tiktok videos on youtube just for the ads. Please support the anti-tiktok with displaying more evidence.

So me and my family were watching the presidential debate between Joe Biden and former president Donald Trump and afterwards they criticized the lies that were told in the performance and wondered how old Biden is. Great idea to add this in an episode of the my educational animated series titled Cyberpunk Chronicles: A Modern Life.

Humans are fascination creatures like we tend to ask questions: like where do we come from? Who created us and why are we here? humans tend to search for answers for regarding their place in the world therefore develop philosophies but somethings we tend to overlook the basic things is this true?

I believe that on a collective basis humans have chosen to be predatorial. Now does that mean every single person is a predator? No i do not think every single person is a predator. But I do believe that our western culture promotes a survival of the fittest, dog eat dog mantra.

In my opinion a lot of people treat people 1 of 3 ways. They treat people based on physical appearance, they treat people based on how one carries oneself, and they treat people based on how they think that person deserves. And those people take advantage of a person's weakness against them to punish them, and make sure they suffer t he consequences

Our world has systemic issues like racism, ableism, heightism, sexism, sizeism. Its all discrimination based on a physical characteristics that a person has no control or little control. And based on a physical trait many people have decided they are inferior and deserving of mistreatment. Discrimination based on physical features is an evil that has been ongoing for centuries.

There is also stigma towards people with mental health, addictions, homelessness, sex workers and former sex workers. Not everyone stigmatized others with personal problems, but a lot do and they are also systemic problems.

Everyone is not evil. There are people who do "good". But often times the good that humans do benefits some people and benefits others.

I am just sharing my thoughts not to bash humanity But to expose our collective faults so that we can find a better way to treat others. Because I do not t hink the way we humans have treat others on a large scale is working for everyone.

I mean, I know Ill probably get 70% of downvotes on this post alone. But it's driving me crazy. I'd post a simple comment and I get a downvote, I post anything and It's downvoted.

Are people seriously going around reddit and being annoyed by every single thing??
The only thing I downvote on reddit are comments that are rude or I'm sure that the person that answered with the rude comment also downvoted me. If I don't like something I move on.

A bill benefiting undocumented immigrants has been fought for decades in Congress. From the DREAM Act in 2001 to the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program today. In 2012, President Barack Obama made a step toward helping the millions of undocumented immigrants in the United States by establishing the DACA program through an executive order. However, the program was later found to be unconstitutional. Currently, only old applicants can renew their status while new applicants can’t be accepted. As the debate on DACA continues, it is difficult for people to agree on whether the DACA program should be permanently implemented in the United States. I for one, am closely related to this topic because I am a new DACA applicant myself. Last year, I applied for DACA, but I haven’t been accepted. Even though I’m closely tied to DACA, I allow myself to see all sides of the DACA discussion.

To fully understand the fight for DACA, individuals must know about the DREAM Act and President Obama’s actions in office. According to the National Immigration Law Center, an organization dedicated to defending immigrants’ rights, “senators, Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) first introduced the DREAM Act in 2001.” The bill would provide undocumented children who entered the United States before the age of 15 with conditional residency and a work permit (Unlike DACA, The DREAM Act provided a pathway to citizenship). The DREAM Act bill obtained bipartisan support in the House of Representatives, but it was denied twice in the Senate (In 2001 and in 2010). The failure that was found in passing the DREAM Act is what later led President Obama to start DACA. In 2012, President Obama initiated the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) through an executive order. At the time, many didn’t see an issue with the program because it only allowed children to obtain a deferment from deportation and a work permit. It wasn’t until President Obama proposed to expand the DACA program that problems began to emerge. The informational VOX YouTube video, “DACA, explained” states, “In 2014, President Obama proposed making older immigrants eligible for DACA, and creating similar protections against deportation for undocumented parents with children who were US citizens. And a lot of Republicans said, "whoa, that's too far.” These new actions would have protected about 4.5 million people -- nearly half the estimated undocumented population. A group of 26 states sued the Obama administration over the expansion. And they won." Because the expansion of the program was ruled unconstitutional, many people argued that the entire program should be terminated. In 2021, a Texas judge partially ended DACA by only allowing old applicants to renew their DACA and denying those who newly applied to the program. These events are what caused various Pro-DACA protests to arise.

Many Republicans and anti-DACA individuals main concern with DACA is that the program is unjust to legal immigrants and encourages more illegal immigration. Pawel Styrna, an immigrant from Poland that went through the legal immigration process, says “Given that we followed the rules — and given that so many people across the world are doing so as well — is it unfair to expect others who wish to come to the U.S. to do so?” Legal immigrants often go through a procedure that involves them spending money, submitting documentation, and learning the English language, all of which may take years to accomplish. Because of this, Styrna believes that awarding illegal immigrants with DACA is unjust to all those that endure the tedious legal immigration process. In addition, those against DACA argue that the program would increase illegal immigration. Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation (Conservative) and author of “DACA Is Not What the Democrats Say It Is. Here Are the Facts,” notes, “the average immigrant has sponsored 3.45 additional immigrants, but for DACA beneficiaries, that number is likely to be much higher.... according to an analysis by the Department of Homeland Security, 76 percent of the DACA beneficiaries were from Mexico. Mexican immigrants sponsor an average of 6.38 additional legal immigrants—the highest rate of any nationality for chain migration.” Chain migration is a process in which relatives of an immigrant relocate to their relative's location. This indicates that for every person who is now living in the United States, around six additional relatives are expected to move to the country. This would result in a significant increase in the US population, which is what Anti-DACA supporters are completely against.

Both Democrats (Pro-DACA) and Republicans (Anti-DACA) agree that DACA recipients should be individuals with clean criminal records. The DACA program was created by Democratic President, Barack Obama. When creating the program, he wanted to ensure that only certain individuals were able to receive the benefits of DACA, so he created a list of qualifications. The informative article “What is DACA? And Where Does It Stand Now?” lists certain qualifications that individuals must meet. “To qualify, an applicant had to be enrolled in high school or already have a diploma or G.E.D. or have served in the military…. people with serious criminal histories (meaning a felony or serious misdemeanor conviction, or three convictions for any type of misdemeanor) are not eligible.” This demonstrates that when President Obama signed the executive order that passed DACA, he wanted to guarantee that only individuals who had been exemplary citizens of the United States were rewarded. The program, however, did not properly enforce this, which is why Republicans demand that DACA recipients' criminal records be checked. Hans von Spakovsky cites, “DACA only excluded individuals for convictions. Thus, even if a Homeland Security background investigation—which apparently was almost never done—produced substantial evidence that an illegal alien might have committed multiple crimes, the alien would still be eligible for DACA unless Homeland Security referred the violation to state or federal prosecutors and the alien was convicted.” Through this, Spakovsky is expressing that the primary concern with illegal immigrants is their criminal past. This is because many conservative extremists have a negative attitude toward immigration and believe that illegal immigrants are thieves, rapists, and murderers.

Some people believe the complete removal of DACA recipients and undocumented immigrants would have negative impacts on the United States’ economy. The America Action Forum, a nonprofit organization dedicated to the research and analysis of United States’ domestic policies, found “removing all 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States would cost between $400 and $600 billion and reduce GDP by $1.6 trillion.” The US economy would suffer because the US would have to spend funds to physically remove all DACA recipients and undocumented immigrants. And, by removing these individuals, the United States would simultaneously be dropping their Gross Domestic Product by $1.6 trillion. Furthermore, the American Action Forum also discovered that “nearly 7 million undocumented immigrant workers in the private sector contribute between $328 billion and $623 billion to annual GDP. Removing these individuals would create a U.S. labor shortage of at least 4 million, disproportionately harming the agriculture, construction, and leisure and hospitality industries.” This not only shows how DACA recipients and undocumented immigrants contribute to the US economy, but it also demonstrates how their removal would negatively impact the economy because many US industries would face a labor shortage.

There are several solutions offered concerning the DACA program. Those advocating for the removal of DACA are mostly nativists, republicans, and legal immigrants. Pawel Styrna, a legal immigrant, and author of “Reflections of an immigrant: Why accepting DACA is Wrong,” notes, “After all, the 1986 amnesty not only did not stop illegal migration — in fact, it was followed by decades of more illegal immigration — but also led to recurring calls for more amnesties. That is why giving in to the DACA lobby and its talking points, especially without securing any meaningful concessions in return, would be an error.” Pawel uses the amnesty of 1986 to prove that supporting DACA is wrong. Her strong emotion toward removing the program is a good example of the feeling that many Anti-DACA individuals have. They call for the program's full elimination because of the negative consequences they anticipate (Population increase, job loss, crime). To continue, there are Democrats and DACA supporters. These people are fighting to keep the program running as President Obama intended. Many of these individuals also fight for the DREAM Act, which, unlike DACA, provided a road to citizenship. Among the many options allowing the program to stay and to stay with limitations are the most popular. Many pro-Daca activists fight viciously for the program to stay, while many Republicans aren’t completely against the program but believe that the program should have limitations like not allowing DACA recipients to vote, collect social security, or obtain income taxes. This viewpoint can be seen in the online forum Quora, user Marvin Galeano states, “Yes it should stay. But just like we treat some Americans as 2nd class citizens we should treat DACA recipients. No voting or gun rights.” The idea of allowing DACA to stay without the right to vote seems to please many Anti-DACA individuals because it negates Democrats from the “illegal vote” which are votes that mainly come from DACA recipients that have obtain their social security and work permit.

WORK CITED:

“Five Things You Should Know about the DREAM Act.” National Immigration Law Center.   N/D

Jordan, Miriam. “What Is DACA? And Where Does It Stand Now?” The New York Times, July   16, 2021.

Lind, Dara. "DACA, explained." Vox-YouTube, September 6, 2017.

Spakovsky, Hans. “DACA Is Not What Democrats Say It Is. Here Are the Facts." The Daily   Signal, December 4, 2017.

Styrna, Pawel. “Reflections of an immigrant: Why accepting DACA is wrong.” The Hill, June   27, 2020.

Varas, Jacqueline. “The Fiscal Implications of the DACA Program.” American Action Forum,   January 18, 2018.  

“What are your thoughts on DACA? Should the illegal immigrants stay?” Quora, July 19,   2021.  

Just went through a break up of 3 years idk how I’m gonna handle this…..

What is the thing that makes you feel ok? Like an inner peace type thing? Is it something that you do only on occasion or often? Do you do it alone or with others? Is it day or night. I don’t care if I get judged but mine is getting up just before the sun rises and watch either Sonic the hedgehog amv or sonic x, satam, or underground episodes. The reason why I do this is because when I was 11 or 12 I was in a dark spot in my life my parents had just split and my grandmother unfortunately passed on. They felt like my second family and still do to a certain extent. When I do this the rest of my day is really peaceful and I don’t know why. I only do this every once in a while. And yes before you judge I’m 20. But i don’t care. There’s something special about it when I do it I can’t explain but it’s peaceful.

If you could go back in time and observe watch yourself from a far or to just observe how the world changed at any point you were alive what year or years would you go back to and why? For me the first one is the winter of 2014 and the summer of 2015 for me I had a great time learning about myself in 2014 spent a lot of me time and in 2015 I spent each day with my friends just doing whatever without a care in the world. And one more would be the fall of 2013 when I got to know 2 very good friends who were and still are there for me when no one else is. Not trying to ramble just in the feels of that makes any sense.

I am thinking of traveling solo.

So me and my friend have had this argument going for a while, it started about a year ago and then whenever he brings it up we start arguing about it, so I decided, know what I'm done with this, the public can resolve this.

He thinks electricity and lightning is the exact same other than the fact that one is in the sky and the other isn't, and I don't think that it is, so, I'm asking this.

I guess this is kind of a discussion/poll because: What do you guys think? Is lightning and electricity different, whether you do or don't please state reasoning because I just want to end this debate already.

Suppose there was a pacifist who got drunk and slept with some guy she met at a hotel bar. Next morning, she realizes it's the leader of a military set on conquering countries and either enslaving their people or turning them into soldiers to add to their ranks. Killing him would bring the entire cycle down and his gun is on the night stand.

Would killing him to stop him from his cycle of violence and restore peace to the countries he's already conquered be the pacifist's way? Or would standing by and allowing him to continue to bring terror to the world and likely start a war at some point be pacifism?

If technology were advanced enough to perform surgery that allowed us to attach the nerves of amputated limbs from a cadaver to an amputee, the amputee would still be themselves, just with someone else's arm that responded to the commands their brain sent to it. Figure a quadriplegic gets the surgery. They have four limbs that didn't originally belong to them, but they would still be considered the same person. What if that same person got caught in a fire but they were able to replace all the organs, do a skin graft, and a complete facial reconstruction? Are they still the same? Does the brain identify the true self?

tl;dr How far does someone go Frankenstein before they're considered a different person?

Edit: Dr. Frankenstein's monster ^ (courtesy of a reminder in the comments)

You've most probably heard of these animal rescue channels on YouTube, yeah? No? Whatever, I'll give you an introduction anyway, it's channels of animal rescues that are.. well... fake. It's sickening, full stop punctuation, period. Sickening. What they do is they hurt an animal, "save" them, and rinse their dirty money hungry asses, repeat. It's terrifying to know that, yes, these are real people.

Now onto the actual thing you're (probably(maybe)) looking for. I've seen one. How these people THINK to even make this to make a quick buck (hell, they'd be better off making fortnite) is beyond me. It's sad. It's disgusting. I have this memory in the back of my head of seeing a kitten having it's ear ripped off. Maybe it's my head acting up, anyway and anyhow, it's not on the platform anymore. YouTube doesn't care. It REALLY needs to cross the line to have youtube simply demonetize it. Even worse; These people are taking donations, which means they're getting paid, to murder animals. I rest my case

note: yes, my head was acting up, that never happened, but whatever, these videos still exist.

Now I’m not as well versed in the topic. But from what I can see, he’s simply a successful businessman that’s taken the success of others, put the money into their business through stocks and whatnot, and then cashed out on it in the long run. A hostile takeover if you want. There’s plenty of industries that have done so in the past. He may not be a genius that made these technologies, but he does have good intuition and has made startups into wealthy multimillion dollar companies. It’s like taking a brand new item and absorbing it into a larger company allowing for the increase in price and the increase in production due to trust in said larger company.

I’m not advocating for his character whatsoever nor am I debilitating said character. I just want to know why people get so mad over someone using the money they have to make more money. This just seems like a simple invest and expand type of move.

So why Reddit why?

As always open to respectful discussion, I’m not afraid of being proven wrong

Title. I am more or less looking for a unique perspective from any side of the aisle. Whenever I look into this issue, and many other issues for that matter, search engines tend to yield similar results (I suppose it is because powerful groups have certain agendas) and I feel like I miss out on unique perspectives. I have seen many well-defended unique perspectives on Reddit, so I am going to give it a go. Thanks!

Well, I saw Epstein's list, I don't know how true it is, but if it's all true, here's my total disappointment and anger, people I admired so much, who served me as inspiration, total disappointment

And like the pool balls are medium marbles I was just thinking about that I was like I want a giant marble then I thought of that

One could assume that the freedom of choice is a prerequisite for happiness. Only once we ourselves choose our path out of all paths possible can we truly be happy with our direction. But does it mean that the more options we have, the higher the chances of us being happy? Or is it the opposite?

As soon as you are old enough to make your own decisions, you find yourself standing at a crossroads and you are supposed to choose. It is dawn and you need to arrive somewhere before the sun sets. You need to choose before really knowing where you want to get to and without knowing where the path may take you. You pick one randomly and call it instinct. You hope it leads somewhere and there is not a massive wooden log blocking the way somewhere far down the path. The further you go, the more you ask yourself: Should I have chosen the other one?

The doubt creeps into your mind as you stumble on the rocky pathway and occasionally twist your ankle. As the sun is passing its zenith, you ask yourself if you should turn around and go back where you started, but you are not sure if there is time for that. The night is coming and you are far down the road which has been monotonous so far. Is there anything beyond the next turn? Are you going to give up right on the border of your destination? If you return and choose a different path, it may be even worse than this one and you will regret your decision, but right now you are thinking about the things you might have missed rather than the things you will miss. Before you have a chance to solve this dilemma, you come to another point where the road diverges. Your doubt grows exponentially.

You start to realize that you are lost and the map you had borrowed from someone else is completely useless. You start panicking and running around aimlessly. You remember the beautiful butterfly you passed earlier on your way which you intended to revisit, but now you realize that he is probably gone and there is no way to go back. You can follow your own footsteps reversely, but you cannot erase them and the butterfly is most probably already gone. You realize that it isn't you who shapes the path, it is the path that is shaping you. Once you come to terms with the fact that you cannot control the path you are walking on, you realize that the only thing left for you to do to be happy is to learn to like the nature you are walking through.

It is so much easier to do once you stop encountering crossroads, because once you have the comfort of certainty that there is nothing better you can do at the moment than to go forward. You are relieved by the lack of freedom which deprives you of the liability for the dangers and discomfort which might await you further down the path, but more importantly, you don't need to speculate about the beauties and comfort you might have found had you gone the other way.

In the end, you will hopefully forget about all the paths you have not taken and you will not wonder where they might have lead you. There will be only one way left for you. You will only care about seeing the sun in its last moments as long as you can before it sinks down over the horizon. And you can watch that from any path if you find yourself a high ground.