azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

The pillars of society require X dollars whether you "feel" you can contribute at the moment or not.I think that much of our disagreement is in what constitutes the "pillars of society" and how much they should cost. The US had an agreement (the constitution) and some continue to stretch the boundaries of that agreement, beyond the stated limits of those who set those boundaries."A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities. --Jefferson"They also set out a way to legitimately expand or contract the boundaries of what government can do, that being the amendment process. But much of the programs and policies you advocate rely on an interpretation of the constitution that flies in the face of the "common sense" you keep citing. Wickard vs. Filburn is a very good example. It is the rationale for most of the use, by the government, to interfere in states' affairs, under the aegis of "interstate commerce". In this case, the federal government fined a man for growing wheat to feed his chickens. He did not sell the wheat and he grew it on his own land, which was all in one state.Without looking it up, can you guess the stretch of logic that the government had to go through to prove that this man's actions (growing his own food) fell under interstate commerce? Their reasoning is absolutely sound for many who believe that the good of the group should supersede the rights of the individual (progressives) and that the ends justify whatever means are necessary to achieve those ends.Now, keep in mind that this is the same time that administration was destroying food and food animals, and limiting food production while Americans were starving in the streets, because food was not available, or too expensive to buy.Lets say you make your society and there is not enough charity to prevent the worst of the worst from happening to people? What happens to those people?Someone voluntarily supports them, or they die.I don't think you have answered any of my questions along the way about how you would feel when you or your loved ones are "crushed" financially, emotionally and physically when, through no fault of your own, you fail to compete at a high enough level in the free market?It really sucks. But my feelings or needs have no bearing on the rights of others. I have not answered because it is an appeal to emotion, not logic. It is the same argument used to implement LBJ's "Great Society" that was supposed to eliminate poverty. The effect of the program was greater poverty.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

I think that much of our disagreement is in what constitutes the "pillars of society" and how much they should cost. Agreed.Wickard vs. FilburnJust skimming the wikipedia, it seems like the government had a case. The point was to drive up wheat prices and he was growing his own so he did not have to pay the inflated price. He was cheating, regardless of his intention to sell it or not. I'm not saying I agree with the government in this case, I'm just making the argument.Even so, one bad case (even 100's of bad cases) does not mean you should throw out the baby with the bathwater. I think the intellectually honest person can also come up with the same number of cases (actually many more in my opinion) where the government did the right thing.Someone voluntarily supports them, or they die.Fair enough. Now what if it's your child starving to death in the worst depravity.... It's very easy to have a steely, logical view on the world as long as you have convinced yourself that you won't end up on the wrong side of the equation. You do realize that it's partially just "luck" that your not that starving child right?It really sucks. But my feelings or needs have no bearing on the rights of others. I have not answered because it is an appeal to emotion, not logic.Society is not an emotionless thing? Are you saying that when you build a society, you should ignore emotion? Every single human action is in part driven driven by human emotion. I think it would be hard to prove that welfare programs caused greater poverty than if we had done nothing. Maybe you can? Maybe if we did nothing a large portion of people in poverty would have died off (social Darwinism) and poverty would have gone down as a result. Is that success? Even if you could prove scientifically that the program was "not that great" then by definition you must have also discovered what it did wrong so why not fix it instead of throw it out? Lets say it's proven that, all things being equal, generous unemployment befits cause unemployment to rise by 30%. Lets also assume that some unemployment benefit is beneficial (statistically) in preventing an otherwise productive person from falling in to poverty or resorting to crime (helps 1% say). So the societal cost benefit may not be worth it. All you have to do is adjust the program until unemployed only goes up by 1% but preventing poverty and crime in the target group goes up to 30%. Now you have a working program. Why not learn and improve instead of start over? There is nothing "inherently wrong" with medicare or social security, just adjust the levels (politically difficult). Problem solved.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

He was cheating the "intent" of the governmental efforts to raise wheat prices. Doesn't matter. a cobb county sheriff can't arrest you for a crime in another county. A TN court can't try you for violation of an IL crime. It is outside their jurisdiction. The Federal government has no jurisdiction to outlaw activities which occur purely within the boundaries of a single state. That power is reserves to the state government, by the 10th amendment.- Technically, this was interstate commerce because it was all states where they were trying to get the price of wheat up.Interstate: AdjectiveExisting or carried on between states : "interstate travel".commerce: NounThe activity of buying and selling, esp. on a large scale.The man was neither buying, nor selling. Indeed, the government's case rested upon the fact that he was not buying or selling.The man's activities were completely contained within his state of residence, not between his state and another state.The government claimed the authority to regulate his growing of wheat, under a clause in ART1 SEC 8 of the Constitution.*"The Congress shall have Power ...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States.."Among the states, not within the states.What if nothing was done, how many would be dead? How much higher might poverty be?The trend , for decades, was that poverty was falling, as efficiency of resource use, climbed (because of capitalism). They decided to have a "war on poverty" and the decline stopped. That's pretty conclusive."It would have been worse", is not an argument, unless you give evidence that it would actually have been worse. it is a gratuitous assertion. I could just as easily say that If I hadn't shot that puppy, he could have grown up to maul children. The logic is the same.as far as the drug war, what would have happened, is irrelevant. The Federal government claims authority to put a blanket prohibition on "drugs" with "interstate commerce" as the justification. Wickard v. Filburn, and a couple of other bad cases allow them to do it. The government violated one man's rights, and uses that as a precedent to violate the rights of other men.-----------------------I don't reject the idea that there are other perhaps better ways we could run society, I simply have not heard convincing arguments that there is anything better.No one should "run" society. Society should run itself, through the individual, voluntary interactions of the individuals within that society. Not through coerced adherence to the will of the majority.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

That power is reserves to the state government, by the 10th amendment.Maybe? I'm not a legal expert in general or in this specific case. However, it seems the experts don't agree with you in most cases?Existing or carried on between states : "interstate travel".Why does "between states" have to mean travel? Are bank transfers between states "travel".Again, not a legal expert, but it seems to me the "intent" of the government was to raise wheat prices. This guy wanted cheap wheat (regardless of the reason) so he "cheated". The government push the boundary of the laws to achieve it's goal. Please respond to this common sense argument as It's hard to debate the minutia of these laws without spending days researching the case, related cases, and laws, etc. I'm trying to understand if your arguing legal technicalities or if you really think he was not cheating the "intent" of what the government was trying to do."It would have been worse", is not an argument, unless you give evidence that it would actually have been worse. it is a gratuitous assertion. I could just as easily say that If I hadn't shot that puppy, he could have grown up to maul children. The logic is the same.This is true. The problem with charts and opinion pieces is they are not conclusive. It would take an incredible amount of analysis is "prove" the causation here one way or the other. Where do you think that graph was headed? Zero? Probably not. Seems like it was doing well 2001...What is the mechanism that destines human "interference" to make things worse when governing, but in every other case better? There must be one in your mind?I think were back to the old stalemate. You believe the rights of the individual, in all cases, are more important than the group. I can't argue with that belief.No one should "run" society. Society should run itself, through the individual, voluntary interactions of the individuals within that society.That would be great and I understand that you believe that could work. I don't.To summarize:- You feel individual rights are more important than group rights- You are only logical, not emotional or empathetic when forming your world views- You feel that you and everyone you love will "land" on the winning side of the equation because nothing in life is chance.I would not say I'm at the "opposite" end of those 3 views but maybe "opposite with moderation".
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

Maybe? I'm not a legal expert in general or in this specific case. However, it seems the experts don't agree with you in most cases?You don't have to be an expert to read the 10th amendment.Article X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.Why does "between states" have to mean travel? Are bank transfers between states "travel".Travel was an example given by the dictionary. Travel between states, is interstate travel. Commerce between states, is interstate commerce.Again, not a legal expert, but it seems to me the "intent" of the government was to raise wheat prices.The intent is irrelevant. The man did not break any law that was within the authority of the Federal government to enforce.This guy wanted cheap wheat (regardless of the reason) so he "cheated". The guy exercised his right to feed his family, by the sweat of his (and no one else's) brow.The government push the boundary of the laws to achieve it's goal. The ends justify the means? :)What is the purpose of setting forth a law, if the government may break that law, at whim?I'm trying to understand if your arguing legal technicalities or if you really think he was not cheating the "intent" of what the government was trying to do.Common sense: A man has a right to grow as much food, on his own land, for his own consumption, as he wishes. The intent of the government cap on production, was to force him to buy wheat on the market, to raise the price of wheat, at a time when people were starving, because they could not afford bread.The government had no jurisdiction, either to force him to buy anything (engage in commerce), or to prevent him from growing food for his own consumption.--------------------------------What is the mechanism that destines human "interference" to make things worse when governing, but in every other case better? There must be one in your mind?When have I mentioned interference, other than by government?What sort of interference (not by government) in other cases?Government is the only entity which can "interfere", because government has a monopoly on the initiation of force and coercion.Government interference hurts:in the monetary system:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHJcprsGwPE in the labor market:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct1Moeaa-W8 in business, through regulationshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BY52LHvhIc I can get more detailed, but these are good summaries.-------- You feel that you and everyone you love will "land" on the winning side of the equation because nothing in life is chance.Not necessarily. I believe that it is irrelevant where you "land", so long as you are at liberty to improve your position, and that there is much less chance for anyone to "land" in a bad place, because a society that is more free, is more prosperous. There is more wealth, and a higher standard of living.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

You don't have to be an expert to read the 10th amendment.Many experts think the 10th amendment has no teeth. It just says the feds can do what the constitution says it can do. It's too open in my opinion.Is it "true" the government broke the law or do you think it broke the law? The supreme court sided with the government? If anything it's "not clear".Lets say the government did break the law and the supreme court made a mistake. Isn't that all this is is a mistake? If this is an issue the voters will make the law more or less specific to limit future mistakes. Why have they not done so?Again, your in favor of individual rights over group rights. We have been over that. You appeal that the man should be able to do what he wants over what the "group" wants is falling on def ears here. ;) We can argue the merits of the governments original intent, but the point is this: one mans actions, multiplied by "all men" can have huge consequences for the group. The government needs to be able to regulate that.When have I mentioned interference, other than by government?OK, so you think there is something specific to government that makes it's "interference" always do the wrong thing. What do you think that is?The videos are good but they don't prove anything. We can both drag out hundreds of videos, reports, blog posts, etc. Until there is a consensus (like 90/10, not 50/50) then maybe we are getting closer to a proof. If you want to talk about one specific items we can try and drill down in to it. But again, I'm more interested in the specific mechanisms at play. What would make government fail at everything where other large organization don't seem to?
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

It just says the feds can do what the constitution says it can do. No, it also says that if the constitution doesn't give the fedgov the power, that power is reserved to the states or the people. falling on def ears here. ;) ;)What would make government fail at everything where other large organization don't seem to?All large organizations have the same problem, information.The more centrally planned (larger) the organization, the less efficient it is at meeting the demands of the individual consumer.Other large orgs. rely on trade with the people. Government relies on its ability to force people to its will.ttfn, will probably write more later. have a good nite. :)
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

I'm more interested in the specific mechanisms at play.The primary mechanisms are contained within the Austrian theory of the business cycle (Mises/Rothbard) and the broken window fallacy (Bastiat/Hazlitt).The business cycle theory explains the role that prices and interest rates play as a communication system in the structure of production, and in the incentive to produce.The Broken window fallacy explains the destructive nature of diverting resources to purposes other than those which the producer of those resources intended.Hazlitt's "The Failure of the 'New Economics'" is a point by point refutation of Keynes's 'General Theory'. Keynes's theory is the basis for our current failing monetary/economic system, and is the primary cause of the boom/bust cycle.Most government interference relates to interference in the economic system, because it involves the diversion of resources from the role of production as a means to the ends of the individual to production as a means to the ends of the government. The entire incentive to increased production is diminished if there is little or no perceived increase in benefit to the one producing. This makes for less wealth, and a lower standard of living, over the entire society.Please describe the mechanisms (or give references) and incentives associated with government intervention making things better. Please avoid phrases such as "I feel" or "it seems to me".
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

ORWhat about this:We have a voucher program where parents get a voucher for each child, to spend at any school they wish, public or private. This would be the only source of revenue for public schools, so they would have to compete, in quality, with private schools. It would also allow poor parents to send their children to better private schools.http://copycat042.blogspot.com/2012/09/failure-as-motivating-factor-in.html
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

I'm not totally apposed to vouchers, however, it would undermine the public schools forcing poorer children in to "the only option they can afford". There is no inherent reason that I can think of that private schools would be better than public schools IF you force private schools to take in all the disadvantaged children like public schools have too. Maybe you know of one?
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

IF you force private schools to take in all the disadvantaged children like public schools have too.What do you mean "disadvantaged"?
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

Those who have abusive parents, low incomes, mental and physical handicaps, behavioral problems, lower IQs, less book smarts, etc.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

Those who have abusive parents, low incomes, mental and physical handicaps, behavioral problems, lower IQs, less book smarts, etc.As long as the student's follow the rules of the school, I see no problem with a private school teaching them.There is one thing, though.What is the rationale for lumping children of different abilities into the same sort of classes.Take the IQ example. Let's say there are 2 kids in the same class. with greatly different speed and potential for learning. At what speed should the class proceed, and how far? Should it advance at the speed of the bright student, removing any ability of the dull student to keep up? Or should it advance at the speed of the dull student, slowing the advancement and wasting precious learning potential of the bright student? Another example. What if there is a disruptive student in a class with average and bright students? Should all the other students have their ability and potential to learn, diminished because of the disruptions and the less time and instruction due to the teacher's extra attention diverted to dealing with the disruptive student?Should the bright and able students sacrifice their potential, for the good of the dull or disruptive students?If there is less choice in the system, one or more of these students will be wronged, to some degree.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

Well we could argue the minutia of how you run a school and I'm sure some schools systems (private and pubic) go either way on these specific cases. Also, by no means am I saying the US public school system is perfect. The nice thing about the public school system is when a good new common sense method is discovered or agreed upon, it can be implemented quickly and everywhere. Assuming all your ideas are good ones (the experts agree) the only reason I can think of that they are not implemented is because of lack of money. We need more money in education, not less.My overarching point is I think society should try and give all children, regardless of "disability" or "luck of the draw" a good education. Free market education is great until, through not fault of your own (some random accident), your child has to go to the cheapest school around. Then how do you feel?My child has been 2 to public schools. One was terrible for him, one is great. The bad one was in a small poor community, the good one is in a larger wealthy community. Not sure if there is a causal link, but I do think that there is still too much "free market" in our public education system.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

The nice thing about the public school system is when a good new common sense method is discovered or agreed upon, it can be implemented quickly and everywhere.But there is also little to stop bad policy from being implemented, and little way to test the effects of a policy before it is implemented. Assuming all your ideas are good ones (the experts agree) the only reason I can think of that they are not implemented is because of lack of money. We need more money in education, not less.I have less faith in the opinions of experts than you do. Additionally, the budget for public education has risen dramatically since the early 70s with little to show for it.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

But there is also little to stop bad policy from being implemented, and little way to test the effects of a policy before it is implemented.Is there "little to stop bad policy" or is a better phrase "bad policy can happen". I think the latter is more accurate. Look at what happened when the Koch Brothers decided they wanted to be "education experts" in the Wake County schools system. They threw in tons of money, got a bad policy implemented, then it was quickly overturned once the voting population realized what happened. In the free market the Koch Brothers could have just subsidized the bad policy forever. In the free market money controls things not ideas.The effects can be tested using standard scientific methods, test groups, etc. Either way, "little way to test the effects" would be true for any education system as far as I know. In a free market education system there is nothing to stop bad policy besides moving kids around and sloooooowly starving the "policy" financially.I have less faith in the opinions of experts than you do. Additionally, the budget for public education has risen dramatically since the early 70s with little to show for it.Of course experts can be wrong, but statistically they are correct more often than the non expert right?Your right on the budget thing, but there seems to be some debate on why that's the case. We should get some experts to study what the "good" schools are doing and do that everywhere ;)