Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

Any scarce resource, which is traded, is an economic good. Unless educators want to start working for free, and all the other resources that go to educating people start appearing out of thin air, it will be an economic good.Again, I have to apologise for my gross statement, which did not reflect what I was meaning to say. I do not think that education should only be treated as an economic good, which is all you have portrayed your position to be.This is a good argument.I stand by my statement that the parent wants the child to succeed, and that the state wants the state to succeed.Thank you for the compliment. I am assuming that you would tend to agree with the argument.I also agree with your statement that the parent wants the child to succeed. However, I think that this is not enough reason to say that a child should not be allowed the choice to learn about creationism in school.The child choosing, as opposed to the parent, choosing, or the child as opposed to anyone else?parent: to the extent that the educational choices mirror both the future material interests (the child can succeed in the world) and the child's moral education (which the state is not, and should not be responsible for).anyone, other than the child: The same reason that we do not allow minors to enter into contracts, or (most of the time) charge them with adult crimes. They are not (legally) mature enough to be held responsible for their own decisions.But look, with regards to choice of subjects/topics being taught in schools, this would be greatly irrelevant. The child may not have the legal right of consent in cases that relate to contracts, but with regards to choosing what they study in school, I would think that they very much have a legal right to do so. For example, should one ban children or anyone under the legal age of consent from choosing to study Chemistry over Biology? This is where I think you'll go down a very slippery slope.If they were culpable, yes.Of course they are! Children can still be legally charged for committing crimes. But how do you think the question of culpability has any bearing on whether they should be allowed to make a choice as to whether they want to learn about creationism?Whoever is responsible (may be held legally liable) for the child's actions; whoever is the child's legal guardian (including himself, if emancipated) is the best choice. They have the most interest in the success of the child.Again, I do not see that such a person would necessarily make the best choice for the child. This is simply a false appeal to authority.Yes, I am.What subjects do you imagine would be taught, if you were to allow suggestions and a vote among the students of a typical grammar school? A typical High school? :)Well, are you saying that we should entirely disregard the child's choices? As I have said, to make informed choices, one must have choices in the first place. And I think that students should at least have the choice to study creationism as a topic, which is what this entire debate is about.I would not limit myself to suggesting a specific list. But, I would think that theology (which the topic of creationism should be taught under, in my opinion) should be on that list.aside: Kudos on your writing. The writing style and the structure of arguments are excellent.Haha. Thanks for the compliment. I still find my writings very convoluted at times, which is why I have had to rephrase my arguments when I am debating with you and I sincerely apologise for that.