Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: yes

I meant straw-man as in you were attacking my ideals with examples that were not contrary to my ideals.In fact, every argument that we've had about Libertarianism (except for the very first one) has started with you attacking my positions and later on turning into you stating that Libertarianism is a flawed ideology. Whether it is flawed or not is not my problem. My problem always stemmed from you using made up reasons on why the Libertarian Party is flawed.I think you may be correct. I haven't asked you to delineate your beliefs in full so that I could avoid arguing against the wrong positions. It's lazy but I believe I simply noted similarities in your beliefs you mentioned and assumed that the rest followed unless corrected.First, you can't establish whether you're attacking the Libertarian Party or extremist Libertarians (and you then claim to be going after either one or the other, and then proceed to treat them synonymously when I no longer bring up that differentiating issue).For example when you supported Adam Smith and the free market, I automatically assumed that your beliefs were of the unhinged libertarian variety. I never really cared about the libertarian party however, except as a case study a few months ago.So yes, you are quite correct that I have been contradicting beliefs that were not specifically your own. I apologise for that.Second, as stated, my ideals do not equate Libertarian ideals. So yes, you were unjustly attacking my beliefs by saying "libertarian position is that [socialized] medicine is bad". I don't care about the Libertarian position on socialized medicine. I believe in clinics to keep the insane in. Just like how I believe in prisons to keep prisoners in.I don't understand how you can support a free market then, in this face of this. You will need to elaborate both positions because I see a big contradiction in it.As for poor students, boo-hoo. (i could elaborate; but your "want a cookie\" statement reflects how serious we should be in these debates).Your statement in which I replied with that was judgmental and while this is your right, I do not see how it helps the situation to expect everyone to be responsible as you yourself were.And of course they were men with flaws. But that ideal is what keeps asswipes from voting in laws that force people to provide for what they don't believe in and hold no stake in. We can justify the police because even if a rich guy can afford private security to protect him from criminals, the poor can not afford private security to protect them from the rich guy. To fix this, they both are protected from each other by paying for the police.You're really debating shades of grey here. It all depends on the degree of value one places on a social service. You are not intrinsically right because you invoke the founding fathers' positions, because even their own positions (which would be reflected in your police example) are more or less inconsistent with practice.The same can not go for wasted tax dollars based on ideology vs. liberty. The ideology of neo-liberals that "teens have sex, so they should have anything they need in order to have sex" has been okay in my book for the most part. Unfortunately, it has also resulted in this notion that now us taxpayers must pay for the teens actual sexual behavior.Besides the condom issue can you give more examples? If we're just talking condoms, I agree that we shouldn't be extravagant with how we pay for social programs. I believe however that that is why I supported condoms in the first place.I will admit that when it comes to sex, neo-liberalism is far superior to neo-conservatism, but even so, the liberals have reached their limit in suggesting that teen sex must be payed for by Americans. Teens are not less likely to use a condom if they must be payed for.Can you support this statement logically? Or are you making a less absolute statement which has the effect of stating that "the number of teens who would wind up without condoms due to poverty or lack of immediate preparation at the vending machines is not enough to drive up the costs of healthcare so that government-funded condoms are worth the expense?"I am highly in favor of having vending machines or even free dispensers (so long as they are provided by a private organization and not accommodated for by taxpayers).The problem I see, actually, is that in the conservative states condom dispensers will likely not be placed at schools if it is voluntary.Most of the issues of teens not practicing safe-sex stems from insufficient education caused by Conservatives. But going from one extreme to the other is no good for our civil liberties. We are a free people. Free to buy our own condoms and free to have sex whenever we want with whomever we want.This gets back to what I said a moment ago. In which case in these states healthcare costs become greater due to ideology.