* Updated for 2015 07 27 * *Disclaimer* I strongly urge you to read the intro to the 2nd debate and to do some research yourself if you aren't up to par. Knowledge is power here and we are thriving to learn something new. *End Disclaimer* To whom it may concern, I will be releasing debate topics and editing this thread on the basic premise of each and every debate that takes place. I will maintain an objective view on each and every item observed and if it seems like a debate becomes one sided, I will present new information or ideas for the weaker side. Here's the kicker, all of these debates will not involve politics, religions, or anything that can be considered flaming, trolling, offensive or otherwise against ToU. With that being said, no one will call anyone any insults of any kind. This is debate to bounce ideas around and to remain subjective in a mature manner. If flaming happens, I will ask the offender to leave the thread if they continue to act like a child. The adults are talking. Current Topic: Due to this one being considered political when in fact, it isn't. We will tread carefully here but we are going to talk about the idea of a "free market." With a bit of economics background, a fair multi sided debate can be made out of this. Is a free market the best market or should we steer the economy in a certain direction? Does the invisible hand actually work? Remember, this has nothing to do with politics so no relation to any political figureheads or ideologies please. Just a battle between Keyensianism and Friedrich Hayek/The Austrian School. Here's a very minor explanation of the two ways of economic thinking. Keynesian (KAYNE-zee-en): is the view that in the short run, especially during recessions, economic output is strongly influenced by aggregate demand (total spending in the economy). Prices will set themselves based on how much supply there is for that demand and vice-versa. Keynesians typically live for the short run "booms and busts" cycles. Austrian or Friedrich Hayek: Focused on the long run rather than boom or busts. Markets would tend to neither thrive nor crash and this was due to consistent, artificial control, over the markets. Things like price ceilings/floors and other methods to mimic that of the invisible hand controlled the markets so there always was a market for certain goods or services. Predatory pricing and barriers of entry into a certain market were lower but markets could become over saturated. This ideal can be attributed to the constant planning of the state's economy and is closely related to communism but this isn't a debate over that. This is a debate over whether markets should be steered or left alone. These two sides fought it out for 40+ years and the debate still continues in the classroom at a collegiate level and beyond. This is the center point of all macroeconomics based debates. Begin on Page 5. Previous topics: 1) College (pp 1-4)
Re: The Great Debate I went to the BSA jamboree in WV a year or two ago. Mike Row spoke there. He went into this long speech about this, but, it was a good one. He said the social norm, "Work smarter, not harder." Is out dated. "Work smarter and Harder" is what we should be using. Some people aren't cut for college. Nothing wrong with dat.
Re: The Great Debate These are good points, expand on them with how you feel and why. It's a debate, bring the points up!
Re: The Great Debate I feel like Canadian universities are better than American colleges/universities (not feel, I know its a fact)
Re: The Great Debate Universities are just forcing money out of people. I feel like education should be open to everyone, and not a luxury.
Re: The Great Debate education is open to anybody. it's the recognition for the work that you have to pay for
Re: The Great Debate I don't see an absolute need for college/university, it all depends on what direction you wish to go with your life. I never attended college, I went to tech school, I didn't need a college/university degree for what I want to do, so why should I be forced to attend school for a further year minimum?
Re: The Great Debate However most people only care about the recognition. I've met idiots that get great jobs just because barely passed a good school.
Re: The Great Debate More % of the population go despite harder requirements, it's athletes aren't granted a free pass when it comes to getting good grades Doesn't still teach creationism in some colleges
Re: The Great Debate I have an aunt with a doctorate. Here job opportunities fall from the sky for those who are well educated. The institution that gives you a college certificate matters, but what also matters is the person. I am now studying in college and honestly i would not have a big perception about life in general without it, because i live in a small town where conformism is found on every corner. College gives many the vision to seek for more. Nevertheless, it is expensive as ****, but my financial situation is a bit personal and complicated. I have a financial credit that this college gives me. At the end of my career all debts go to my name but at the same time, 85% of students get a job right after college, therefore i believe the university considers it a not so risky debt.
Re: The Great Debate creationism is only taught in private religious uni. Still no solid footing as to why canadian college is better, besides cost
Re: The Great Debate Ive worked hard in my life, and by no means make a ton of money. But i got my associates in business after the service. It has done me nothing, at all. I make roughly $40 an hour after commissions, and the piece of paper that I earned did not help in doing this. The only information I actually learned while attending school was that they were taking my money. Lol. I make enough to take care of my family, and support a fun habit while I am at it. So I personally think that college is overrated in the job requirements section.
Re: The Great Debate At this moment, debate is about college in general. Not the differences between educational situations in other nations. Let's stay on topic here. You can use other nations as examples but it's not about who's is better.