So, for my last debate I have decided to report on an interesting study in the psychology of superstitious thinking. I was reading an interesting report on a study involving children and their association of natural events with information being communicated to them, with and without prior explanation that an invisible friend called Alice would help them in an unspecified way when they selected a wrong box. What they found was that after giving them this information, children aged 7 to 9 would interpret natual occurrances such as a picture dropping or lights flickering as communication to them from Alice. Children 6 years and younger may have assigned these events to Alice but were unable to draw a connection to "Alice" helping them with the boxes. This suggests that age 7 seems to be when children gain a certain ability to think in supernatural terms, probably due to their ability to think in terms of someone else's thoughts. News Report So everyone, this is my last debate since I'm leaving today. It was a fun year of debating but I feel it's time to move on.

I thought I would make a fun debate, where we find examples of where the market left to its own devices fails to solve a problem in a way that many of us would agree with. I define a market failure as a result of capitalist market mechanics where the solution to a societal or technological problem is one that either needed critical fixing, or is simply something which most of us would find disagreeable. I do not mean it to imply the the market failed to enact transations (as in a failure of mechanism). The purpose of the list is to answer the haggard notion that the market solves everything.

To those of you unfamiliar with Objectivism, in this debate we are discussing the values of it as they apply to people, a short description of which is as follows: Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life. I finished reading one of her books, Anthem, because I wanted to better understand her reasoning. It is the type of story I enjoy, that of a dystopia. I tend to read these kinds of novels and follow these kinds of stories often. What struck me about her story most was how caricatured it was. If I had to place myself in her shoes, it would almost appear as though she knew that the only way she could sell her concept of self-interest was if the concepts of empathy, selflessness and altruism were so exagerrated and removed from the human condition, that selfishness would be a reasonable alternative. For example, in her book the word I was forbidden under pain of death. This seems to suggest that a society which frowns upon self-interest finds it necessary to eradicate the sense of self. Can any of us imagine a culture that has been so subjugated and beaten down that it could live with no concept of itself? Then there is a constant reference towards the good of everyone, even to defend actually selfish acts, which is a little ironic considering that selfishness is supposed to be a good thing here. I reference where Prometheus demonstrates electricity to the scholars, and they demand to destroy it for the good of candlemakers. Perhaps a subtle irony missed by many of Ayn Rand's fans is that Prometheus claims a house in the forest for himself. He simply takes something for himself and declares it his property, while defending it from others' claims through defenses. What is ironic is that this implies that property is merely that which may be taken and defended against others who may lay a claim. The logical extrapolation is therefore that Prometheus was in fact his state's property because they claimed him from birth as their own and defended their claim with force.

The White House Oil Spill Comission found recently that BP and its affiliates (Halliburton and Transocean) were negligent in their creation of the Macondo well. The companies took shortcuts and cost-cutting measures during the creation which culminated in structural failure, the deaths of eleven employees and the leaking of about five million barrels of raw oil into the Gulf of Mexico. It is reported that the government oversight comittee for the well, The Minerals Management Service, lacked the authority and expertise for the duty, and is even suggested that the oversight comittee was overtaken by the very companies which they were intended to be monitoring. My question therefore is: Does BP and its affiliates' roles in this disaster illustrate a glaring weakness in the market's ability to regulate negative and irresponsible behaviours? Sources: Obama oil spill commission's final report blames disaster on cost-cutting by BP and partnersPanel: BP, others made risky decisions before spill Blunders Abounded Before Gulf Spill, Panel SaysCommission: Without changes in oil industry and government, huge spill could happen again

It has been my experience observing Libertarian rhetoric that they tend to be more thoroughly interested in the politics of business and corporate freedom than (in my opinion) the more noble cause of individual freedom. In fact it seems to be the case that whenever one may form two opposing views on an issue, both in favour of liberty, but divided as to whether one emphasises the social interests and the other emphasises business or wealthy interests, you can guarantee that they will denouce social liberty in favour of business (and wealthy persons') liberty. Examples (Libertarians defend the latter): Sweatshops - Worker's rights towards personal prosperity and safety vs Business rights to run their factories as they wish and pay whatever they wish Child Labour - Children's right to not be coerced by social pressures into unsafe and/or hard labour to support their families vs Business rights to employ whomever they wish Poverty - A homeless person's right to have food and a roof over their heads vs Middle and Upper class' rights to donate wealth as they choose to Racism and Discrimination in the Workplace - An employee and customer's right to be treated equally as spirited in the amended constitution vs Business' right to serve or employ whomever they wish Environment - Everyone's right to clean air, drinking water, and a healthy environment vs Business freedom to dump waste wherever they please or emit whatever they want through their smokestacks Medical Care - An individual's right to a minimum standard of medical care even when they are broke vs Wealthy and Upper Class rights to tiered medical service which prioritises them over the poor FDA - Our right to food and medicine that will not poison us or make us sick with filth vs Business' rights to produce and sell what they please   Libertarianism presents itself as the party in defense of liberty and individual choice but it is readily apparent on most issues that it isn't a matter of liberty versus subjugation, but instead a matter of one kind of liberty versus another. Therefore libertarians notoriously frame issues incorrectly as liberty (business freedom) versus regulation, abolishment of personal liberty, and so it is never about defending actual liberty (since the different kinds of liberty are never presented in the debate, or are derided as government intrusion) but about defending business interests. Some websites which are critical of Libertarianism: What's Wrong With Libertarianism Libertarianism Makes You Stupid To the CreateDebate community I ask: Which does it appear to you that Libertarians endorse more?

Veganism as a diet is strictly against the consumption of meats and animal-based or derived products. Its adherents promote it as healthier, more moral, or as necessary for spiritual enlightenment. Any vegans or vegetarians on this website are invited to argue their case for why they prefer it. Contrasting it is a heterogeneous, or common, diet in which we eat that which is available and with greater variety. Animal products, vegetable products, fungi, are all consumed without moral concern. It may actually be just as healthy as a vegan diet, depending on how careful you are in balancing what you eat. I created this debate after I read some good replies in a former debate about vegetarianism. I thought however that the topic could be better written, given that vegetarianism isn't strictly a vegetable-only diet which complicates matters if you factor in animal-based products in either position. If their authors are not opposed, I will take the liberty to copy some of those replies into this debate.

It is a natural consequence of economy that monopolies will occur; given that competing businesses will have different profits, that there is an inherent advantage towards self-interest, and that the natural advantage a business has is proportional to its size. The question therefore ought to be, given that they are inevitable, how best might we handle the problem of monopolies? Is there a way to subvert their affects on government and our society, or is it the case that we will always need to stand diligently against business interests meddling in our lives?

Technically, any lemonade stand -- even one on your front lawn -- must be licensed under state law, said Eric Pippert, the food-borne illness prevention program manager for the state's public health division. But county inspectors are unlikely to go after kids selling lemonade on their front lawn unless, he conceded, their front lawn happens to be on Alberta Street during Last Thursday. Full Story When I first heard this story, I thought to myself, "it must be a joke" and then, "the libertarians are going to have a heyday with this." So, as the story illustrates, in some cases government bureaucrats seem to apply the full letter of the law even in obviously touchy situations. What do you, the CreateDebate community think of this? Is it the fault of poor regulations? Lack of common sense? Too much government? Not enough oversight? Media picking up and emphasising any story? Let's hear your opinions.

It seems that in the west there are ongoing efforts to remove the association of Islam from Islamic terrorism, depict Islam as a religion of peace, and strongly disassociate the violent terrorists and Islamists we fight in the Iraq war from proper or true Islam. The burqa has been spun as an attempt to make a woman feel safe and undiscriminated against, Muslims in certain European states are being accomodated in a manner that seems to exceed for example, the allowances that we would make for bizzarre sects of Christianity, or Jews. Islam itself is a violent religion. In countries where it is a state religion, human rights suffer tremendously. Women are frequently second-class citizens, homosexuality is illegal, other religious practices are either illegal or violently attacked, honour killings occur, and wife beating and rape is much more prolific. When you read the Islamic terrorists' manifestos and ideology, you often see references to unambiguous praise of violence or intolerance of others. They aren't making it up, they quote their own holy book. So I have two questions: What do we have to gain from pandering to Islam? Appeasing it? Welcoming it with open arms? Are we simply trying to make allies with the middle east and southwest asia? If that's the case we'd have to implement Sharia law and only allow one religion: (the correct form of) Islam. Are we trying to simply prevent immigrants from being persecuted? If this is the case why aren't we instead supporting secular institutions that protect apostates from violence? It seems roundabout but my reasoning is that since most (sane) people don't want to attack Muslims, instead they are intolerant of Islam, secular institutions such as these would provide a gateway for those Muslims who wish to leave their religion without being killed, thus they could become respectable citizens. Is this an attempt to prevent a double standard? I see many people explain that Christianity, another violent religion, was allowed into our countries. That's true, but wasn't it bad enough for the west to adopt and support Christianity for the last several centuries? Don't all the wars, racism, genocide, and erosion of science indicate that it's a bad idea to import violent religions into your culture? What good could come from adopting *another* violent religion? If you truly, utterly believe in embracing Islam into the west, I expect you to feel the same way about embracing Nazism, White Supremacy, Black Nationalism and all the other intolerant, racist, and violent ideologies so that they can be pandered to and assimilated into our culture. I expect you to support these organisations and ideologies having special accomodations made in the workplace, in schools, in government, and so on. If you object to this, I want a coherent, logical explanation why you can't embrace these ideologies, but welcome Islam (which like them is severely intolerant and violent).

For a change of pace I decided to create a light-hearted topic: which flame warrior are you? If you don't know what *flame warriors* are, I suggest you view the following link: Flame Warriors Home For this perspectives debate, try to find the flame warrior that best fits someone you've seen a lot in debates. You may also describe yourself, but I think it might be more entertaining if we describe other members.

If you're an atheist you no doubt have your own beliefs, some positive and others negative; however, if you follow the media atheists are often depicted as purely pessemistic or unified as if atheism itself is a synonym for rationalist. In the Christian community it is often stated outright or assumed that atheists have no beliefs, or that atheists must be scientific in their mindset. In this perspectives debate I would like the atheists on CreateDebate to explain their beliefs, the basis of their morality, what they hold important, and what they find positive or uplifting to hope for. This way if anyone says that atheists are pessemistic, or don't believe in anything, they can merely be directed to this page to see otherwise.

The term 'free market' is really a euphemism. What the far right actually means by this term is 'lawless market.' In a lawless market, entrepreneurs can get away with privatizing the benefits of the market (profits), while socializing its costs (like pollution). Uncomfortable with the concept of a lawless market? The far right will try to reassure you with claims that the market can produce its own laws, either as a commodity bought and sold on the market, or through natural market mechanisms like the "invisible hand" or the Coase theorem. But it is interesting to note that even if the entrepreneurs don't take the more likely shortcut of creating their own state, this type of law removes the creation of law from democratic legislatures and gives it to authoritarian business owners and landlords. And since you get what you pay for, "purchased law" will primarily benefit its purchasers. Society might as well return to aristocracy directly. Steve Kangas   The above quote summarises my sentiments towards Libertarianism (the conservative free market kind), but I'm interested in what the rest of you think. Do you share views with its philosophy? Are you completely against it? Maybe you appreciate liberal libertarianism but despise conservative libertarian. I think this is a good discussion topic because in American politics the libertarian party and its candidates have often been fringe despite sharing values with many Americans. If the party ever could gain full momentum, it could really change the political landscape since they tend to oppose government regulation so much, and America has so much of it right now.

I've noted a crop of death penalty debates recently and they always amount to similar tired arguments, so I decided a better debate would be over alternatives to capital punishment. Assuming there were no death penalty, we would still need to deal with people who are a true menace to society, and building more prisons hardly seems like a good use of land and money. In this debate, what are some create ways you can think of to deal with the worst offenders in society?

I've often found it a source of both great amusement and sad irony that the subject which the vast majority of people on earth consider most important, both presently and historically, rests upon next to nothing in reality. I speak of course about religion, and most specifically god. A concept which is so nebulous to some people that it has no meaning, but to others is so strictly defined that it cannot logically exist. It's become so much like the emperor's new clothes that in modern society most people outright admit that they have no good reason to believe in god, but do so anyway. This can be spotted when someone says they believe because of faith, or because it feels good. Edit: I neglected to clarify, in this debate I'm looking for whether you agree that religion is a vacuous obsession or disagree and find some meaning in it nonetheless.

Early last year a tentative hypothesis was proposed to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity, at the cost of Lorentz invariance. Much research was done over the following months and the interest in this framework appears to have changed since then. In this discussion, if there are any physicists out there I would be interested in your thoughts on this framework. Some material related: http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.1334v4 http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2579 http://arxiv4.library.cornell.edu/abs/1002.3101v1 Or just search horava: http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+horava/0/1/0/all/0/1 As a layman I'm interested in following the discussions of those more educated on the subject than I am.