Fixing a broken window and academic achievement are two very different things. You're only taking into account the monetary value of the education, and not where it will lead you going forward. If your passion is in a field where a college degree is required (doctor, architect, lawyer, etc.), and you know this is something you'll genuinely enjoy doing as a career, most say it's worth it. As is everything you must sacrifice in order to get to where you want to be in life. Jobs that don't require a degree still require substantial sacrifice in terms of effort and time put into your field. You need to take into account factors other than the dollar amount college costs to determine if it's "worth" the money. The only answer is that it depends on the person, what they want to go to college for, and how passionate they are in that field of study. Someone with a passion for business may not value a medical doctorate with a concentration in anesthesiology any more than a 2 year community college associates in general studies. Value is subjective in the society we currently sustain.

So you would've accepted "both are bad" as an answer to your initual question? I'm assuming no, but feel free to object.

That's touching more on education reform; which I agree America severely needs. Although sneakers wouldn't fall under my idea because I don't see how choice of sneaker alters your health. This is only a matter of making unhealthy things more expensive by means of taxing which would be used to fund the costs associated by those unhealthy habits that fall on the rest of society.

Every statistic I find says the homeless population is made up of no more than 22% veterans. Do you have a source for the figure you threw out?

This argument fails pretty badly for a number of reasons. The definition of natural resources is: materials or substances such as minerals, forests, water, and fertile land that occur in nature and can be used for economic gain.. They are things that do indeed exist, the post just tries to say that since we're the ones that use them, only our "ingenuity" exists. This can then be said about any component/product relationship. A cake doesn't bake itself, so are ingredients nonexistant? A computer doesn't build itself, so circuitry's nonexistant? I get what the post intends to say, but saying they flat out "don't exist" just contradicts the very definition and can be replaced by too many things for the arument to make sense. We call that one Reductio ad Absurdum.

What I look for is their critical thinking skills and how well they can adapt to a situation. Good training for this is to just sit down with them one-on-one "interview" style and just have a conversation about a random topic; then a few minutes in completely change the topic and see how well they keep up, minding how engaged they are and how coherent their answers to any questions you ask are.

You can train anyone to follow a few procedures and go through the motions; but the ones you want are the ones that can hold their own when things go south, because they always do at some point.

The OP mentioned this was targetting youth unemployment. Most of these jobs would be entry level at best, so qualifications are out of the window for the most part aside from whatever volunteer work and high school club they could squeeze out onto a resume. The title is also what skills should employers look for. I work at a drug store and our manager hires who he feels does best at the interviews, and we've had 9 people turnover within a month this year alone(I believe my manager's an idiot with no business managing a store but that's for another day). I asked him to let me interview a few and the one he allowed me to hire on is moving up pretty soon. I made sure to make the interviews fairly lengthy to allow them time to A) get used to me and B) burn through all their pre-written interview bullshit and get to their actual personalities. The key is getting to know what kind of person they actually are; not what they can spend upwards of hours of practicing and preparing for what they think will be a 10 minute in and out interview.

Shallow interviews let the shallow people shine.

Please stay on topic if you wish to remain in my debates as well, thanks.

I don't agree with anything that impairs cognitive function at all. In my perfect society, there is no alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, marijuana, junk food; none of it has a place in an advancing, developed society.

To your point on oil and coal, yes absolutely. Both are completely outdated sources of energy, and there should be substantially more investment and advancement in clean, renewable energy. You're straying from the point to attack what I'm guessing are your assumptions on my stance on other topics? And the part about PP looks more like a rant that I don't even understand the point of. Neither of which do I see as relevant, so stay on topic if you wish to remain in my debates.

A system such as this would push especially the poor to not buy into those habits. Buying simple ingredients in bulk and cooking at home is actually cheaper than filling up on "the dollar menu". The missing element is drive, and effort. Allowing the poor to stay poor will do nothing but hinder our advancement as a society.

Keep in mind many of these costs aren't on the unhealthy person alone. About half of the $300 billion from smoking is actually from the effects of second-hand smoke. And employers lose around $4 billion yearly from job absenteeism due to obese workers.

You believe in your God because you were raised to. There is no evidence and no reason whatsoever why you should believe in God besides it being indoctrinated into your personality from early childhood. So it isn't your fault you're so misguided, though it is your fault you've never stepped back and took a look at the evidence to make your own decision as to what's true. I can tell you haven't because you still believe.

The ontological argument is completely flawed. Especially in the video provided explaining it, there are many contradictions and baseless assumptions. I'll run through a few:

1) the video, right off the bat, claims a "maximally great being" could possibly exist; despite no evidence suggesting so. Just because something cannot be definitively proven false, doesn't mean it then becomes definitively true.

2) "all powerful" fallacy. If God was all poweful, could he create an object too heavy for himself to lift? Crumble, crumble..

3) "Morally perfect in every possible world" Morality is subjective and would change in each "possible world", therefore no two Gods in any two "possible worlds" would be the same; this contradicts the end of the video claiming a maximally great being exists in every possible world, since they wouldn't be the same being.

4) claiming a Maximally great being existing in one possible world correlates to one existing in every possible world is the largest reach in the video, which is saying something; there is absolutely nothing to suggest that every possible world is connected to eachother in any way. I'd like to see an argument for why a maximally great being existing in one possibility correlates to one existing in each one. This even contradicts the argument's own assumption that every possible world exists; If this were the case, then a world without a maximally great being would still exist, otherwise it wouldn't be every possible world. There's nothing to suggest a world without a maximally great being isn't logically incoherent, so claiming such would be another baseless assumption. And I prefer to stick with facts, and what's true.

I wrote each argument after only one full watch through and a couple of backtakes. I'm also at work so I was a bit rushed putting this together; however I'm confident this does not prove God exists, so I'll prepare more coherent arguments if you wish.

It's actually likelier that we're a simulation created by a previous intelligent species that has appeared to gain consciousness; statistically with a higher probability than there being either a God or no God. Although you could then ask if our creators' Universe has a God, but we then wouldn't be referring to our own reality.

so then you know for a scientific fact that there is no God

There is no scientific evidence suggesting there is one. If I told you I've proven objectively that God doesn't exist, would you believe that without evidence as well? If so that was a quick argument.

wouldn't you have to be God in order to make this statement....???

God of the Gaps #1,634,363,464

be sure to show your work

Funny coming from a claim with no scientific evidence backing. Also a God of the Gaps fallacy if I've ever seen one; "you don't have every answer? That proves God did it."

God of the gaps for the most part. You're forgetting to realize that time may not have always existed in our universe. The matter and everything physical we have in the Universe could have always been there, since before time; and through the idea of entropy, something happened and time was created as well as everything we know today. Religion was created to explain the world around people who lacked the scientific ability to understand it. The God you worship and the religion you follow was determined by where and when you were born, yet you choose to believe in it still. Also, you can't try and use scientific fact for a claim that has absolutely no scientific evidence suggesting its existence. That's paradoxical.

I understand your stance on self-worth and self-value based on this argument, however let me ask you this; if a decision must be made that one of two people have to die by an outside spectator, is there an objective answer to who should die? My principles say yes, because we must have an objective foundation for worth to advance as a species. Otherwise, the answer to my aforementioned question would be no, meaning that a serial murderer could be spared over an innocent, intelligent child simply because of subjective relations to each; if the murderer is a loved one of yours, should they be spared over the child? Such moral ambiguity leads to chaos and will result in the stagnation of humanity's advancement, in my opinion.

You're seemingly contradicting yourself in your arguments here.

"When they are stupid and/or a detriment to the progress of civilization." seems to contradict "There is no objective value to anything. Value is relative to the one doing the valuing." in the sense that you're claiming stupidity or having negative effects on the progress of civilization objectively changes your worth as a human being. If you are to claim humans have value at all, there must be something in comparison to relate that value to. If it's your principle that says intelligence and progression as a civilization are the ideal, and stupidity and regression as a civilization are the non-ideals, then you can objectively determine a human's (or any organism's) worth based on their contribution to either side.

There may have been some confusion in my wording, but I agree with your points mostly. I believe every living thing has a variable which we can call "worth". Worth is the sum of different variables which are characteristics of the individual organism such as intelligence, physical or mental acuity, level of health and etc.; and each species holds a constant that represents their place among other species and their ranking as a species overall. Humanity's constant is the highest of all species on Earth, due to our level of advancement and intelligence surpassing all others on Earth by extreme margins; I've yet to take time to theoretically quantify the specific margins between each species, but humanity would take 1st place by an extraordinary difference to 2nd place, whatever it may be. This leads to every human being on the same average level of worth, while also lending room for variance between humans. So yes, one human can be worth more than another based on what they offer as an individual; however, based on humanity's species constant, you'll very rarely find a case where a human life is worth less than another species' life. Even for cases such as murderers, rapists, or the like; they are still lent basic human rights and protections under most developed nations. However, if a dog so much as bites an innocent human being, they face possible euthanization; on a more substantial level, most people don't bat an eye when a mosquito or fly is killed for merely being in the same room as a human and causing that human even the slightest burden by simply surviving in its presence.

-note; this is a very superficial explanation of my thoughts on this subject which only covers objective worth. Subjective worth is drastically complex in comparison; which you seemed to mention in your 4th argument. I, however, believe subjective worth is only useful in fields where it is necessary(which is rather rare), and objective worth useful for nearly every aspect of society; one prime example being in criminal trials by jury. In the US, an attempt is made at each juror getting an objective value of worth on the defendant by the court ensuring that they don't know the defendant in any way personally, are prone to any sort of bias on the case, etc. All in all it's very complex and I just appreciate getting others' opinions on these matters, so thank you.

My stance on this is that a human life is worth a human life. I believe the life itself cannot be compared to any monetary value, but the value of its own and other species', rendering it a component in determining the "worth" of a living being. Intelligence, moral integrity, monetary worth, and physical or mental aptitude are all variables with (species' life) remaining constant, acting as a multiplier of sorts. A human life is worth a human life, and a cow life is worth a cow life; although one human can be more valuable than another, just the same as one cow can be more valuable than another. However, human life is more valuable than cow life, meaning most humans are more valuable than most cows. We have established ourselves as the apex species on Earth through our intelligence by means of possessing unrivaled mental aptitude, and in doing so we have claimed majority dominion over Earth with exception that, in my own opinion, we are obligated to preserve our land to the best of our ability sparing hinderance to our advancement as a species and make humane use of our planet's resources, as a species capable of thought outside of blind instinct should. The only use for human life is distinction that it is a human when considering their worth compared to another human or other living being, which I believe can differ.

Twitter, being an independent organization from the US government, is by all means allowed to censor any speech they so please. They aren't bound by the first amendment, so long as they aren't found to be discriminating against a protected class. Whether they are "responsible" for censoring lies within the corporation's own beliefs.

Current data shows this to not be the case, as a vast majority of violent criminal offenders (including rapists, serial killers, and terrorists) experienced traumatic events in their early lives. There is also evidence suggesting abused children are likelier to grow into abusive adults later in life. Your claim has no basis in assuming extreme trauma enhances one's ability to empathize; and your own personal accounts are meaningless, as is all anectodal evidence.