Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Privatizing Education

seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 10:44:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
What are your thoughts on it? On one hand, there is efficiency and reduced cost and free market crap. On the other hand, there is the fear that education will become "McDonalds", were education is cheap and crappy. I am currently pro, but am not adamant.
CGBSpender
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 12:53:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 10:44:03 AM, seraine wrote:
What are your thoughts on it? On one hand, there is efficiency and reduced cost and free market crap. On the other hand, there is the fear that education will become "McDonalds", were education is cheap and crappy. I am currently pro, but am not adamant.

I think it is important to look at the underlying purpose of education, I.e. The socialization of the young. When people think education they think job training, but these are not the same things. Training involves the instructing a person in certain processes and habits. This doesn't require changing their internal disposition. We can train people the same way we train animals. But when we train animals we do not change their goals. We tempt them with a carrot and so they move for the carrot. They have no interest in the well being of the farm
Education is different because we don't just give children processes we impart on them values to get along with other people. Indeed it is in the interest of any healthy society and mentally healthy individual to teach people how to see more than just their own ends. In fact not being able to see more than your own ends means your psychologically undeveloped.
Since private businesses are necessarily self-interested (often to an extent that would be unhealthy I'm an individual) giving them control of education would lead to the deterioration of society.
Now private colleges and stuff is totally different and I think that's fine and good in a strong economy.
The do
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 12:59:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"Since private businesses are necessarily self-interested (often to an extent that would be unhealthy I'm an individual) giving them control of education would lead to the deterioration of society."

While it is true that businesses are self-interested, they can only serve that self-interest by providing some type of service or product to the consumer. If they provide a poor service, such as a bad educational system, that business will not survive.

I believe that privatizing education is a fundamentally good idea. Competition between the different school systems will not only ensure efficiency, but will also provide a diversity of types of schooling that parents can choose from. More specialization schools would sprout up that would allow for higher quality education in a students areas of interest, further progressing them towards their career of choice. And lastly, and obviously, privatizing education would decrease public expenditures on it and allow for that money to be allocated to other areas that need it.
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
CGBSpender
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 1:02:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 12:53:00 PM, CGBSpender wrote:
At 7/18/2011 10:44:03 AM, seraine wrote:
What are your thoughts on it? On one hand, there is efficiency and reduced cost and free market crap. On the other hand, there is the fear that education will become "McDonalds", were education is cheap and crappy. I am currently pro, but am not adamant.

I apologize for my first post it was on my iPhone.

I think it is important to look at the underlying purpose of education, i.e. The socialization of the young. When people think education they think job training, but they're not the same things. Training involves the instructing X in certain processes and habits. This doesn't require changing their internal disposition. We can train people the same way we train animals. But when we train animals we do not change their goals. We tempt them with a carrot and so they move for the carrot. They have no interest in the well being of the farm.
Education is different because we don't just give (children) processes we impart on them values/interests/habits to get along with other people. Indeed it is in the interest of any healthy society and mentally healthy individual to teach how to see more than just one's own ends. In fact, not being able to see more than your own ends means your psychologically undeveloped.
Since private businesses are necessarily self-interested (often to an extent that would be unhealthy in an individual) giving them control of education would lead to perhaps (perhaps not) better training, but not good quality education. The competitive nature would lead to the disintegration of society.
Now private colleges and stuff is totally different and I think that's fine and good in a strong economy.
CGBSpender
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 1:05:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 12:59:24 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
"Since private businesses are necessarily self-interested (often to an extent that would be unhealthy I'm an individual) giving them control of education would lead to the deterioration of society."

While it is true that businesses are self-interested, they can only serve that self-interest by providing some type of service or product to the consumer. If they provide a poor service, such as a bad educational system, that business will not survive.

I believe that privatizing education is a fundamentally good idea. Competition between the different school systems will not only ensure efficiency, but will also provide a diversity of types of schooling that parents can choose from. More specialization schools would sprout up that would allow for higher quality education in a students areas of interest, further progressing them towards their career of choice. And lastly, and obviously, privatizing education would decrease public expenditures on it and allow for that money to be allocated to other areas that need it.

http://www.debate.org...
I just had this debate. Look at the Ford Pinto and cigarettes argument. There is no guarentee the quality of education provided would be good.
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 1:19:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
<<The Ford Pinto case is an excellent example of this. Ford manufactured a sub-standard car that was in fact dangerous. They did this because it was cheaper to make the car badly and pay out the lawsuits that it would have been to make the car at a higher quality.>>

In the short run this may be the case, but it is a matter of long-term consumer-producer relations. If a certain producer of a product, such as Ford with cars, gains a reputation for poor quality cars, it will not be as successful as Company X that has the exact opposite reputation. However, if there is a market for poor quality cars because they are cheaper, then I see no problem with Ford selling such cars. The consumer has the right to decide his own risk/reward scale and choose a car based on this.

Now, to apply this to education. If people aren't willing to send their children to a school with a low-quality of education, they will not do so. Now a possible argument maybe that the poor will only be able to afford the lower quality schools, thus creating a system of repression that keeps the lower classes down. However, this is where the competition of the different schools come in. Schools can prove the quality of their education by quality of the students that they have currently enrolled and that have graduated from their institution. Schools will compete to acquire the best students, and thus they will be spread out across several institutions depending on the factors that important to the student and the factors that the different schools have. This system ensures that if someone truly has talent, that talent will be fostered as needed, regardless of the race, creed, or wealth of that particular student.
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
CGBSpender
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 1:39:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 1:19:23 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
<<The Ford Pinto case is an excellent example of this. Ford manufactured a sub-standard car that was in fact dangerous. They did this because it was cheaper to make the car badly and pay out the lawsuits that it would have been to make the car at a higher quality.>>

In the short run this may be the case, but it is a matter of long-term consumer-producer relations. If a certain producer of a product, such as Ford with cars, gains a reputation for poor quality cars, it will not be as successful as Company X that has the exact opposite reputation. However, if there is a market for poor quality cars because they are cheaper, then I see no problem with Ford selling such cars. The consumer has the right to decide his own risk/reward scale and choose a car based on this.

I have no problem other than the legal/ethical issues with Ford selling a car like this, but it demonstrates that corporations can be self-interested to the point that they don't mind hurting their consumers. The entire cigarette industry is a much better example of this as it is long term.


Now, to apply this to education. If people aren't willing to send their children to a school with a low-quality of education, they will not do so. Now a possible argument maybe that the poor will only be able to afford the lower quality schools, thus creating a system of repression that keeps the lower classes down. However, this is where the competition of the different schools come in. Schools can prove the quality of their education by quality of the students that they have currently enrolled and that have graduated from their institution.

Again it is only a matter of apperances. In fact they could have jsut a hand full of good students and seem prestigious. This is largely the case with universities that use undergraduate programs to fund their prestigious masters/doctoral programs because that's what gets the research grants.

Schools will compete to acquire the best students, and thus they will be spread out across several institutions depending on the factors that important to the student and the factors that the different schools have. This system ensures that if someone truly has talent, that talent will be fostered as needed, regardless of the race, creed, or wealth of that particular student.

Also if you read further down, this fact exactly is what encorages schools to make their students look good because it is easier/cheaper to inflate a mark than it is to "compete for better students".
Besides, what is a measure of success they could pour their money into networking to make their students look successful rather than actually teaching them.

On top of that, you are completely ignoring the purpose of education and are making the mistake of confusing it with training as I outlined.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 1:41:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also CGBSpender, you do realize that self-interest doesn't go away just because 'government' is involved. If anything, government run schools have worse incentives then private schools. The private schools have a self-interest but there main goal is to make a profit, and the only way to make a profit is to satisfy the customer. They also must do this with a limited amount of funds. If people don't like the product, then people won't buy it.

However, the incentives of a public school are different. Government officials that run the school have multiple incentives. First, not only do they have to satisfy the student, but also the teachers, since the teacher has powers via special interests. In fact, government officials have more of an incentive to satisfy the teacher rather than the student, since students don't even have voting powers. All the government officials need to do is make it appear that students are learning by giving them BS busy work to bring home as homework to satisfy the parents. Let's also remember that school officials can't measure whether certain costs are economical or not, so wasteful spending is rampant. Schools also have nearly unlimited taxing powers. If schools are failing, then the 'solution' is to raise taxes. While If a private school has poor management and makes bad decisions, then the school loses its profits.

You use Ford Pinto as your 'model example' of 'market failure'. However, if you look at the alternative, of centrally controlled car manufacturing, one can see that the Trabant was a much worse car then any car created via the free market.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 1:49:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 1:39:49 PM, CGBSpender wrote:
At 7/18/2011 1:19:23 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
<<The Ford Pinto case is an excellent example of this. Ford manufactured a sub-standard car that was in fact dangerous. They did this because it was cheaper to make the car badly and pay out the lawsuits that it would have been to make the car at a higher quality.>>

In the short run this may be the case, but it is a matter of long-term consumer-producer relations. If a certain producer of a product, such as Ford with cars, gains a reputation for poor quality cars, it will not be as successful as Company X that has the exact opposite reputation. However, if there is a market for poor quality cars because they are cheaper, then I see no problem with Ford selling such cars. The consumer has the right to decide his own risk/reward scale and choose a car based on this.

I have no problem other than the legal/ethical issues with Ford selling a car like this, but it demonstrates that corporations can be self-interested to the point that they don't mind hurting their consumers. The entire cigarette industry is a much better example of this as it is long term.

It is still up to the consumer whether or not the risk involved in driving this car is worth the benefit he gains from the lower pricing. Same with cigarettes, a person has a right to choose between the momentary relaxation and pleasure of a cigarette and it's long-term consequences. However, I will admit that addiction does complicate matters on the choice and freedom of the consumer.


Now, to apply this to education. If people aren't willing to send their children to a school with a low-quality of education, they will not do so. Now a possible argument maybe that the poor will only be able to afford the lower quality schools, thus creating a system of repression that keeps the lower classes down. However, this is where the competition of the different schools come in. Schools can prove the quality of their education by quality of the students that they have currently enrolled and that have graduated from their institution.

Again it is only a matter of apperances. In fact they could have jsut a hand full of good students and seem prestigious. This is largely the case with universities that use undergraduate programs to fund their prestigious masters/doctoral programs because that's what gets the research grants.

Schools will compete to acquire the best students, and thus they will be spread out across several institutions depending on the factors that important to the student and the factors that the different schools have. This system ensures that if someone truly has talent, that talent will be fostered as needed, regardless of the race, creed, or wealth of that particular student.

Also if you read further down, this fact exactly is what encorages schools to make their students look good because it is easier/cheaper to inflate a mark than it is to "compete for better students".
Besides, what is a measure of success they could pour their money into networking to make their students look successful rather than actually teaching them.

These inflated marks may make students look good in the short-term, but this illusion will quickly fall apart once they enter the working world or even a higher-level of education. Schools that gain a reputation for honest grading and evaluation will gain the trust of businesses looking for workers and parents looking for a place to put their students. The schools that arbitrarily "raise marks" will fail because the students from that school will not be actively recruited by businesses.

On top of that, you are completely ignoring the purpose of education and are making the mistake of confusing it with training as I outlined.

Ah, yes, about that. I was wondering if you could elaborate on your theory of the purpose of education so I can better understand where you are coming from.
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
CGBSpender
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 1:51:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 1:41:49 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Also CGBSpender, you do realize that self-interest doesn't go away just because 'government' is involved. If anything, government run schools have worse incentives then private schools. The private schools have a self-interest but there main goal is to make a profit, and the only way to make a profit is to satisfy the customer. They also must do this with a limited amount of funds. If people don't like the product, then people won't buy it.

However, the incentives of a public school are different. Government officials that run the school have multiple incentives. First, not only do they have to satisfy the student, but also the teachers, since the teacher has powers via special interests. In fact, government officials have more of an incentive to satisfy the teacher rather than the student, since students don't even have voting powers. All the government officials need to do is make it appear that students are learning by giving them BS busy work to bring home as homework to satisfy the parents.

Fair enough. I agree the education system as it is is deeply flawed. However, there are ways to reform it within a public framework to remove much more self-interest, whereas it is ingrained in the private sector. We're not talking about any specific system just the factor of public and private.

Also social cohesion is generally in the interest of the government not so corporations.

Let's also remember that school officials can't measure whether certain costs are economical or not, so wasteful spending is rampant. Schools also have nearly unlimited taxing powers. If schools are failing, then the 'solution' is to raise taxes.

You say this but there are a number of studies in the matter and contrary to popular belief education spending more often goes down than up.

While If a private school has poor management and makes bad decisions, then the school loses its profits.

You use Ford Pinto as your 'model example' of 'market failure'. However, if you look at the alternative, of centrally controlled car manufacturing, one can see that the Trabant was a much worse car then any car created via the free market.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

It's not an example of market failure, it's an example of how private sector doesn't guarentee a higher quality of anything. There are bad public systems but we're not debating specific systems, but the effect of public versus public vs. privatization. The purpose of a car is different from education.

Additionally
CGBSpender
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 1:56:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 1:49:29 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 7/18/2011 1:39:49 PM, CGBSpender wrote:
At 7/18/2011 1:19:23 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
<<The Ford Pinto case is an excellent example of this. Ford manufactured a sub-standard car that was in fact dangerous. They did this because it was cheaper to make the car badly and pay out the lawsuits that it would have been to make the car at a higher quality.>>

In the short run this may be the case, but it is a matter of long-term consumer-producer relations. If a certain producer of a product, such as Ford with cars, gains a reputation for poor quality cars, it will not be as successful as Company X that has the exact opposite reputation. However, if there is a market for poor quality cars because they are cheaper, then I see no problem with Ford selling such cars. The consumer has the right to decide his own risk/reward scale and choose a car based on this.

I have no problem other than the legal/ethical issues with Ford selling a car like this, but it demonstrates that corporations can be self-interested to the point that they don't mind hurting their consumers. The entire cigarette industry is a much better example of this as it is long term.

It is still up to the consumer whether or not the risk involved in driving this car is worth the benefit he gains from the lower pricing. Same with cigarettes, a person has a right to choose between the momentary relaxation and pleasure of a cigarette and it's long-term consequences. However, I will admit that addiction does complicate matters on the choice and freedom of the consumer.

Even besides the addiction, cigarettes only disclosed the harm after government regulation. For many decades consumers were kept ignorant because private interest had control of the information. Think of how much worse this effect would be if this applied to education itself.



Now, to apply this to education. If people aren't willing to send their children to a school with a low-quality of education, they will not do so. Now a possible argument maybe that the poor will only be able to afford the lower quality schools, thus creating a system of repression that keeps the lower classes down. However, this is where the competition of the different schools come in. Schools can prove the quality of their education by quality of the students that they have currently enrolled and that have graduated from their institution.

Again it is only a matter of apperances. In fact they could have jsut a hand full of good students and seem prestigious. This is largely the case with universities that use undergraduate programs to fund their prestigious masters/doctoral programs because that's what gets the research grants.

Schools will compete to acquire the best students, and thus they will be spread out across several institutions depending on the factors that important to the student and the factors that the different schools have. This system ensures that if someone truly has talent, that talent will be fostered as needed, regardless of the race, creed, or wealth of that particular student.

Also if you read further down, this fact exactly is what encorages schools to make their students look good because it is easier/cheaper to inflate a mark than it is to "compete for better students".
Besides, what is a measure of success they could pour their money into networking to make their students look successful rather than actually teaching them.

These inflated marks may make students look good in the short-term, but this illusion will quickly fall apart once they enter the working world or even a higher-level of education. Schools that gain a reputation for honest grading and evaluation will gain the trust of businesses looking for workers and parents looking for a place to put their students. The schools that arbitrarily "raise marks" will fail because the students from that school will not be actively recruited by businesses.

It is easy to blame a number of other things.


On top of that, you are completely ignoring the purpose of education and are making the mistake of confusing it with training as I outlined.

Ah, yes, about that. I was wondering if you could elaborate on your theory of the purpose of education so I can better understand where you are coming from.

I will expand on this in a later post sorry I must depart for a while.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 2:13:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 1:51:01 PM, CGBSpender wrote:
At 7/18/2011 1:41:49 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Also CGBSpender, you do realize that self-interest doesn't go away just because 'government' is involved. If anything, government run schools have worse incentives then private schools. The private schools have a self-interest but there main goal is to make a profit, and the only way to make a profit is to satisfy the customer. They also must do this with a limited amount of funds. If people don't like the product, then people won't buy it.

However, the incentives of a public school are different. Government officials that run the school have multiple incentives. First, not only do they have to satisfy the student, but also the teachers, since the teacher has powers via special interests. In fact, government officials have more of an incentive to satisfy the teacher rather than the student, since students don't even have voting powers. All the government officials need to do is make it appear that students are learning by giving them BS busy work to bring home as homework to satisfy the parents.

Fair enough. I agree the education system as it is is deeply flawed. However, there are ways to reform it within a public framework to remove much more self-interest, whereas it is ingrained in the private sector. We're not talking about any specific system just the factor of public and private.

You agree that there are problems, but it can be solved via 'reforms'. Why can't free market solutions be created via 'reform' as well? Free markets have an incentive to create reform since there is a profit motive involved (Ex: To solve the asymmetric information problem, Princeton Review ranks colleges).

Also social cohesion is generally in the interest of the government not so corporations.

Explain

Let's also remember that school officials can't measure whether certain costs are economical or not, so wasteful spending is rampant. Schools also have nearly unlimited taxing powers. If schools are failing, then the 'solution' is to raise taxes.

You say this but there are a number of studies in the matter and contrary to popular belief education spending more often goes down than up.

I'm citing the economic calculation problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

It depends how you measure educational spending. If you measure it as a percentage of GDP, it has decreased. If you measure of it in terms of costs, spending has increased.

While If a private school has poor management and makes bad decisions, then the school loses its profits.

You use Ford Pinto as your 'model example' of 'market failure'. However, if you look at the alternative, of centrally controlled car manufacturing, one can see that the Trabant was a much worse car then any car created via the free market.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

It's not an example of market failure, it's an example of how private sector doesn't guarentee a higher quality of anything. There are bad public systems but we're not debating specific systems, but the effect of public versus public vs. privatization. The purpose of a car is different from education.

And yet the Trabant, a centrally planned car, had a terrible quality. Really the problem with the Ford Pinto was obscure. In rare scenarios the fuel tank would be punctured in a rear end collision, causing a fire death. However, every machine you operate involves risks. There's no such thing as a 'risk free' machine. It's part of a market process to see how much one is willing to pay for greater risk.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 2:20:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 1:56:44 PM, CGBSpender wrote:
At 7/18/2011 1:49:29 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 7/18/2011 1:39:49 PM, CGBSpender wrote:
At 7/18/2011 1:19:23 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
<<The Ford Pinto case is an excellent example of this. Ford manufactured a sub-standard car that was in fact dangerous. They did this because it was cheaper to make the car badly and pay out the lawsuits that it would have been to make the car at a higher quality.>>

In the short run this may be the case, but it is a matter of long-term consumer-producer relations. If a certain producer of a product, such as Ford with cars, gains a reputation for poor quality cars, it will not be as successful as Company X that has the exact opposite reputation. However, if there is a market for poor quality cars because they are cheaper, then I see no problem with Ford selling such cars. The consumer has the right to decide his own risk/reward scale and choose a car based on this.

I have no problem other than the legal/ethical issues with Ford selling a car like this, but it demonstrates that corporations can be self-interested to the point that they don't mind hurting their consumers. The entire cigarette industry is a much better example of this as it is long term.

It is still up to the consumer whether or not the risk involved in driving this car is worth the benefit he gains from the lower pricing. Same with cigarettes, a person has a right to choose between the momentary relaxation and pleasure of a cigarette and it's long-term consequences. However, I will admit that addiction does complicate matters on the choice and freedom of the consumer.

Even besides the addiction, cigarettes only disclosed the harm after government regulation. For many decades consumers were kept ignorant because private interest had control of the information. Think of how much worse this effect would be if this applied to education itself.

If you consume something (in this case smoke) and end up hacking and coughing, you should know something isn't right. Although the severity may not be as easily determined, the harm can be. Also, government regulation did not "save" people from cigarettes, the scientists who experimented on nicotine's addictive qualities did. However, I do not believe you can compare an addictive product like a cigarette to education. Apples and oranges



Now, to apply this to education. If people aren't willing to send their children to a school with a low-quality of education, they will not do so. Now a possible argument maybe that the poor will only be able to afford the lower quality schools, thus creating a system of repression that keeps the lower classes down. However, this is where the competition of the different schools come in. Schools can prove the quality of their education by quality of the students that they have currently enrolled and that have graduated from their institution.

Again it is only a matter of apperances. In fact they could have jsut a hand full of good students and seem prestigious. This is largely the case with universities that use undergraduate programs to fund their prestigious masters/doctoral programs because that's what gets the research grants.

Schools will compete to acquire the best students, and thus they will be spread out across several institutions depending on the factors that important to the student and the factors that the different schools have. This system ensures that if someone truly has talent, that talent will be fostered as needed, regardless of the race, creed, or wealth of that particular student.

Also if you read further down, this fact exactly is what encorages schools to make their students look good because it is easier/cheaper to inflate a mark than it is to "compete for better students".
Besides, what is a measure of success they could pour their money into networking to make their students look successful rather than actually teaching them.

These inflated marks may make students look good in the short-term, but this illusion will quickly fall apart once they enter the working world or even a higher-level of education. Schools that gain a reputation for honest grading and evaluation will gain the trust of businesses looking for workers and parents looking for a place to put their students. The schools that arbitrarily "raise marks" will fail because the students from that school will not be actively recruited by businesses.

It is easy to blame a number of other things.

???


On top of that, you are completely ignoring the purpose of education and are making the mistake of confusing it with training as I outlined.

Ah, yes, about that. I was wondering if you could elaborate on your theory of the purpose of education so I can better understand where you are coming from.

I will expand on this in a later post sorry I must depart for a while.

I look forward to your response.
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 2:20:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 1:19:23 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
<<The Ford Pinto case is an excellent example of this. Ford manufactured a sub-standard car that was in fact dangerous. They did this because it was cheaper to make the car badly and pay out the lawsuits that it would have been to make the car at a higher quality.>>

Same reason most oil companies continued to use single hulled ships. It was cheaper to use them and pay clean up costs and law suits, than to upgrade to double hull.

However, this desire to do the minimum effort for the maximum payout is not unique to the free market, it is basic human nature


In the short run this may be the case, but it is a matter of long-term consumer-producer relations. If a certain producer of a product, such as Ford with cars, gains a reputation for poor quality cars, it will not be as successful as Company X that has the exact opposite reputation. However, if there is a market for poor quality cars because they are cheaper, then I see no problem with Ford selling such cars. The consumer has the right to decide his own risk/reward scale and choose a car based on this.

Ford was never openly honest with the low quality for the cars. Their sales pitch was not "this car is rather dangerous, can explode on minimal impacts, and is generally a piece of crap, but it is dirt cheap!"

They focused on downplaying any and every negative of the product (as do nearly all companies) and highlighted the positives. Many companies do this even to the point of flat out lying (like Sleep number mattresses saying they can save your marriage).

The idea that people in a free market can choose what they want, is entirely dependent upon them having 100% accurate info so that they can make an informed decision. The problem is that if you're not going to choose my product, then I don't want you to be informed, I want you to think what ever it takes to buy my product.


Now, to apply this to education. If people aren't willing to send their children to a school with a low-quality of education, they will not do so. Now a possible argument maybe that the poor will only be able to afford the lower quality schools, thus creating a system of repression that keeps the lower classes down. However, this is where the competition of the different schools come in. Schools can prove the quality of their education by quality of the students that they have currently enrolled and that have graduated from their institution. Schools will compete to acquire the best students, and thus they will be spread out across several institutions depending on the factors that important to the student and the factors that the different schools have. This system ensures that if someone truly has talent, that talent will be fostered as needed, regardless of the race, creed, or wealth of that particular student.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 2:26:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 2:20:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/18/2011 1:19:23 PM, freedomsquared wrote:

In the short run this may be the case, but it is a matter of long-term consumer-producer relations. If a certain producer of a product, such as Ford with cars, gains a reputation for poor quality cars, it will not be as successful as Company X that has the exact opposite reputation. However, if there is a market for poor quality cars because they are cheaper, then I see no problem with Ford selling such cars. The consumer has the right to decide his own risk/reward scale and choose a car based on this.

Ford was never openly honest with the low quality for the cars. Their sales pitch was not "this car is rather dangerous, can explode on minimal impacts, and is generally a piece of crap, but it is dirt cheap!"

They focused on downplaying any and every negative of the product (as do nearly all companies) and highlighted the positives. Many companies do this even to the point of flat out lying (like Sleep number mattresses saying they can save your marriage).

That's where other competing companies come in and point out the flaws of their competitors. The "facts" that different companies give about their products can be verified not just through experience, but also through third-parties like the media which report information to the people directly and have no interest in the success of either car company.
The idea that people in a free market can choose what they want, is entirely dependent upon them having 100% accurate info so that they can make an informed decision. The problem is that if you're not going to choose my product, then I don't want you to be informed, I want you to think what ever it takes to buy my product.
However, if a product has a problem, it will be discovered and people will get informed. Not only will that product fail, but the whole company will suffer as a result.

But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 2:34:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 2:26:05 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 7/18/2011 2:20:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/18/2011 1:19:23 PM, freedomsquared wrote:

In the short run this may be the case, but it is a matter of long-term consumer-producer relations. If a certain producer of a product, such as Ford with cars, gains a reputation for poor quality cars, it will not be as successful as Company X that has the exact opposite reputation. However, if there is a market for poor quality cars because they are cheaper, then I see no problem with Ford selling such cars. The consumer has the right to decide his own risk/reward scale and choose a car based on this.

Ford was never openly honest with the low quality for the cars. Their sales pitch was not "this car is rather dangerous, can explode on minimal impacts, and is generally a piece of crap, but it is dirt cheap!"

They focused on downplaying any and every negative of the product (as do nearly all companies) and highlighted the positives. Many companies do this even to the point of flat out lying (like Sleep number mattresses saying they can save your marriage).

That's where other competing companies come in and point out the flaws of their competitors. The "facts" that different companies give about their products can be verified not just through experience, but also through third-parties like the media which report information to the people directly and have no interest in the success of either car company.

How many different car magazines are there out there that say car X is the best, and another saying car Y is the best, and another saying car Z is the best? In a free market, it is easy enough to flood the reviews and even create completely fake companies which give fake reviews and fake awards.

You go on to consumer review sites and many reviews can be completely fake, made by the company to make them look better, or by a competitor to make the company look worse. We use to see it all the time working at Apple with the app store. So many app makers would make fake reviews for themselves and for their competitors.

The idea that people in a free market can choose what they want, is entirely dependent upon them having 100% accurate info so that they can make an informed decision. The problem is that if you're not going to choose my product, then I don't want you to be informed, I want you to think what ever it takes to buy my product.
However, if a product has a problem, it will be discovered and people will get informed. Not only will that product fail, but the whole company will suffer as a result.

If it has a major problem, yes. If it is simply a little infearor, no. Do you think there is any great difference between Duracell and Energizer batteries (and all the generics for that matter)? Yet, all claim to be the best (obviously, all but one is lying). The same applies to most cars (they all claim to be superior, there is no car out there that says "yes we're a C grade car, but at one hell of a price"), or any product that you see a commercial for.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 2:40:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 2:34:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/18/2011 2:26:05 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 7/18/2011 2:20:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/18/2011 1:19:23 PM, freedomsquared wrote:

They focused on downplaying any and every negative of the product (as do nearly all companies) and highlighted the positives. Many companies do this even to the point of flat out lying (like Sleep number mattresses saying they can save your marriage).

That's where other competing companies come in and point out the flaws of their competitors. The "facts" that different companies give about their products can be verified not just through experience, but also through third-parties like the media which report information to the people directly and have no interest in the success of either car company.

How many different car magazines are there out there that say car X is the best, and another saying car Y is the best, and another saying car Z is the best? In a free market, it is easy enough to flood the reviews and even create completely fake companies which give fake reviews and fake awards.

That's the point of third-party sources, like the media.

You go on to consumer review sites and many reviews can be completely fake, made by the company to make them look better, or by a competitor to make the company look worse. We use to see it all the time working at Apple with the app store. So many app makers would make fake reviews for themselves and for their competitors.

Yes, some reviews can be fake. However, if multiple people report similar issues with a car, then people who are truly looking for the quality of a car will see this and be informed.

The idea that people in a free market can choose what they want, is entirely dependent upon them having 100% accurate info so that they can make an informed decision. The problem is that if you're not going to choose my product, then I don't want you to be informed, I want you to think what ever it takes to buy my product.
However, if a product has a problem, it will be discovered and people will get informed. Not only will that product fail, but the whole company will suffer as a result.

If it has a major problem, yes. If it is simply a little infearor, no. Do you think there is any great difference between Duracell and Energizer batteries (and all the generics for that matter)? Yet, all claim to be the best (obviously, all but one is lying). The same applies to most cars (they all claim to be superior, there is no car out there that says "yes we're a C grade car, but at one hell of a price"), or any product that you see a commercial for.

If it doesn't have a major problem, then I don't understand the great need for people to be informed. If a car is only slightly inferior, then it's up to the consumer to discover this and if he doesn't, then he made a bad buy. However, this bad buy is not going to put him in danger and might only mean his investment was not as good as it could have been.
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 2:42:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
http://www.stupidvideos.com...

Simple example (not the one I was thinking of but generally applies to all). It is a good product in general. However, the commerical feels the need to completely mis-characterize its competing products and makes them look like garbage (to the point that I would say they are flat out lying about other products). Almost every comercial does this. This is what companies do to trick you into buying their products.

They will lie about how great their product is.
They will lie about how bad other products are.
And they will spend millions to make sure you don't find that out (far more than you can spend to research it).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 2:51:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 2:40:03 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 7/18/2011 2:34:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/18/2011 2:26:05 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 7/18/2011 2:20:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/18/2011 1:19:23 PM, freedomsquared wrote:

They focused on downplaying any and every negative of the product (as do nearly all companies) and highlighted the positives. Many companies do this even to the point of flat out lying (like Sleep number mattresses saying they can save your marriage).

That's where other competing companies come in and point out the flaws of their competitors. The "facts" that different companies give about their products can be verified not just through experience, but also through third-parties like the media which report information to the people directly and have no interest in the success of either car company.

How many different car magazines are there out there that say car X is the best, and another saying car Y is the best, and another saying car Z is the best? In a free market, it is easy enough to flood the reviews and even create completely fake companies which give fake reviews and fake awards.

That's the point of third-party sources, like the media.

The media is not exactly the least bias source in the world.


You go on to consumer review sites and many reviews can be completely fake, made by the company to make them look better, or by a competitor to make the company look worse. We use to see it all the time working at Apple with the app store. So many app makers would make fake reviews for themselves and for their competitors.

Yes, some reviews can be fake. However, if multiple people report similar issues with a car, then people who are truly looking for the quality of a car will see this and be informed.

On the internet, 1 person can easily create 100 accounts, and 100 fake reviews in a week. So a company that has 50,000 employees can easily get 15 people to be making 1,500 fake reviews a week for them.

What you're left with is 1,000's upon 1,000's of fake reviews from different companies that support their own and bash each other and you can no longer tell what is legit and what is not.

You also come across people that will simply lie about a product because they are mad. Like they forgot to save their game and lost a lot of progress that they don't want to repeat, so they turn to bashing the game in reviews.


The idea that people in a free market can choose what they want, is entirely dependent upon them having 100% accurate info so that they can make an informed decision. The problem is that if you're not going to choose my product, then I don't want you to be informed, I want you to think what ever it takes to buy my product.
However, if a product has a problem, it will be discovered and people will get informed. Not only will that product fail, but the whole company will suffer as a result.

If it has a major problem, yes. If it is simply a little infearor, no. Do you think there is any great difference between Duracell and Energizer batteries (and all the generics for that matter)? Yet, all claim to be the best (obviously, all but one is lying). The same applies to most cars (they all claim to be superior, there is no car out there that says "yes we're a C grade car, but at one hell of a price"), or any product that you see a commercial for.

If it doesn't have a major problem, then I don't understand the great need for people to be informed. If a car is only slightly inferior, then it's up to the consumer to discover this and if he doesn't, then he made a bad buy. However, this bad buy is not going to put him in danger and might only mean his investment was not as good as it could have been.

The entire notion that the best products survive and the worst die, REQUIRES people to be informed.

If people aren't accurately informed about products, then they cannot reward the companies that make the better products by buying those better products. And so those companies have no incentive to make better products.

That defeats the entire argument for free markets that companies will have an incentive to make better products.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 2:53:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 2:42:45 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.stupidvideos.com...

Simple example (not the one I was thinking of but generally applies to all). It is a good product in general. However, the commerical feels the need to completely mis-characterize its competing products and makes them look like garbage (to the point that I would say they are flat out lying about other products). Almost every comercial does this. This is what companies do to trick you into buying their products.

I didn't see any direct references to other (litter?) companies. I'm not even sure there are competing litter filtering companies to be honest.

They will lie about how great their product is.
They will lie about how bad other products are.
Where?
And they will spend millions to make sure you don't find that out (far more than you can spend to research it).
What's the problem with this product? It shows that you can filter out the litter box, and it does. I don't see the problem.
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 2:55:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 10:44:03 AM, seraine wrote:
What are your thoughts on it? On one hand, there is efficiency and reduced cost and free market crap. On the other hand, there is the fear that education will become "McDonalds", were education is cheap and crappy. I am currently pro, but am not adamant.

More important is access to a decent standard of education for the poorest kids with the least interested parents.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 3:00:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 2:53:58 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 7/18/2011 2:42:45 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.stupidvideos.com...

Simple example (not the one I was thinking of but generally applies to all). It is a good product in general. However, the commerical feels the need to completely mis-characterize its competing products and makes them look like garbage (to the point that I would say they are flat out lying about other products). Almost every comercial does this. This is what companies do to trick you into buying their products.

I didn't see any direct references to other (litter?) companies. I'm not even sure there are competing litter filtering companies to be honest.

They will lie about how great their product is.
They will lie about how bad other products are.
Where?
And they will spend millions to make sure you don't find that out (far more than you can spend to research it).
What's the problem with this product? It shows that you can filter out the litter box, and it does. I don't see the problem.

Did you watch how it characterized the other methods of litter filtration? It showed people beyond retarded just flinging little in the general direction of something that might be a trash can and claimed that those other methods are dirty.

It doesn't mention any companies by name, but entire product groups (hand sifting and disposible filter liners) as a whole (and thus hitting all companies that make them that way).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
CGBSpender
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 3:26:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 2:13:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/18/2011 1:51:01 PM, CGBSpender wrote:
At 7/18/2011 1:41:49 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Also CGBSpender, you do realize that self-interest doesn't go away just because 'government' is involved. If anything, government run schools have worse incentives then private schools. The private schools have a self-interest but there main goal is to make a profit, and the only way to make a profit is to satisfy the customer. They also must do this with a limited amount of funds. If people don't like the product, then people won't buy it.

However, the incentives of a public school are different. Government officials that run the school have multiple incentives. First, not only do they have to satisfy the student, but also the teachers, since the teacher has powers via special interests. In fact, government officials have more of an incentive to satisfy the teacher rather than the student, since students don't even have voting powers. All the government officials need to do is make it appear that students are learning by giving them BS busy work to bring home as homework to satisfy the parents.

Fair enough. I agree the education system as it is is deeply flawed. However, there are ways to reform it within a public framework to remove much more self-interest, whereas it is ingrained in the private sector. We're not talking about any specific system just the factor of public and private.

You agree that there are problems, but it can be solved via 'reforms'. Why can't free market solutions be created via 'reform' as well? Free markets have an incentive to create reform since there is a profit motive involved (Ex: To solve the asymmetric information problem, Princeton Review ranks colleges).

That's exactly the problem, their refoms will be driven by profit, however, there isn't necessarily any profit in socializing children better or in making them more self-directing. In fact, their might be a lot more profitable in tuning them into good consumers (i.e. trust commercials). If you think that education is primarily an economic calculus than there is obviouly a much more compelling and a much simpler case for privatizing it.

However, it is not simply an economic calculus. In fact it is no more an economic calculus than raising children well. I hink we would agree that economics is obviously involved in raising children, but good parenting is not a matter of making the most employable person for the cheapest cost. That's what job training is for.
Parenting is informal education the education system is supposed to be the formal version of that.

Have you ever seen a movie "The Gods Must Be Crazy"? I realize its message is that society is oppressive, but whether or not you believe that we can agree that operating in society is a complicated task. Being a worker is a part of it, but certainly not all there is to it and so making it education a function of the economy is dangerous.

Also social cohesion is generally in the interest of the government not so corporations.

Explain

Well, from a theoretical perspective, you need look no further than social contract theory to simplify it. The purpose of the "sovereign" (to use a Hobessian term) is to reinforce the contract i.e. to keep everyone together. On a more historical basis, have you ever seen a successful government work against social cohesion? Governments often divide society, but always to increase social cohesion. In the US this meant fighting the RED MENACE at home. In Germany, it meant chasing out the "ungerman" Jews. In all these cases the threat was alays protrayed as foreign.
On the reverse you have non-nation states like Sudan, Somalia, and Iraq that have constantly faiing governments because societies are categorically divided by ethnic tensions. Control of the military is necessary in all of these cases, but these governments ussually crumble much quicker than the governments of nation-states whether or not they are democratic, but that are cohesive.


Let's also remember that school officials can't measure whether certain costs are economical or not, so wasteful spending is rampant. Schools also have nearly unlimited taxing powers. If schools are failing, then the 'solution' is to raise taxes.

You say this but there are a number of studies in the matter and contrary to popular belief education spending more often goes down than up.

I'm citing the economic calculation problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

It depends how you measure educational spending. If you measure it as a percentage of GDP, it has decreased. If you measure of it in terms of costs, spending has increased.

Fair enough, rather than debate the economics, I will say that economic problems are not educational probems. Reducing costs does not necessarily (and ussuall hinders) help accomplish the goal of eduction.


While If a private school has poor management and makes bad decisions, then the school loses its profits.

You use Ford Pinto as your 'model example' of 'market failure'. However, if you look at the alternative, of centrally controlled car manufacturing, one can see that the Trabant was a much worse car then any car created via the free market.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

It's not an example of market failure, it's an example of how private sector doesn't guarentee a higher quality of anything. There are bad public systems but we're not debating specific systems, but the effect of public versus public vs. privatization. The purpose of a car is different from education.

And yet the Trabant, a centrally planned car, had a terrible quality. Really the problem with the Ford Pinto was obscure. In rare scenarios the fuel tank would be punctured in a rear end collision, causing a fire death. However, every machine you operate involves risks. There's no such thing as a 'risk free' machine. It's part of a market process to see how much one is willing to pay for greater risk.



Fair enough, but the point of the car example was only to show that there are other business models from providing good quality product. I'm saying that the purpose of education is to recreate society the best we can. Educationa theorists, political thinkers, and psychologists ranging from Plato to Rousseau to Bacon to Dewey to Lacan to Foucault demonstrate that the process of education both formal and informal create a certain standard of normality in order to enable to communicaton (community, same root word for a reason.).
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 4:16:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 3:00:09 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/18/2011 2:53:58 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 7/18/2011 2:42:45 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.stupidvideos.com...

Simple example (not the one I was thinking of but generally applies to all). It is a good product in general. However, the commerical feels the need to completely mis-characterize its competing products and makes them look like garbage (to the point that I would say they are flat out lying about other products). Almost every comercial does this. This is what companies do to trick you into buying their products.

I didn't see any direct references to other (litter?) companies. I'm not even sure there are competing litter filtering companies to be honest.

They will lie about how great their product is.
They will lie about how bad other products are.
Where?
And they will spend millions to make sure you don't find that out (far more than you can spend to research it).
What's the problem with this product? It shows that you can filter out the litter box, and it does. I don't see the problem.

Did you watch how it characterized the other methods of litter filtration? It showed people beyond retarded just flinging little in the general direction of something that might be a trash can and claimed that those other methods are dirty.

You said it for me. Those other people were beyond retarded, and I see no problem with showing an exaggeration of the issue to stress the benefits of the product. People who own cats know what it's like to clean litter and if they think the way showed on the commercial (using the product) is better, they'll buy that product.

It doesn't mention any companies by name, but entire product groups (hand sifting and disposible filter liners) as a whole (and thus hitting all companies that make them that way).
There's no problem with hitting on other companies methods, as they are trying to show that there's is better. This commercial shows how that product works, and so people can decide for themselves if this is a better product or not.
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 4:20:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 4:16:03 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 7/18/2011 3:00:09 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/18/2011 2:53:58 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 7/18/2011 2:42:45 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.stupidvideos.com...

Simple example (not the one I was thinking of but generally applies to all). It is a good product in general. However, the commerical feels the need to completely mis-characterize its competing products and makes them look like garbage (to the point that I would say they are flat out lying about other products). Almost every comercial does this. This is what companies do to trick you into buying their products.

I didn't see any direct references to other (litter?) companies. I'm not even sure there are competing litter filtering companies to be honest.

They will lie about how great their product is.
They will lie about how bad other products are.
Where?
And they will spend millions to make sure you don't find that out (far more than you can spend to research it).
What's the problem with this product? It shows that you can filter out the litter box, and it does. I don't see the problem.

Did you watch how it characterized the other methods of litter filtration? It showed people beyond retarded just flinging little in the general direction of something that might be a trash can and claimed that those other methods are dirty.

You said it for me. Those other people were beyond retarded, and I see no problem with showing an exaggeration of the issue to stress the benefits of the product. People who own cats know what it's like to clean litter and if they think the way showed on the commercial (using the product) is better, they'll buy that product.

It doesn't mention any companies by name, but entire product groups (hand sifting and disposible filter liners) as a whole (and thus hitting all companies that make them that way).
There's no problem with hitting on other companies methods, as they are trying to show that there's is better. This commercial shows how that product works, and so people can decide for themselves if this is a better product or not.

The comerical is providing false information about alternative methods. It is creating a gap between reality and preceived reality. It makes it so that people are not buying what is actually best for them, but what they've been tricked into buying by use of false info.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 4:27:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 4:20:09 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/18/2011 4:16:03 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 7/18/2011 3:00:09 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/18/2011 2:53:58 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 7/18/2011 2:42:45 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:


It doesn't mention any companies by name, but entire product groups (hand sifting and disposible filter liners) as a whole (and thus hitting all companies that make them that way).
There's no problem with hitting on other companies methods, as they are trying to show that there's is better. This commercial shows how that product works, and so people can decide for themselves if this is a better product or not.

The comerical is providing false information about alternative methods. It is creating a gap between reality and preceived reality. It makes it so that people are not buying what is actually best for them, but what they've been tricked into buying by use of false info.

It doesn't provide any false information about the methods of other companies. It merely implies that other methods are inferior and shows how it's own method works. A consumer can decide for himself if this product would get the job done and by this product based on its own merits.
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 4:32:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 4:27:32 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 7/18/2011 4:20:09 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/18/2011 4:16:03 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 7/18/2011 3:00:09 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/18/2011 2:53:58 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 7/18/2011 2:42:45 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:


It doesn't mention any companies by name, but entire product groups (hand sifting and disposible filter liners) as a whole (and thus hitting all companies that make them that way).
There's no problem with hitting on other companies methods, as they are trying to show that there's is better. This commercial shows how that product works, and so people can decide for themselves if this is a better product or not.

The comerical is providing false information about alternative methods. It is creating a gap between reality and preceived reality. It makes it so that people are not buying what is actually best for them, but what they've been tricked into buying by use of false info.

It doesn't provide any false information about the methods of other companies. It merely implies that other methods are inferior and shows how it's own method works. A consumer can decide for himself if this product would get the job done and by this product based on its own merits.

It doesn't "imply" that others are inferior, it flat out says they are, and shows a mischaracterization of them to back that claim up. If something like this was presented in science, or anything that requires logic, reasoning, and un-bias work, it would be discarded instantaniously.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 4:35:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 4:32:29 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/18/2011 4:27:32 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 7/18/2011 4:20:09 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/18/2011 4:16:03 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 7/18/2011 3:00:09 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/18/2011 2:53:58 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 7/18/2011 2:42:45 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:


It doesn't mention any companies by name, but entire product groups (hand sifting and disposible filter liners) as a whole (and thus hitting all companies that make them that way).
There's no problem with hitting on other companies methods, as they are trying to show that there's is better. This commercial shows how that product works, and so people can decide for themselves if this is a better product or not.

The comerical is providing false information about alternative methods. It is creating a gap between reality and preceived reality. It makes it so that people are not buying what is actually best for them, but what they've been tricked into buying by use of false info.

It doesn't provide any false information about the methods of other companies. It merely implies that other methods are inferior and shows how it's own method works. A consumer can decide for himself if this product would get the job done and buy this product based on its own merits.

It doesn't "imply" that others are inferior, it flat out says they are, and shows a mischaracterization of them to back that claim up. If something like this was presented in science, or anything that requires logic, reasoning, and un-bias work, it would be discarded instantaniously.

But we've already established that only a retarded person would filter like that. It is assumed that the people buying this product own cats, and as such, have experience in filtering out litter. These people will know how difficult it is to filter, and so they can judge the product based on their experience in this area.
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2011 9:44:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
My previous post was barely coherent, so here is my new and improved post.

The benefits of privatizing education are obvious- they save money and don't buy wasteful things, thus saving taxpayer dollars. At my school, the science teacher got a $1000 Smartboard and used it for a projecting screen. Such waste would not be present in privatized schools, as wasteful things lead to lower profits. There is also more efficiency- in private schools, the better you do, the more money you get. There isn't any incentive like that of profit for public schools to strive to get better and better.

On the other hand, you could make schools with a very low cost and a corresponding quality. This would cater to the poor and the poor would get poorer. Though they would improve, it is doubtful that the quality could equal decent public schools. However, public schools aren't exactly hailed as the pinnacle of schooling. Many public schools would be worse than the worst of privatized schools. There is also the huge savings in taxpayer dollars, even when you factor in that they will still be paying for school.

After some thinking, this was my conclusion. I think we should go for it.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2011 9:46:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 4:32:29 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
It doesn't "imply" that others are inferior, it flat out says they are, and shows a mischaracterization of them to back that claim up. If something like this was presented in science, or anything that requires logic, reasoning, and un-bias work, it would be discarded instantaniously.

Ore_ele, I agree that some companies make fake reviews. However, I can generally trust reviews and if companies are caught making fake reviews, I just won't buy from them. Private is usually better than public.